Sign In
Register
Help
Aristotle, on Jun 1 2006, 04:53 PM, said:
Not to mention the Zohar.
Right. He doesn't think the Rambam wrote the Zohar.
R' Yonasan Eibeshutz Sabbatian?
MultiQuote
#52
Gabbe 
- Godol Hador
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9,721
- Joined: 09-June 03
Posted 01 June 2006 - 03:55 PM
Urgh. With his proofs on the Zohar, I can prove the Gemara is a fraud.
That would be interesting.
melech, on Jun 1 2006, 04:54 PM, said:
Right. He doesn't think the Rambam wrote the Zohar.
That would be interesting.
I'm also like FYI. --VLG
#53
Aristotle
- A Red Rose in a Black and White Movie.
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6,250
- Joined: 30-March 04
Posted 01 June 2006 - 04:01 PM
melech, on Jun 1 2006, 04:54 PM, said:
Right. He doesn't think the Rambam wrote the Zohar.
So predictable (and a tad lame).
.כלל הדבר, כי ראוי שיהיה השכל בן חורין -מהר"ל בחיד"א
#54
happyduck1979
- Gabbai
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 848
- Joined: 08-May 03
Posted 01 June 2006 - 04:24 PM
melech, on Jun 1 2006, 12:39 PM, said:
I spoke to him about it a little while ago - I was looking for a copy of that Ye'arot Devash I mentioned in the post above.
so what did he say? I am curious!
"You gotta put down the ducky if you wanna play the saxaphone" -Ernie
New Site. New Stuff. New Sales. Swirsky Designs
Check out my LJ, updated fairly regularly Here yes you need to be friended to see most of it.
Our Aliya Blog Lots of pictures.
A blog about plus size fashion outside the USA
Yes, still another blog. This one is about quick kosher cooking and is more like my personal recipe box
Coming soon. A blog to keep track of my other blogs.
New Site. New Stuff. New Sales. Swirsky Designs
Check out my LJ, updated fairly regularly Here yes you need to be friended to see most of it.
Our Aliya Blog Lots of pictures.
A blog about plus size fashion outside the USA
Yes, still another blog. This one is about quick kosher cooking and is more like my personal recipe box
Coming soon. A blog to keep track of my other blogs.
#55
BaronPhilip
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,206
- Joined: 23-June 03
Posted 09 June 2006 - 01:54 PM
I'm not going to argue with people who won't accept this. Just read and make up your own minds. One thing is for certain, to say that it was all a big misunderstanding and that it's obvious that R. Eybescuetz was innocent is to stick your head in the sand.
There is a lot of evidence available, to anyone brave enough to confront the facts of history, that the R. Eybeschuetz affair was one of the biggest cover-ups in all of Jewish history.
R. Eybeschuetz was a man with many talmidim all over Europe. He had tremendous influence; baalei battim all over Europe regarded him as a great sage. Had the gedolim of his day insisted on a war with him it would have torn the 18th-century Jewish world to pieces and destroyed whatever was left of public respect for the rabbinate.
Some facts:
It was not just R. Yaakov Emden who accused R. Yonasan Eybeschuetz of Sabbateanism. This is the biggest misconception of all. Others who agreed with R. Emden included his brother-in-law, R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam. When R. Aryeh Leib made his opposition to R. Eybeschuetz clear, he lost his appointment as the Chief Rabbi of Prague.
But it was neither R. Emden nor R. Aryeh Leib who was the leader of the campaign. R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk, the "Pnei Yehoshua", the Zoken HaDor of the generation, was among the fiercest opponents of R. Yonason Eybescheutz. In fact, because Pnei Yehoshua would not back down from his stance, the baalei battim of Frankfort-am-Main deposed him of his position as Av Beis Din of that city. No one has ever disputed that the Pnei Yehoshua was part of the campaign against R. Eybeschuetz, but for some reason it's rare to find a yeshiva guy who's ever heard of this.
For lots of details of the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the affair, here's one book you can read:
Frankfurter Rabbinen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Israelitischen Gemeinde in Frankfurt a. M.
von Marcus Horovitz (1844–1910) Ergänzungen von Josef Unna
(Jerusalem 1969)
Don't know German? You'll have to read the Hebrew translation:
רבני פרנקפורט
מרדכי הלוי הורוויץ; השלים, יוסף אונא; תירגם, יהושע עמיר
(1972 ,מוסד הרב קוק)
Unfortunately, Mosad HaRav Kook censored the Hebrew translation. They removed a good portion of the material about the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the campaign against Eybeschuetz. I mention this because it's typical. When a prominent frum Israeli publisher of kisvei yad was founded (IIRC it was Mechon Yerushalayim), R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ordered them not to ever published anything that might implicate R. Yonason Eybeschuetz. The cover-up continues to this day.
The stance of R. Yechezkel Landau, the "Noda BeYehuda", has long been disputed. Some evidence seems to indicate that he was strongly against R. Yonason Eybeschuetz, and the maskilim used to bring him as proof that R. Eybeschuetz was guilty. (See, e.g., Heinrich Graetz's History of the Jews.) Some evidence seems to indicate that he was a great defender of R. Yonason Eybeschuetz, and all the frum writers bring him as proof of R. Eybeschuetz's innocence. (See, e.g., סיבת התנגדותו של רבינו יעקב מעמדין לרבינו יהונתן אייבשיץ, by R. Reuven Margaliot) This is a very weird parsha. I posted a little bit about it way back:
Leiman's essay weighs all the available evidence and reconstructs what must have happened. If I understood the essay correctly, the Noda BeYehuda was convinced that R. Eybeschuetz was secretly a follower of Shabtai Tzvi,, but he knew that this was an unwinnable war. He was concerned about Kevod HaTorah and Chillul Hashem, considering how highly regarded R. Eybeschuetz was. R. Eybeschuetz was undeniably an incredible illui who had mastered kol haTorah kulah.
