 | This article mayrequirecleanup to meet Wikipedia'squality standards. The specific problem is:Needs cleanup, esp. published works section. Please helpimprove this article if you can.(February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Jacob Emden | |
|---|---|
 Tombstone of Jacob Emden inAltona | |
| Personal life | |
| Born | (1697-06-04)June 4, 1697 |
| Died | April 19, 1776(1776-04-19) (aged 78) Altona, Holstein, Holy Roman Empire |
| Buried | Jewish Cemetery,Altona, Hamburg |
| Children | Meshullam Solomon |
| Parent |
|
| Signature |  |
| Religious life | |
| Religion | Judaism |
Jacob Emden, also known asthe Yaʿavetz (June 4, 1697 – April 19, 1776), was a leading Germanrabbi andtalmudist who championed traditional Judaism in the face of the growing influence of theSabbatean movement. He was widely acclaimed for his extensive knowledge.[1][2]
Emden was the son of thehakhamTzvi Ashkenazi and a descendant ofElijah Ba'al Shem of Chełm. He spent most of his life inAltona (now part ofHamburg, Germany).[3] His son,Meshullam Solomon, served as rabbi of the Hambro Synagogue in London and claimed authority as Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom from 1765 to 1780.[4]
Theacronym Yaʿavetz (יעב״ץ, also renderedYaavetz) is formed from hisHebrew name, Yaʿkov ben Tzvi (יעקב בן צבי).[5]
Seven of his 31 works were published posthumously.
Jacob Emden (born Ashkenazi)[6] was the fifth of his father's 15 children.[7] Until the age of seventeen, he studied Talmud under his father,Tzvi Ashkenazi, a foremost rabbinic authority, first inAltona and later inAmsterdam (1710–1714). In 1715, he married Rachel, daughter of Mordecai benNaphtali Cohen, rabbi of Ungarisch-Brod inMoravia (nowUherský Brod in theCzech Republic) and continued his studies in his father-in-law'syeshiva.[8]
Emden mastered all branches of Talmudic literature and later expanded his studies to philosophy,kabbalah, and grammar—even attempting to learnLatin andDutch despite his view that secular studies should be limited to periods when Torah study was not feasible.[8]
Emden initially spent three years in Ungarisch-Brod as a private Talmudic lecturer before taking up work as a dealer in jewelry and other goods—a trade that required extensive travel.[8] Although he generally declined formal rabbinic positions, in 1728 he accepted the rabbinate ofEmden, from which he later derived his name.[8] He eventually returned to Altona, where he secured permission from the Jewish community to establish a private synagogue. Early on, he enjoyed cordial relations withMoses Hagiz, head of thePortuguese Jewish community in Altona, though these later deteriorated due to calumnies. Similarly, his initially positive relations with the chief rabbi of the German community,Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen, later soured.[9]
A few years later, Emden obtained permission from the King of Denmark to establish a printing press in Altona. He soon encountered controversy over his publication of asiddur he wrote in 1747 with commentary[10] according to theminhag Polin,ʿAmmude Shamayim (עמדי שמים),[11] harshly criticizing influential localmoneychangers. Despite receiving the approbation of theLandesrabbiner, his opponents continued to denounce him.[8]
In the preface to his workResponsa of Yaavetz,[12] Emden recounts how, as a child, he questioned why his father signed only as "Tzvi" (צבי) rather than also including his father's name as was the norm. His father explained that this was a homonym,Tzv״i (צב״י): an acronym for his full name,TzvibenYaʿakov (צבי בן יעקב). He advised that Emden should take the pen name Yaʿavetz (יעב״ץ) under the same principles. The Hebrew name Yaʿavetz (Masoretic reading:יַעְבֵּץ,Yaʿbetz) appears both as a place name in1 Chronicles 2:55 and apersonal name in4::9-10.[13]
Emden accusedJonathan Eybeschutz of being a secretSabbatean, aheretical belief. The controversy lasted several years, continuing even after Eybeschutz' death. Emden's assertion of Eybeschutz' heresy was chiefly based on the interpretation ofkabbalistic amulets prepared by Eybeschutz, in which Emden saw Sabbatean allusions. Hostilities began before Eybeschutz leftPrague. In 1751, when Eybeschutz was named chief rabbi of the three communities of Altona,Hamburg, andWandsbek, the controversy reached the stage of intense and bitter antagonism. Emden maintained that threats initially prevented him from publishing anything against Eybeschutz. He solemnly declared in his synagogue the writer of the amulets to be a Sabbatean heretic and deserving ofḥerem,shunning by the Jewish community.[8] Emden's "Megillat Sefer" accused Eybeschutz of having an incestuous relationship with his daughter and of fathering a child with her. However, allegedly the "Megillat Sefer" was tampered with and had deliberately ridiculous accusations and narratives added to mock Emden.[14]
Clashes between opposing supporters occurred in the streets, drawing the secular authorities' attention according to the "Kuryer Polski" of June 16, 1751. The majority of the community, includingAryeh Leib Epstein ofKönigsberg, favored Eybeschutz. The council, therefore, condemned Emden as a slanderer. Under pain of ḥerem, people were ordered not to attend Emden'ssynagogue, and he was forbidden to issue anything from his press. Since Emden continued hisphilippics against Eybeschutz, he was ordered by the council of the three communities to leave Altona. He refused to, relying on the strength of the King's charter, and he maintained he had been relentlessly persecuted. In May 1751, he finally took refuge inAmsterdam when it seemed his life was in danger. He had many friends there and joined the household of his brother-in-law,Aryeh Leib ben Saul, rabbi of theAshkenazi Jews there.
