Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz and Shabbtaism

Question

Are there recent "orthodox" rabbis who think Rav Eybeschutz was indeed a shabbtaist ?

Answer 1

I have heard a number of rabbeim say this in private and in public. It's a minority but not of rabbeim who have actually looked deeply into the issue. The evidence against Eybeschuetz (a bunch of Sabbatean amulets, some Sabbatean students, Sabbatean children) is not absolute, even if it is strong enough for academic purposes. Emden was undeniably correct about the vast majority of the figures he accused, of which the most prominent who is still widely cited in frum sefarim is the Kitzur Shelah. But nearly all have agreed for centuries that, no matter the truth of the matter, the viciousness of the dispute, which severely damaged the authority of the Ashkenazi rabbinate, was not worth it. A friend told me that in shiur R. Herschel Schachter compares the Yaavetz's zeal to the famous statement of Rebbi Yochanan: ענוותנותו של רבי זכריה בן אבקולס החריבה את ביתנו ושרפה את היכלנו והגליתנו מארצנו. I believe he meant that, even though the Yaavetz was correct in principle, larger considerations should have been taken into account. Plus, even if Emden was correct in his actions at the time, the chashash of widespread Sabbateanism is gone today. There are no longer Sabbatean sleeper sects in the yeshivos and no one, including Emden, ever said that there was anything wrong with Eybeshuetz's sefarim. All that rabbis could do now is stir things back up to no purpose (academics have a different role). So even if they agree that he was probably a Sabbatean, no one is going to make a fuss over it. R. Binyamin Hecht has a good formulation of this in Livne Binyamin, as I believe does R. Meir Mazuz in one of his books, though I couldn't locate it just now.

EDIT: Have to add, because I praised rabbinic restraint on the issue, that I do not approve of a different trend, wherein our teachers pretend that Eybeschuetz sat passively while the Yaavetz and P'ne Yehoshua accused him. This appears in both works cited above and many, many others, but it is an utter fabrication. After the Yaavetz confronted him privately, Eybeschuetz forcibly closed the Yaavetz's shul and attempted to imprison him. He knowingly accused many honest people of various crimes in his selfish flailing to protect his career. His slim public output is best understood as a tactic, akin to a politician that hides in the hope that reporters will bore of a scandal instead of putting forward a falsifiable defense. We can say that, once Eybeschuetz had refused to resign quietly and attempted to strongarm the Yaavetz instead, and once it had become clear that Eybeschuetz would never submit to the judgement of a beis din, his accusers should have backed off instead of involving more authorities. But what really should have happened is Eybeschuetz should have openly confessed and done teshuva. Because he refused, there weren't any good choices available.

To pick a recent example with an ongoing issue: Our rabbeim generally agree that R. Shmuel Eliyahu was correct to prosecute Chaim Walder even though he had prominent defenders who would make the process a massive chillul hashem. What level of chillul hashem would not be worth it? Probably even Zecharya ben Avqalos's would be -- lest we become The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. To Emden, to the P'nei Yehoshua, rooting out Sabbateanism was a similar concern. It's difficult today to put ourselves in their shoes.

But again: there's no threat today, so rabbis don't, and shouldn't, make a fuss over it.

Answer 2

A critical reader on this issue are Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman's two volumes, To Eliminate The Opiate. The historical relevance remains more pertinent today than ever. The Sabbatean corrupting influence within Judaism remains a real and present danger to the neshama of the entire Jewish people. The entire existence of the reform and progressive movements owe their existence and purpose to the Sabbatean and Frankist conspirators. Eybeschutz's son, Wolf, came out as a self professed Sabbatean. Rabbi Emden was on the money. He still is.

Answer 3

How do you define "rabbi"? If you are going to include non-Orthodox rabbis and the type of person who has semicha but always comes to conclusions that differ from everyone else (you can always find those types) then yes you can find rabbis who think Rav Eybeschutz was a shabbtaist.

If you mean in the mainstream general orthodox community then no you won't find anyone taking that position. To put it slightly differently. No one who is learned enough that he would learn the Seforim of Rav Yehonoson Eibsutz like the Urim V'Tumim or the Kreisi U'Plasi wouldn't do so over concerns of his being a Sabbetian. Those who would express such concerns are not in the habit of learning (or for the most part even capable of easily understanding)such works.

They type of contemporary academics and rabbis who will tell you he was one are not so proficient in Kaballa that they are able to assess or pass judgment on the personal defense that Rav Yehonoson Eibsutz gave that those who are insufficiently learned in Kabblah are misunderstanding him.