So the Nodah BeYehudah made some demands of R. Eybeschuetz. He demanded that R. Eybeschuetz reprimand his son, Wolf Eybeschuetz, who was accused of running an underground circle of Shabtai Tzvi followers performing bizarre rituals. He demanded that R. Eybeschuetz publically denounce Shabtai Tzvi, Sabbateanism, and all the Sabbatean writings and amulets that were attributed to him.
R. Eybeschuetz complied with everything. He admitted that his own son was involved in wrong things, and denounced Sabbateanism. The Noda BeYehuda was satisfied with this, and then made it clear that he would put in cheirem anyone who continued to accuse R. Eybeschuetz. (He put a certain chazzan in Prague in cheirem until he publically retracted his words and apologized to R. Eybeschuetz.) The Noda BeYehuda held that R. Eybeschuetz was guilty, but decided that this was the best that could be done. At least this way the Sabbateanism wouldn't spread, since R. Eybeschuetz would behave himself in the future and keep his beliefs completely secret. In other words, there would be a cover-up.
R. Yaakov Emden is associated the controversy more than anyone else because he insisted on the strongest tactics. The Noda BeYehuda was satisfied with a compromise. The Pnei Yehoshua's approach was to keep trying to force R. Eybeschuetz to appear before a beis din that would issue a ruling confirming his guilt. But R. Yaakov Emden went the furthest, using every means at his disposal to denounce R. Eybeschuetz. He would be satisfied with nothing less than R. Eybeschuetz being completely disgraced before the world.
The popular story that R. Yaakov Emden regretted his actions on his deathbed is a fantasy created by a frum world that is in denial of what happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Whether or not R. Yonason Eybeschuetz was really a Sabbetean you can decide. Bear in mind that R. Yaakov Emden, the Pnei Yehoshua, and the Nodah Yehudah are three giants, and they thought he was guilty.
There are rumors that Leiman has himself seen the amulets, confirmed the handwriting in them, and found other evidence that prove he was guilty. Leiman has never published any article saying this, and will not tell you that he thinks R. Eybeschuetz was guilty. Perhaps Professor Leiman has himself decided that this is too explosive for the frum world to handle.
Leiman's articles deal only with what contemporary rabbonim thought of R. Yonason Eybeschuetz. Here are all the ones I'm aware of:
"Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschuetz's Attitude toward the Frankists" by Sid Z. Leiman
in Polin, Volume 15: Focusing on Jewish Religious Life, 1500-1900
(England: Littman Library, 2002)
"When a Rabbi Is Accused of Heresy: R. Ezekiel Landau's Attitude toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz in the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy" by Sid Z. Leiman
in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox, Volume 3
(Scholars Press/Brown University, 1989)
"When a Rabbi Is Accused of Heresy: The Stance of the Gaon of Vilna in the Emden-Eybeschuetz Controversy" by Sid Z. Leiman
in Me'ah She'arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky
(Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 2001)
(Determining the stance of the Gra is also confusing. Initially, R. Eybeschuetz printed a letter of support from the Gra, and R. Yaakov Emden attacked him for this. But later, R. Emden removed the attack on the Gra from his seforim. Leiman analyzes all the evidence and has a couple of possible solutions. IIRC correctly, Leiman analyzes the Gra's letter and shows it to be a non-commital response to R. Yonason Eybeschuetz's request for help. Apparently, the Gra, who was relatively young at the time, decided that he didn't want to publically take sides.)
Professor Leiman delivered a paper on the position of the Pnei Yehoshua at a conference in Cleveland a few years ago. The paper is still being prepared for publication.
A scholar from the Hebrew University once told me that in academic circles Professor Leiman is considered to be the world's foremost expert on every aspect of the Emden-Eybeschuetz affair.
There is a lot of evidence available, to anyone brave enough to confront the facts of history, that the R. Eybeschuetz affair was one of the biggest cover-ups in all of Jewish history.
R. Eybeschuetz was a man with many talmidim all over Europe. He had tremendous influence; baalei battim all over Europe regarded him as a great sage. Had the gedolim of his day insisted on a war with him it would have torn the 18th-century Jewish world to pieces and destroyed whatever was left of public respect for the rabbinate.
Some facts:
It was not just R. Yaakov Emden who accused R. Yonasan Eybeschuetz of Sabbateanism. This is the biggest misconception of all. Others who agreed with R. Emden included his brother-in-law, R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam. When R. Aryeh Leib made his opposition to R. Eybeschuetz clear, he lost his appointment as the Chief Rabbi of Prague.
But it was neither R. Emden nor R. Aryeh Leib who was the leader of the campaign. R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk, the "Pnei Yehoshua", the Zoken HaDor of the generation, was among the fiercest opponents of R. Yonason Eybescheutz. In fact, because Pnei Yehoshua would not back down from his stance, the baalei battim of Frankfort-am-Main deposed him of his position as Av Beis Din of that city. No one has ever disputed that the Pnei Yehoshua was part of the campaign against R. Eybeschuetz, but for some reason it's rare to find a yeshiva guy who's ever heard of this.
For lots of details of the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the affair, here's one book you can read:
Frankfurter Rabbinen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Israelitischen Gemeinde in Frankfurt a. M.
von Marcus Horovitz (1844–1910) Ergänzungen von Josef Unna
(Jerusalem 1969)
Don't know German? You'll have to read the Hebrew translation:
רבני פרנקפורט
מרדכי הלוי הורוויץ; השלים, יוסף אונא; תירגם, יהושע עמיר
(1972 ,מוסד הרב קוק)
Unfortunately, Mosad HaRav Kook censored the Hebrew translation. They removed a good portion of the material about the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the campaign against Eybeschuetz. I mention this because it's typical. When a prominent frum Israeli publisher of kisvei yad was founded (IIRC it was Mechon Yerushalayim), R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ordered them not to ever published anything that might implicate R. Yonason Eybeschuetz. The cover-up continues to this day.