The controversy was heard by both the Senate of Hamburg and the Royal Court of Denmark. The Hamburg Senate quickly found in favor of Eybeschutz.[15] KingFrederick V of Denmark asked Eybeschutz to answer questions about the amulets. Conflicting testimony was put forward, and the matter remained officially unresolved, according to Grunwald, in theHamburgs deutsche Juden 107. However, the court sentenced the council of the three communities to pay a fine of one hundredthaler for civil unrest and ordered Emden to return to Altona.[16]
Emden then returned to Altona and took possession of his synagogue and printing establishment, though he was forbidden to continue his agitation against Eybeschutz. The latter's partisans, however, did not desist from their warfare against Emden. They accused him before the authorities of continuing to publish denunciations against his opponent. One Friday evening (July 8, 1755), his house was broken into and his papers seized and turned over to the "Ober-Präsident" (royally imposed mayor),Henning von Qualen (1703–1785) [de]. Six months later, Qualen appointed a commission of three scholars, who, after a close examination, found nothing which could incriminate Emden. Eybeschutz was reelected asChief Rabbi. In December that year, the Hamburg Senate rejected the King's decision and the election result. TheSenate of Hamburg started an intricate process to determine the powers of Eybeschutz as Chief Rabbi.The truth or falsity of his denunciations against Eybeschutz cannot be proved;Gershom Scholem wrote much on this subject, and his student Perlmutter devoted a book to proving it. According to historian David Sorkin, Eybeschutz was probably a Sabbatean,[17] and Eybeschutz's son openly declared himself to be a Sabbatean after his father's death. Further background suggests that Eybeschutz may have been a Sabbatean. In July 1725, the Ashkenazi beth din of Amsterdam issued a ḥerem on the entire Sabbatean sect (כת המאמיןkaṯ hammaʾamin) based partially on the discovery of Sabbatean writings.Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen, Chief Rabbi of the Three Communities[18] was unwilling to attack Eybeschutz publicly, but stated that one of the Sabbatean texts found by the Amsterdambeth din,Va’avo hayyom el-haʿayin (Hebrew:וָאָבֹא הַיּוֹם אֶל־הָעָיִן,romanized: Wāʾāb̲o hayyom el-hāʿāyin,lit. 'I came today to the spring'[a]), was authored by Eybeschutz and declared that all copies of the work that were in circulation should be immediately burned.[19] The recent discovery in Metz of notarial copies of the disputed amulets written by Eybeschutz supports Emden's view that these are Sabbatean writings.[20]
In 1756, the members of the synod ofStarokostiantyniv (Yiddish:אלט-קאָנסטאַנטין,romanized: Alt Konstantin) in theVolhynian Voivodeship (nowwestern Ukraine) requested Emden aid them in repressing the Sabbateans andFrankists. As the Sabbateans referred much to theZohar, Emden thought it wise to examine that book, and after a careful study he concluded that a significant part of the Zohar was the production of an impostor.[21]
Emden's works show critical powers rarely found among his contemporaries. He was strictly orthodox, never deviating the least from tradition, even when the difference in time and circumstance might have warranted a deviation from custom. Emden's opinions were often viewed as extremely unconventional from the perspective of strictly traditional mainstream Judaism, though not so unusual in more free-thinking Enlightenment circles. Emden had friendly relations withMoses Mendelssohn, founder ofHaskalah, and with several Christian scholars.[22]
In 1772,Frederick II, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin issued a decree forbidding burial on the day of death. The Jews in his territories approached Emden with the request that he demonstrate a Talmudic ruling that a more prolonged exposure of a corpse would be againstJewish burial customs. Emden referred them to Mendelssohn, who greatly influenced Christian authorities and wrote in excellent German. Mendelssohn wrote the requested letter to the Duke. However, he privately complained to Emden that the Duke was correct based on his understanding of the Talmud. Emden wrote to him in strong terms, saying that it was ludicrous to assert that the custom of the entire Jewish people was blatantly incorrect and told Mendelssohn that this kind of claim would only strengthen rumors of irreligiousness Mendelssohn had aroused by his associations.[23]
