3

Is there any real substantial evidence that Rav Yonasan Eibshitz was a Sabbatean? On what basis did Rav Yaakov Emden hound him?

Loewian
  • 17,746
  • 2
  • 29
  • 60
Jewels
  • 2,514
  • 11
  • 25
  • 4
    yes. read here for one example of such evidence. an amulet written by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz: https://leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/95.%20New%20Evidence%20on%20the%20Emden-Eibeschuetz%20Controversy%20The%20Amulets%20from%20Metz.pdf – josh waxman May 18 '14 at 13:13
  • @joshwaxman i don't see it, could you point out what jumps out as sabbatean? – Baby Seal May 18 '14 at 13:34
  • Similar: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/70987 – msh210 May 05 '16 at 21:42
  • 2
    By the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the dispute has died down and all historians agree that he was a Sabbatian, e.g. Graetz, Scholem, Liebes, R. Dr. J.J. Shachter, R. Dr. Shnayer Leiman, and R. Dr. D. Katz. – mevaqesh Aug 09 '16 at 02:49

2 Answers2

4

There were many proofs put forth that Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz zt"l was a Sabbatean, published in sefarim such as Sefat Emet (anonymous, often attributed to Rav Yaakov Emden, but recently published materials suggest Nechemiah Reischer, a disenchanted R' Eibeshitz enthusiast who became an admirer of R' Emden). One such proof, as described in this article by Rabbi Dr. Leimann, is as follows:

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz engaged in practical kabbalah, writing amulets, with the instruction that people should not open them. He wrote such an amulet to a woman, but it did not work; she died. The husband gave the amulet over to Rav Yaakov Emden who was also a master of kabbalah. He read it and saw Sabbatean messages in it, such as "Yeled Yulad Lanu, Ben Nitan Lanu" combined with Shabtai. Rav Emden published this in the sefer Sefat Emet.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's response to this was that they were misreading the amulet. E.g., what Rav Emden said was a tav was really a chet, and so on.

What the article then documents is that Rav Yaakov Emden went to a French court together with two of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's talmidim. The French court copied over the amulet and the two talmidim signed an admission that this was the accurate text of the amulet.

Since Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's response was shown to be false, and without that explanation, the amulets are properly understood as Sabbatean, this is evidence that he was a closet Sabbatean.

josh waxman
  • 20,700
  • 44
  • 86
  • If all this is true how do you explain that I think they are buried almost next to each other and R Emden was later. That the world does not consider R Yonasan to be that. This evidence came out in his lifetime so how was it concealed. – preferred May 18 '14 at 16:10
  • The evidence regarding the French court was not promulgated in his lifetime. That many rabbis in his time did not accept various pieces of evidence is not absolute proof. For instance, the Pnei Yehoshua made R' Eibeshitz swear on a Torah that he was not a Sabbatean, and took this oath as proof of innocence. But many Sabbateans held that it was a mitzvah to sin, such as by taking a false oath! – josh waxman May 18 '14 at 16:18
  • @josh waxman so is he or is he not, in your eyes? – termsofservice May 18 '14 at 16:35
  • 1
    it doesn't really matter, because I am nobody. but likely yes, though that does not make him any less of a righteous person, or make his halachic writings any less valuable. – josh waxman May 18 '14 at 16:37
  • 1
    Josh, didn't the Pnei Yehoshua take the side of R' Emden? – Ephraim May 18 '14 at 17:36
  • Good point. I'll double check that it was pnei yehoshua who was the one who administered the oath. – josh waxman May 18 '14 at 18:06
  • Perhaps the noda beyhuda? http://www.tog.co.il/en/Article.aspx?id=143 – josh waxman May 18 '14 at 18:56
  • emended text; now reading the actual article more closely, it appears that this was promulgated in his lifetime, but R' Eibeshitz asserted that the ones who had signed as to its accuracy were coerced. So scratch that statement I made earlier. – josh waxman May 18 '14 at 21:24
  • Josh, I still don't see shabtai anywhere in the amulets, can you point it out more specifically? Seals can't really turn pages, what with flippers and all, so I never really got good at where's waldo. – Baby Seal May 20 '14 at 00:13
  • What I said / say was all from memory from a shiur, so this isn't definitive. But, for example, the top left one on page 248, which says בבתי. You need to realize that it was Standard Operating Procedure to use atbash and albam when writing kabbalistic texts like amulets. The first bet becomes a shin in atbash. – josh waxman May 20 '14 at 00:21
  • Have you seen a defense of R Eibeshitz that the amulets were not actually written by him but were authored by his son who eventually became a Sabattean (see Wikipedia). R Eibishitz was covering for his son in the hope of bringing him back to normative Judaism and therefore did not offer a defense that really held water. – Yoni May 25 '14 at 03:44
  • 2
    @joshwaxmanm that does not make him any less of a righteous person. Many Sabbatians harboured heretical or even idolatrous beliefs such as antinomianism, and even that SZ was the sefirah of Tifferet. It is difficult to assert that idolaters are no less righteous than normative Jews according to Judaism. – mevaqesh Aug 10 '16 at 00:49
  • "כמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות" – josh waxman Aug 10 '16 at 03:04
  • 1
    To clarify: holding that it's a mitzva to sin and therefore taking a false oath doesn't make one any less righteous? – Loewian Sep 06 '17 at 04:19
  • josh's point is the Raavad calls those people גדולים וטובים ממנו. – Double AA Nov 11 '19 at 19:28
  • "R' Eibeshitz asserted that the ones who had signed as to its accuracy were coerced." But there's an article by Leiman that one of the people who turned in the amulets to the French government was one of R' Eibeshitz's trusted shamashim, who was completely loyal to him and had no reason to think there was any problem with the amulet. That seems very convincing. – MichoelR Aug 01 '21 at 02:35
0

In addition to the accurate and conclusive proof cited in prof. Waxman's answer we can add this article from R' Dr. Leiman, especially the sources cited in footnotes 4-7. In brief the author argues that Rabbi Yehezkel Landau (the Noda Beyehuda) found convincing evidence that R' Eibshitz was a Sabbatean but sought to either downplay or mitigate that fact, perhaps due to R' Eibshitz's greatness in Torah study. In one example R' Landau examined the controversial materials and concluded they were Sabbatean in nature but offered R' Eibshitz a way out by saying that they were falsified by others

Landau admitted that if not for the fact that the amulets were ascribed to Eibeschuetz, he would have concluded that their author could only have been a Sabbatian Landau suggested the possibility that either he - Landau - had misread them, or else they were partially falsified between the time Eibeschuetz had written them and the time they were shown to Emden. In any event, all the amulets were to be returned to Eibeschuetz and were to be withdrawn permanently from circulation. Moreover, Eibeschuetz was proscribed from writing and distributing amulets ever again. No less embarrassing for Eibeschuetz was the stipulation that since numerous allegedly Sabbatian works - aside from the amulets - were circulating under Eibeschuetz' name, Eibeschuetz had to publicly condeirculating imder Eibeschuetz' name, Eibeschuetz had to publicly condemn them...

rikitikitembo
  • 14,079
  • 3
  • 22
  • 80