The stance of R. Yechezkel Landau, the "Noda BeYehuda", has long been disputed. Some evidence seems to indicate that he was strongly against R. Yonason Eybeschuetz, and the maskilim used to bring him as proof that R. Eybeschuetz was guilty. (See, e.g., Heinrich Graetz's History of the Jews.) Some evidence seems to indicate that he was a great defender of R. Yonason Eybeschuetz, and all the frum writers bring him as proof of R. Eybeschuetz's innocence. (See, e.g., סיבת התנגדותו של רבינו יעקב מעמדין לרבינו יהונתן אייבשיץ, by R. Reuven Margaliot) This is a very weird parsha. I posted a little bit about it way back:
BaronPhilip, on Aug 13 2004, 03:39 PM, said:
...perhaps even more importantly, historians have now resolved the question of the stance of the Noda BeYehuda (R. Yechezkel Landau) during the whole affair....
One contested piece of evidence was a signed draft copy of a letter by the Noda BeYehuda found in the archive of the Prague Kehillah. Graetz found and published this letter in 1877. The letter was from the year 1762 and addressed to Empress Maria Theresa of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Some background first: Eybeschuetz had applied, through the Danish embassy, for readmittance to the Empire so that he could live out his last years in Prague, the city of his youth. (He had been banned from entering because he had been suspected of being connected with various enemies of Austria. It's a long story.) Anyway, so the letter found in the archive, with the Noda BeYehuda's signature on it, requested from the Empress that she NOT allow R. Eybeschuetz into the country, stating that he was a Shabtai Tzvi-nik and had put in cheirem by all the leading rabbis in Germany and Italy! The Noda BeYehuda continues, in this letter, to say that he will have to leave Prague if Eybeschuetz were to allowed to enter!
The traditional rabbonishe community has always held that the Noda BeYehuda was a defender of R. Eybeschuetz, and from the time Graetz published that letter in 1877, many frum journals have published articles claiming that it was just a forgery. (After all, why would a unmailed (draft?) copy be signed?) But the facts speak for themselves: In 1919, someone went and checked the offical Austrian government archives, and they found a document there recording that on April 3, 1762 Rabbi Yonason Eybeschuetz was denied entry to the country, with an attached comment saying that R. Ezekiel Landau, Chief Rabbi of Prague, had himself requested that the Eybeschuetz be denied entrance!
(See J. Mieses, "Beiträge zu Jonathan Eibeschuetz' Biographie," in Mitteilungen für jüdische Volkskunde 21 (1919))
(And Professor Shnayer Leiman, an expert in the handwriting of gedolei Torah, has personally declared that the signature of the Nodah BeYehuda found on the draft copy is authentic beyond a shadow of a doubt. See Leiman's fantasic essay summarizing all the evidence...
One contested piece of evidence was a signed draft copy of a letter by the Noda BeYehuda found in the archive of the Prague Kehillah. Graetz found and published this letter in 1877. The letter was from the year 1762 and addressed to Empress Maria Theresa of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Some background first: Eybeschuetz had applied, through the Danish embassy, for readmittance to the Empire so that he could live out his last years in Prague, the city of his youth. (He had been banned from entering because he had been suspected of being connected with various enemies of Austria. It's a long story.) Anyway, so the letter found in the archive, with the Noda BeYehuda's signature on it, requested from the Empress that she NOT allow R. Eybeschuetz into the country, stating that he was a Shabtai Tzvi-nik and had put in cheirem by all the leading rabbis in Germany and Italy! The Noda BeYehuda continues, in this letter, to say that he will have to leave Prague if Eybeschuetz were to allowed to enter!
The traditional rabbonishe community has always held that the Noda BeYehuda was a defender of R. Eybeschuetz, and from the time Graetz published that letter in 1877, many frum journals have published articles claiming that it was just a forgery. (After all, why would a unmailed (draft?) copy be signed?) But the facts speak for themselves: In 1919, someone went and checked the offical Austrian government archives, and they found a document there recording that on April 3, 1762 Rabbi Yonason Eybeschuetz was denied entry to the country, with an attached comment saying that R. Ezekiel Landau, Chief Rabbi of Prague, had himself requested that the Eybeschuetz be denied entrance!
(See J. Mieses, "Beiträge zu Jonathan Eibeschuetz' Biographie," in Mitteilungen für jüdische Volkskunde 21 (1919))
(And Professor Shnayer Leiman, an expert in the handwriting of gedolei Torah, has personally declared that the signature of the Nodah BeYehuda found on the draft copy is authentic beyond a shadow of a doubt. See Leiman's fantasic essay summarizing all the evidence...
Leiman's essay weighs all the available evidence and reconstructs what must have happened. If I understood the essay correctly, the Noda BeYehuda was convinced that R. Eybeschuetz was secretly a follower of Shabtai Tzvi,, but he knew that this was an unwinnable war. He was concerned about Kevod HaTorah and Chillul Hashem, considering how highly regarded R. Eybeschuetz was. R. Eybeschuetz was undeniably an incredible illui who had mastered kol haTorah kulah.
So the Nodah BeYehudah made some demands of R. Eybeschuetz. He demanded that R. Eybeschuetz reprimand his son, Wolf Eybeschuetz, who was accused of running an underground circle of Shabtai Tzvi followers performing bizarre rituals. He demanded that R. Eybeschuetz publically denounce Shabtai Tzvi, Sabbateanism, and all the Sabbatean writings and amulets that were attributed to him.
R. Eybeschuetz complied with everything. He admitted that his own son was involved in wrong things, and denounced Sabbateanism. The Noda BeYehuda was satisfied with this, and then made it clear that he would put in cheirem anyone who continued to accuse R. Eybeschuetz. (He put a certain chazzan in Prague in cheirem until he publically retracted his words and apologized to R. Eybeschuetz.) The Noda BeYehuda held that R. Eybeschuetz was guilty, but decided that this was the best that could be done. At least this way the Sabbateanism wouldn't spread, since R. Eybeschuetz would behave himself in the future and keep his beliefs completely secret. In other words, there would be a cover-up.