Emden was a traditionalist who responded to the ideals of tolerance being circulated during the 18th-centuryEnlightenment. He stretched the traditional inclusivist position into universal directions.[24]Like Maimonides, he believed thatmonotheistic faiths have an important roles to play in God's plan for mankind, writing that "we should consider Christians and Muslims as instruments for the fulfilment of the prophecy that the knowledge of God will one day spread throughout the earth."[25] Emden praised the ethical teachings of Christianity, considering them beneficial in removing the prevalence of idolatry and bestowing gentiles with a "moral doctrine".[2][26] Emden also suggested that ascetic Christian practices provided additional rectification of the soul in the same way that Judaic commandments do.[2]
In many ways, Emden was a nuanced figure who navigated the tension between rabbinic and external historical sources. Emden often tempered the exclusionist approach of scholars likeSolomon Aviad Sar-Shalom Basilea, who outright rejected non-rabbinic sources, by cautiously engaging with external historical claims. For example, in addressing contradictions between Talmudic and historical accounts, Emden sometimes reinterpreted rabbinic texts to align with external evidence, as seen in his treatment of the Talmudic story aboutNero’s conversion. He also critiquedAzariah dei Rossi for uncritically accepting non-Jewish sources, but stopped short of branding him a heretic, instead viewing him as misguided. Emden’s approach reflects a balance between preserving the authority of rabbinic literature and cautiously integrating external historical insights, making him a moderate voice in the debate over the historicity of rabbinic claims.[27]
He theoretically advocated thepilegesh (biblical concubinage), since theSages stated "the greater the man, the greater hisevil inclination", and cited many sources in support.[28][29] He also suggested it might be permissible under certain circumstances for a Jewish man to cohabit with a single Jewish woman, provided that she is in an exclusive relationship with him that is public knowledge and where she would not be embarrassed to attend themikveh. He also wished to revoke the ban onpolygamy instituted byGershom ben Judah, believing it erroneously followed Christian morals. However, he admitted he lacked the power to do so.[3]
Emden wrote that he owned books containing secular wisdom written in Hebrew but would read them in the bathroom.[30] He was opposed to philosophy and maintained that the views contained inThe Guide for the Perplexed could not have been authored byMaimonides, but rather by an unknown heretic.[3]
Jacob Emden's corpus spans halakhic, liturgical, kabbalistic, and polemical writings—with some works jointly attributed to him and his father. His published writings include:
His unpublished rabbinical writings include:
Twentieth-century printings of the Emden Siddur exist, notably the Lemberg edition (1904)[31] and the Augsburg edition (1948),[32] both bearing the cover titleSiddur Beis Yaakov[33] (also anglicized asSiddur Bet Yaakov; Hebrew: סידור בית יעקב).[34] The covers identify the work as being by "Jacob from Emden" (יעקב מעמדין). The 472-page Lemberg 1904 printing includesTikun Leil Shavuot on pages 275–305 and is considerably larger than Emden'sShaarei Shamayim siddur.
A physically smaller siddur, reprinted in Israel in 1994, was titledSiddur Rebbe Yaakov of Emden (Hebrew: סידור רבי יעקב מעמדין) on the upper half of the cover andSiddur HaYaavetz Shaarei Shamayim (סדור היעב"ץ שערי שמים) elsewhere. Its commentary is less detailed than that of the full Emden Siddur—for example, it omitsTikkun Leil Shavuot. This edition is presented as a two-volume set.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)Reprint of the popular Emden Siddur (Lemberg 1904
Printed by and for the use of Holocaust survivors in liberation camps. ... dedicated to