R. Yaakov Emden is associated the controversy more than anyone else because he insisted on the strongest tactics. The Noda BeYehuda was satisfied with a compromise. The Pnei Yehoshua's approach was to keep trying to force R. Eybeschuetz to appear before a beis din that would issue a ruling confirming his guilt. But R. Yaakov Emden went the furthest, using every means at his disposal to denounce R. Eybeschuetz. He would be satisfied with nothing less than R. Eybeschuetz being completely disgraced before the world.
The popular story that R. Yaakov Emden regretted his actions on his deathbed is a fantasy created by a frum world that is in denial of what happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Whether or not R. Yonason Eybeschuetz was really a Sabbetean you can decide. Bear in mind that R. Yaakov Emden, the Pnei Yehoshua, and the Nodah Yehudah are three giants, and they thought he was guilty.
There are rumors that Leiman has himself seen the amulets, confirmed the handwriting in them, and found other evidence that prove he was guilty. Leiman has never published any article saying this, and will not tell you that he thinks R. Eybeschuetz was guilty. Perhaps Professor Leiman has himself decided that this is too explosive for the frum world to handle.
Leiman's articles deal only with what contemporary rabbonim thought of R. Yonason Eybeschuetz. Here are all the ones I'm aware of:
"Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschuetz's Attitude toward the Frankists" by Sid Z. Leiman
in Polin, Volume 15: Focusing on Jewish Religious Life, 1500-1900
(England: Littman Library, 2002)
"When a Rabbi Is Accused of Heresy: R. Ezekiel Landau's Attitude toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz in the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy" by Sid Z. Leiman
in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox, Volume 3
(Scholars Press/Brown University, 1989)
"When a Rabbi Is Accused of Heresy: The Stance of the Gaon of Vilna in the Emden-Eybeschuetz Controversy" by Sid Z. Leiman
in Me'ah She'arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky
(Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 2001)
(Determining the stance of the Gra is also confusing. Initially, R. Eybeschuetz printed a letter of support from the Gra, and R. Yaakov Emden attacked him for this. But later, R. Emden removed the attack on the Gra from his seforim. Leiman analyzes all the evidence and has a couple of possible solutions. IIRC correctly, Leiman analyzes the Gra's letter and shows it to be a non-commital response to R. Yonason Eybeschuetz's request for help. Apparently, the Gra, who was relatively young at the time, decided that he didn't want to publically take sides.)
Professor Leiman delivered a paper on the position of the Pnei Yehoshua at a conference in Cleveland a few years ago. The paper is still being prepared for publication.
A scholar from the Hebrew University once told me that in academic circles Professor Leiman is considered to be the world's foremost expert on every aspect of the Emden-Eybeschuetz affair.
The fascination of what’s difficult
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
#56
myaccountname
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,194
- Joined: 11-December 05
Posted 09 June 2006 - 02:14 PM
Baron,
innocent? guilty? you're way out of your league in this one!
can someone please pass the duct tape, please
innocent? guilty? you're way out of your league in this one!
can someone please pass the duct tape, please
Thats why there is caramel and vanilla...
#57
BaronPhilip
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,206
- Joined: 23-June 03
Posted 09 June 2006 - 03:52 PM
myaccountname, on Jun 1 2006, 12:22 PM, said:
i believe that both R' Eybeshitz and R' Emden forbid their followers to get mixed into this machlokis
myaccountname, on Jun 1 2006, 01:06 PM, said:
history is history, but the only lesson i see here, is that when gedolim have a machlokis its best for us little folks to keep away
The fascination of what’s difficult
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
#58
artscroll
- Godol Hador
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6,540
- Joined: 12-December 05
Posted 09 June 2006 - 04:25 PM
myaccountname, on Jun 9 2006, 03:14 PM, said:
Baron,
innocent? guilty? you're way out of your league in this one!
innocent? guilty? you're way out of your league in this one!
Puh-leez.
The main 'evidence' that he was not guilty is that he is part of the Orthodox canon, which is to say, no evidence.
#59
the Real Adiel
- The REAL Adiel
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,092
- Joined: 16-May 03
Posted 10 June 2006 - 10:30 PM
BaronPhilip, on Jun 9 2006, 02:54 PM, said:
Frankfurter Rabbinen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Israelitischen Gemeinde in Frankfurt a. M.
von Marcus Horovitz (1844–1910) Ergänzungen von Josef Unna
(Jerusalem 1969)
von Marcus Horovitz (1844–1910) Ergänzungen von Josef Unna
(Jerusalem 1969)
Is this the uncensored version?
#60
Jeanette
- Agenda Pusher
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 5,019
- Joined: 19-March 06
Posted 10 June 2006 - 10:56 PM
Quote
The truth or falsity of his denunciations against Eybeschütz can not be proved, but the fact remains that he quarreled with almost all his contemporaries. He considered that every man who was not for him was against him, and attacked him accordingly.
Substantiations?
#61
BLUERIVER
- Gabbai
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 855
- Joined: 15-March 06
Posted 10 June 2006 - 11:08 PM
BaronPhilip, on Jun 9 2006, 02:54 PM, said:
(Determining the stance of the Gra is also confusing. Initially, R. Eybeschuetz printed a letter of support from the Gra, and R. Yaakov Emden attacked him for this. But later, R. Emden removed the attack on the Gra from his seforim. Leiman analyzes all the evidence and has a couple of possible solutions. IIRC correctly, Leiman analyzes the Gra's letter and shows it to be a non-commital response to R. Yonason Eybeschuetz's request for help. Apparently, the Gra, who was relatively young at the time, decided that he didn't want to publically take sides.)
A position obviously not shared by a talmid-chochom of BP's stature !!
Oderint dum metuant.
So much wasted time, confusing motion with accomplishment.
So much wasted time, confusing motion with accomplishment.
#62
BaronPhilip
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,206
- Joined: 23-June 03
Posted 10 June 2006 - 11:09 PM
BaronPhilip, on Jun 9 2006, 02:54 PM, said:
Frankfurter Rabbinen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Israelitischen Gemeinde in Frankfurt a. M.
von Marcus Horovitz (1844–1910) Ergänzungen von Josef Unna
(Jerusalem 1969)
von Marcus Horovitz (1844–1910) Ergänzungen von Josef Unna
(Jerusalem 1969)
the Real Adiel, on Jun 10 2006, 11:30 PM, said:
Is this the uncensored version?
Leiman's lecture on the Pnei Yehoshua's role has not appeared in print yet.
BaronPhilip, on Jun 9 2006, 02:54 PM, said:
Apparently, the Gra, who was relatively young at the time, decided that he didn't want to publically take sides.
BLUERIVER, on Jun 11 2006, 12:08 AM, said:
A position obviously not shared by a talmid-chochom of BP's stature !!
The point of my essay was to alert people to some facts and to some articles that discuss those facts. I made this clear at the beginning:
BaronPhilip, on Jun 9 2006, 02:54 PM, said:
Just read and make up your own minds. One thing is for certain, to say that it was all a big misunderstanding and that it's obvious that R. Eybeschuetz was innocent is to stick your head in the sand.
The fascination of what’s difficult
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
#63
BLUERIVER
- Gabbai
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 855
- Joined: 15-March 06
Posted 11 June 2006 - 03:46 AM
BaronPhilip, on Jun 11 2006, 12:09 AM, said:
A footnote in Leiman's article on the Noda BeYehuda says that some of the material on the Pnei Yehoshua in that, the original German edition, is missing from the Hebrew translation. I can't read German, but I got the impression that the full extent of the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the fight to discredit R. Eybeschuetz is being hushed up.
A rather curious progression....
Oderint dum metuant.
So much wasted time, confusing motion with accomplishment.
So much wasted time, confusing motion with accomplishment.
#64
misosbd
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,667
- Joined: 05-November 04
Posted 11 June 2006 - 03:53 AM
BaronPhilip, on Jun 9 2006, 02:54 PM, said:
I'm not going to argue with people who won't accept this. Just read and make up your own minds. One thing is for certain, to say that it was all a big misunderstanding and that it's obvious that R. Eybescuetz was innocent is to stick your head in the sand.
There is a lot of evidence available, to anyone brave enough to confront the facts of history, that the R. Eybeschuetz affair was one of the biggest cover-ups in all of Jewish history.
R. Eybeschuetz was a man with many talmidim all over Europe. He had tremendous influence; baalei battim all over Europe regarded him as a great sage. Had the gedolim of his day insisted on a war with him it would have torn the 18th-century Jewish world to pieces and destroyed whatever was left of public respect for the rabbinate.
Some facts:
It was not just R. Yaakov Emden who accused R. Yonasan Eybeschuetz of Sabbateanism. This is the biggest misconception of all. Others who agreed with R. Emden included his brother-in-law, R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam. When R. Aryeh Leib made his opposition to R. Eybeschuetz clear, he lost his appointment as the Chief Rabbi of Prague.
But it was neither R. Emden nor R. Aryeh Leib who was the leader of the campaign. R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk, the "Pnei Yehoshua", the Zoken HaDor of the generation, was among the fiercest opponents of R. Yonason Eybescheutz. In fact, because Pnei Yehoshua would not back down from his stance, the baalei battim of Frankfort-am-Main deposed him of his position as Av Beis Din of that city. No one has ever disputed that the Pnei Yehoshua was part of the campaign against R. Eybeschuetz, but for some reason it's rare to find a yeshiva guy who's ever heard of this.
For lots of details of the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the affair, here's one book you can read:
Frankfurter Rabbinen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Israelitischen Gemeinde in Frankfurt a. M.
von Marcus Horovitz (1844–1910) Ergänzungen von Josef Unna
(Jerusalem 1969)
Don't know German? You'll have to read the Hebrew translation:
רבני פרנקפורט
מרדכי הלוי הורוויץ; השלים, יוסף אונא; תירגם, יהושע עמיר
(1972 ,מוסד הרב קוק)
Unfortunately, Mosad HaRav Kook censored the Hebrew translation. They removed a good portion of the material about the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the campaign against Eybeschuetz. I mention this because it's typical. When a prominent frum Israeli publisher of kisvei yad was founded (IIRC it was Mechon Yerushalayim), R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ordered them not to ever published anything that might implicate R. Yonason Eybeschuetz. The cover-up continues to this day.
The stance of R. Yechezkel Landau, the "Noda BeYehuda", has long been disputed. Some evidence seems to indicate that he was strongly against R. Yonason Eybeschuetz, and the maskilim used to bring him as proof that R. Eybeschuetz was guilty. (See, e.g., Heinrich Graetz's History of the Jews.) Some evidence seems to indicate that he was a great defender of R. Yonason Eybeschuetz, and all the frum writers bring him as proof of R. Eybeschuetz's innocence. (See, e.g., סיבת התנגדותו של רבינו יעקב מעמדין לרבינו יהונתן אייבשיץ, by R. Reuven Margaliot) This is a very weird parsha. I posted a little bit about it way back:
Leiman's essay weighs all the available evidence and reconstructs what must have happened. If I understood the essay correctly, the Noda BeYehuda was convinced that R. Eybeschuetz was secretly a follower of Shabtai Tzvi,, but he knew that this was an unwinnable war. He was concerned about Kevod HaTorah and Chillul Hashem, considering how highly regarded R. Eybeschuetz was. R. Eybeschuetz was undeniably an incredible illui who had mastered kol haTorah kulah.
So the Nodah BeYehudah made some demands of R. Eybeschuetz. He demanded that R. Eybeschuetz reprimand his son, Wolf Eybeschuetz, who was accused of running an underground circle of Shabtai Tzvi followers performing bizarre rituals. He demanded that R. Eybeschuetz publically denounce Shabtai Tzvi, Sabbateanism, and all the Sabbatean writings and amulets that were attributed to him.
R. Eybeschuetz complied with everything. He admitted that his own son was involved in wrong things, and denounced Sabbateanism. The Noda BeYehuda was satisfied with this, and then made it clear that he would put in cheirem anyone who continued to accuse R. Eybeschuetz. (He put a certain chazzan in Prague in cheirem until he publically retracted his words and apologized to R. Eybeschuetz.) The Noda BeYehuda held that R. Eybeschuetz was guilty, but decided that this was the best that could be done. At least this way the Sabbateanism wouldn't spread, since R. Eybeschuetz would behave himself in the future and keep his beliefs completely secret. In other words, there would be a cover-up.
R. Yaakov Emden is associated the controversy more than anyone else because he insisted on the strongest tactics. The Noda BeYehuda was satisfied with a compromise. The Pnei Yehoshua's approach was to keep trying to force R. Eybeschuetz to appear before a beis din that would issue a ruling confirming his guilt. But R. Yaakov Emden went the furthest, using every means at his disposal to denounce R. Eybeschuetz. He would be satisfied with nothing less than R. Eybeschuetz being completely disgraced before the world.
The popular story that R. Yaakov Emden regretted his actions on his deathbed is a fantasy created by a frum world that is in denial of what happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Whether or not R. Yonason Eybeschuetz was really a Sabbetean you can decide. Bear in mind that R. Yaakov Emden, the Pnei Yehoshua, and the Nodah Yehudah are three giants, and they thought he was guilty.
There are rumors that Leiman has himself seen the amulets, confirmed the handwriting in them, and found other evidence that prove he was guilty. Leiman has never published any article saying this, and will not tell you that he thinks R. Eybeschuetz was guilty. Perhaps Professor Leiman has himself decided that this is too explosive for the frum world to handle.
There is a lot of evidence available, to anyone brave enough to confront the facts of history, that the R. Eybeschuetz affair was one of the biggest cover-ups in all of Jewish history.
R. Eybeschuetz was a man with many talmidim all over Europe. He had tremendous influence; baalei battim all over Europe regarded him as a great sage. Had the gedolim of his day insisted on a war with him it would have torn the 18th-century Jewish world to pieces and destroyed whatever was left of public respect for the rabbinate.
Some facts:
It was not just R. Yaakov Emden who accused R. Yonasan Eybeschuetz of Sabbateanism. This is the biggest misconception of all. Others who agreed with R. Emden included his brother-in-law, R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam. When R. Aryeh Leib made his opposition to R. Eybeschuetz clear, he lost his appointment as the Chief Rabbi of Prague.
But it was neither R. Emden nor R. Aryeh Leib who was the leader of the campaign. R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk, the "Pnei Yehoshua", the Zoken HaDor of the generation, was among the fiercest opponents of R. Yonason Eybescheutz. In fact, because Pnei Yehoshua would not back down from his stance, the baalei battim of Frankfort-am-Main deposed him of his position as Av Beis Din of that city. No one has ever disputed that the Pnei Yehoshua was part of the campaign against R. Eybeschuetz, but for some reason it's rare to find a yeshiva guy who's ever heard of this.
For lots of details of the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the affair, here's one book you can read:
Frankfurter Rabbinen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Israelitischen Gemeinde in Frankfurt a. M.
von Marcus Horovitz (1844–1910) Ergänzungen von Josef Unna
(Jerusalem 1969)
Don't know German? You'll have to read the Hebrew translation:
רבני פרנקפורט
מרדכי הלוי הורוויץ; השלים, יוסף אונא; תירגם, יהושע עמיר
(1972 ,מוסד הרב קוק)
Unfortunately, Mosad HaRav Kook censored the Hebrew translation. They removed a good portion of the material about the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the campaign against Eybeschuetz. I mention this because it's typical. When a prominent frum Israeli publisher of kisvei yad was founded (IIRC it was Mechon Yerushalayim), R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ordered them not to ever published anything that might implicate R. Yonason Eybeschuetz. The cover-up continues to this day.
The stance of R. Yechezkel Landau, the "Noda BeYehuda", has long been disputed. Some evidence seems to indicate that he was strongly against R. Yonason Eybeschuetz, and the maskilim used to bring him as proof that R. Eybeschuetz was guilty. (See, e.g., Heinrich Graetz's History of the Jews.) Some evidence seems to indicate that he was a great defender of R. Yonason Eybeschuetz, and all the frum writers bring him as proof of R. Eybeschuetz's innocence. (See, e.g., סיבת התנגדותו של רבינו יעקב מעמדין לרבינו יהונתן אייבשיץ, by R. Reuven Margaliot) This is a very weird parsha. I posted a little bit about it way back:
Leiman's essay weighs all the available evidence and reconstructs what must have happened. If I understood the essay correctly, the Noda BeYehuda was convinced that R. Eybeschuetz was secretly a follower of Shabtai Tzvi,, but he knew that this was an unwinnable war. He was concerned about Kevod HaTorah and Chillul Hashem, considering how highly regarded R. Eybeschuetz was. R. Eybeschuetz was undeniably an incredible illui who had mastered kol haTorah kulah.
So the Nodah BeYehudah made some demands of R. Eybeschuetz. He demanded that R. Eybeschuetz reprimand his son, Wolf Eybeschuetz, who was accused of running an underground circle of Shabtai Tzvi followers performing bizarre rituals. He demanded that R. Eybeschuetz publically denounce Shabtai Tzvi, Sabbateanism, and all the Sabbatean writings and amulets that were attributed to him.
R. Eybeschuetz complied with everything. He admitted that his own son was involved in wrong things, and denounced Sabbateanism. The Noda BeYehuda was satisfied with this, and then made it clear that he would put in cheirem anyone who continued to accuse R. Eybeschuetz. (He put a certain chazzan in Prague in cheirem until he publically retracted his words and apologized to R. Eybeschuetz.) The Noda BeYehuda held that R. Eybeschuetz was guilty, but decided that this was the best that could be done. At least this way the Sabbateanism wouldn't spread, since R. Eybeschuetz would behave himself in the future and keep his beliefs completely secret. In other words, there would be a cover-up.
R. Yaakov Emden is associated the controversy more than anyone else because he insisted on the strongest tactics. The Noda BeYehuda was satisfied with a compromise. The Pnei Yehoshua's approach was to keep trying to force R. Eybeschuetz to appear before a beis din that would issue a ruling confirming his guilt. But R. Yaakov Emden went the furthest, using every means at his disposal to denounce R. Eybeschuetz. He would be satisfied with nothing less than R. Eybeschuetz being completely disgraced before the world.
The popular story that R. Yaakov Emden regretted his actions on his deathbed is a fantasy created by a frum world that is in denial of what happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Whether or not R. Yonason Eybeschuetz was really a Sabbetean you can decide. Bear in mind that R. Yaakov Emden, the Pnei Yehoshua, and the Nodah Yehudah are three giants, and they thought he was guilty.
There are rumors that Leiman has himself seen the amulets, confirmed the handwriting in them, and found other evidence that prove he was guilty. Leiman has never published any article saying this, and will not tell you that he thinks R. Eybeschuetz was guilty. Perhaps Professor Leiman has himself decided that this is too explosive for the frum world to handle.
Where exactly have you seen or heard this popular story?
#65
BaronPhilip
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,206
- Joined: 23-June 03
Posted 11 June 2006 - 11:01 AM
BaronPhilip, on Jun 11 2006, 12:09 AM, said:
Yes. A footnote in Leiman's article on the Noda BeYehuda says that some of the material on the Pnei Yehoshua in that, the original German edition, is missing from the Hebrew translation. I can't read German, but I got the impression that the full extent of the Pnei Yehoshua's involvement in the fight to discredit R. Eybeschuetz is being hushed up
BaronPhilip, on Jun 9 2006, 02:54 PM, said:
The popular story that R. Yaakov Emden regretted his actions on his deathbed is a fantasy created by a frum world that is in denial of what happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
misosbd, on Jun 11 2006, 04:53 AM, said:
Where exactly have you seen or heard this popular story?
myaccountname, on Jun 1 2006, 12:22 PM, said:
i believe that both R' Eybeshitz and R' Emden forbid their followers to get mixed into this machlokis
The fascination of what’s difficult
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
#66
misosbd
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,667
- Joined: 05-November 04
Posted 11 June 2006 - 01:08 PM
BaronPhilip, on Jun 11 2006, 12:01 PM, said:
The footnote says that some material is missing, so "I got the impression that....", i.e. I got that impression from the footnote. Whenever I cannot check a souce in the original and I have to rely on the words of others, I try to make that clear.
It's one of the stories I've been hearing from yeshiva guys over the years. Another one I've heard is that after they passed on, R. Yaakov Emden and R. Yonason Eybeschuetz came to someone in a dream and told them that they had made peace in Heaven or something like that. On this thread I found another one of these stories:I'm not a cataloger of folklore, so I couldn't tell you what the original versions were of these stories or where and when they popped up. (It would be an interesting project to collect them.) The common motif is obvious: All these urban legends neutralize or at least reduce the implications of a traumatic episode preserved in the collective memory of the community. The frum community finds it confusing and difficult to accept the story at face value.
It's one of the stories I've been hearing from yeshiva guys over the years. Another one I've heard is that after they passed on, R. Yaakov Emden and R. Yonason Eybeschuetz came to someone in a dream and told them that they had made peace in Heaven or something like that. On this thread I found another one of these stories:I'm not a cataloger of folklore, so I couldn't tell you what the original versions were of these stories or where and when they popped up. (It would be an interesting project to collect them.) The common motif is obvious: All these urban legends neutralize or at least reduce the implications of a traumatic episode preserved in the collective memory of the community. The frum community finds it confusing and difficult to accept the story at face value.
It seems that the correct way to to make your statement is, "in my limited exposure to the frum community, I find that some people are unaware of what I believe is the true story of the machlokes. A hypothesis can be made that these people came to this state, because some frum people found the story confusing and difficult to accept. However there might be a totally different explanation to it."
#67
BaronPhilip
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,206
- Joined: 23-June 03
Posted 11 June 2006 - 09:43 PM
In my long post above, I explained that the Noda BeYehuda regarded R. Yonason Eybeschuetz as guilty of being a Sabbatean, but felt that the matter should be closed and hushed up in order to avoid Chillul Hashem and for the sake of Kevod HaTorah (R. Eybeschuetz's reputation as a lamdan and author of brilliant chiddushei Torah).
Here is an English translation of part of a letter from the Pnei Yeshoshua to R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam where you can see the Pnei Yehoshua himself explaining this. As you can see, the Noda BeYehuda's position angered the Pnei Yehoshua, especially because it benefitted the Noda BeYehuda, who was able to assume the post of Chief Rabbi of Prague now that he had agreed on a truce with R. Eybeschuetz.
The letter Pnei Yehoshua's letter was written in 1753 and published in 1756 by R. Yaakov Emden, during the lifetime of the Pnei Yehoshua. It is found on pages יג׃-יד׃ in the sefer פתח עינים. The letter is dated ראש חודש אדר שני, תק״ג.
I was informed by the scribe who arrived from Frankfurt that persistent rumor has it that the rabbi of Yampol [R. Landau] has been appointed Chief Rabbi of Prague. I dismissed the rumor out of hand since not a hint of such an appointment has been heard anywhere in the community surrounding us, not even among the wicked ones [i.e. the pro Eybeschuetz faction] in Mannheim.…You too would have heard about it. So I concluded that it was an outright lie. If I thought for a moment that it was true, I would include in the broadside we are about to publish an account of the first letter addressed by the rabbi of Yampol to all rabbis and geonim wherein he admitted that the despite the fact that Eybeschuetz’s abominations were well-known to him, he beseeches all of us to take pity on the honor of his Torah, and to take into account the profaning of G-d’s name that had occurred. In light of these considerations, he asked that we partially overlook Eybeschuetz’s sins and treat him with leniency. So he wrote me in a lengthy letter; no doubt he wrote you the same. Now there appears to be more to the rumor than I thought, for yesterday I received a letter from Poland in which it is stated that the rabbi of Yampol openly announced that he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Prague. Moreover, he compounded his villainy by influencing the Chief Rabbi of Lvov to refrain from contributing yet another missive to the controversy, claiming that such action would be detrimental to his appointment to the Prague rabbinate. Landau found it necessary to wield his influence, for the Chief Rabbi of Lvov had convened an assembly of rabbis who were about to place Eybeschuetz under the ban and circulate letters to that effect throughout Europe and especially in Germany. Landau was explicit in justifying his intervention to the Chief Rabbi of Lvov: his appointment to the Prague rabbinate was due to Eybeschuetz’s extraordinary efforts on his behalf.…After searching dilligently through my correspondence, I located the first letter sent by the letter of the rabbi of Yampol. Indeed, he denounces Eybeschuetz at length.
Here is an English translation of part of a letter from the Pnei Yeshoshua to R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam where you can see the Pnei Yehoshua himself explaining this. As you can see, the Noda BeYehuda's position angered the Pnei Yehoshua, especially because it benefitted the Noda BeYehuda, who was able to assume the post of Chief Rabbi of Prague now that he had agreed on a truce with R. Eybeschuetz.
The letter Pnei Yehoshua's letter was written in 1753 and published in 1756 by R. Yaakov Emden, during the lifetime of the Pnei Yehoshua. It is found on pages יג׃-יד׃ in the sefer פתח עינים. The letter is dated ראש חודש אדר שני, תק״ג.
I was informed by the scribe who arrived from Frankfurt that persistent rumor has it that the rabbi of Yampol [R. Landau] has been appointed Chief Rabbi of Prague. I dismissed the rumor out of hand since not a hint of such an appointment has been heard anywhere in the community surrounding us, not even among the wicked ones [i.e. the pro Eybeschuetz faction] in Mannheim.…You too would have heard about it. So I concluded that it was an outright lie. If I thought for a moment that it was true, I would include in the broadside we are about to publish an account of the first letter addressed by the rabbi of Yampol to all rabbis and geonim wherein he admitted that the despite the fact that Eybeschuetz’s abominations were well-known to him, he beseeches all of us to take pity on the honor of his Torah, and to take into account the profaning of G-d’s name that had occurred. In light of these considerations, he asked that we partially overlook Eybeschuetz’s sins and treat him with leniency. So he wrote me in a lengthy letter; no doubt he wrote you the same. Now there appears to be more to the rumor than I thought, for yesterday I received a letter from Poland in which it is stated that the rabbi of Yampol openly announced that he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Prague. Moreover, he compounded his villainy by influencing the Chief Rabbi of Lvov to refrain from contributing yet another missive to the controversy, claiming that such action would be detrimental to his appointment to the Prague rabbinate. Landau found it necessary to wield his influence, for the Chief Rabbi of Lvov had convened an assembly of rabbis who were about to place Eybeschuetz under the ban and circulate letters to that effect throughout Europe and especially in Germany. Landau was explicit in justifying his intervention to the Chief Rabbi of Lvov: his appointment to the Prague rabbinate was due to Eybeschuetz’s extraordinary efforts on his behalf.…After searching dilligently through my correspondence, I located the first letter sent by the letter of the rabbi of Yampol. Indeed, he denounces Eybeschuetz at length.
The fascination of what’s difficult
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
Has dried the sap out of my veins
—Yeats
#68
myaccountname
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,194
- Joined: 11-December 05
Posted 12 June 2006 - 11:06 AM
BaronPhilip, on Jun 11 2006, 12:01 PM, said:
On this thread I found another one of these stories:I'm not a cataloger of folklore, so I couldn't tell you what the original versions were of these stories or where and when they popped up. (It would be an interesting project to collect them.) The common motif is obvious: All these urban legends neutralize or at least reduce the implications of a traumatic episode preserved in the collective memory of the community. The frum community finds it confusing and difficult to accept the story at face value.
my source is a mesorah from my rebbes zy"a. the bobover rebbe (R' Shlomo) zt"l (almost)* never repeated a story he didn't hear from his father, so i have better sources than your modern biographers!
*the Ruv zt"l once repeated a story he didn't hear from his father and later regretted it
Thats why there is caramel and vanilla...
#69
artscroll
- Godol Hador
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6,540
- Joined: 12-December 05
Posted 12 June 2006 - 01:10 PM
myaccountname, on Jun 12 2006, 12:06 PM, said:
my source is a mesorah from my rebbes zy"a. the bobover rebbe (R' Shlomo) zt"l (almost)* never repeated a story he didn't hear from his father, so i have better sources than your modern biographers!
*the Ruv zt"l once repeated a story he didn't hear from his father and later regretted it
*the Ruv zt"l once repeated a story he didn't hear from his father and later regretted it
With all due respect, and I mean this sincerely, this sort of assertion barely belongs in this type of thread. What does it contribute to the discussion? A discussion of this sort is by its very nature scholarly and cannot credit traditions without provenance in the way you wish it to.
#70
myaccountname
- Rebbe
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,194
- Joined: 11-December 05
Posted 12 June 2006 - 01:23 PM
artscroll, on Jun 12 2006, 02:10 PM, said:
With all due respect, and I mean this sincerely, this sort of assertion barely belongs in this type of thread. What does it contribute to the discussion? A discussion of this sort is by its very nature scholarly and cannot credit traditions without provenance in the way you wish it to.
i'm really sorry, but i fail to see the problem. this was a machlokes between gedolim, you want to discuss it go ahead, but to use phrases like guilty and innocent, and the title of the tread itself, is wrong on all counts, and i was being moiche on the kovod of the Rebbe Reb Yonason!
now if you want to say that you need a PhD to be a valuable source to this discussion, and that "urban legends" have no value here... well, thats what my previous post came to agrue
Thats why there is caramel and vanilla...
