The Sabbatean Who Devoured His Son: The Emden-Eibeschütz Controversy and Cannibalism

Introduction

At a time when cannibalism captured European imagination and was used as effective propaganda against the ‘other’ within or elsewhere, as well as a test case for the concept of Natural Law, it is hardly surprising to discover similar rhetoric in internal Jewish discourse of the early modern era. R. Jacob Emden’s halachic writing on the subject of modern medicine and his tenacious battle against Sabbateanism, provide illuminating examples of the use of cannibalistic imagery, as this had crystalised in colonial literature from the new world and in religious polemics on the Eucharist. Emden’s halachic position on the question ‘is it permissible to benefit from the cadaver of a dead gentile’ (She’elat Y‘aveẓ, 1739), makes the clear connection between cannibalism and theological heresy springing from an overly-literal reading of the scholarly canon on one hand, and the concept of the seven Noahide Laws on the other. In Emden’s opinion, the point about consuming human flesh, literally and particularly metaphorically, is what distinguishes between the sons of Noah (that is to say, Jews and Christians) and heretics, as well as between humanity and savages. This concept received significant impetus in Emden’s polemical writings against the Sabbatean heresy in the 1750s, when he became embroiled in controversy with R. Jonathan Eibeschütz and the Frankists.

The appointment of R. Jonathan Eibeschütz to head the triple community of Altona-Hamburg-Wandsbek in September 1750, soon turned into a major scandal. When amulets that he had distributed to pregnant women in Metz, Frankfurt and Hamburg were opened one after another (presumably after a number of the women had died in childbirth), they were discovered to contain the name of the messiah Sabbatai Ẓvi. R. Jacob Emden’s public declaration on February 4, 1751 that an amulet attributed to the new rabbi was tainted with heresy, was the opening salvo in what was to become the most volatile rabbinical controversy of the eighteenth century. In an attempt to deflect the denunciations of his accusers, Eibeschütz provided two commentaries of his own for the amulets, claiming that the holy names were supposed to be read separately, and not as a connected text addressing Sabbatai Ẓvi. The first commentary he gave to R. Shalom Buzaglo at the beginning of the uproar. The second, for the ‘small amulet’, which he had given to Mordechai Levi of Metz, ‘for his wife who had difficulty in childbirth’, he published in 1755 in his book Luḥot edut. As opposed to the laconic commentary that was given to Buzaglo, the commentary in Luḥot ‘edut describes the process of gestation and birth in detail, from the fetus’ formation in the mother’s belly to the womb’s opening and the child’s egress. Emden’s answer to Luḥot edut was not slow to arrive. In 1756 he published Shevirat luḥot ha-’aven, in which he rejected Eibeschütz’s claims one by one. Towards the end of the work can be found one of the most biting and dazzling satires ever written against Sabbateanism, in which the writer ‘scoffs at the amulet’ commentary’, as Gershom Scholem mentioned in his own hand in the margins of his copy. Emden’s version follows Eibeschütz’s commentary in a stepwise fashion, yet describes a reverse process of turning the fetus to stillborn. The most striking aspect of Emden’s commentary is his extensive use of cannibalistic imagery to illustrate Eibeschütz’s claim that the holy names in his amulet were supposed to be read apart, and not as a complete piece. Dismantling the amulet and manipulating the names in order to lead the public astray, is described as a ruthless, bloodthirsty orgy: after he slept with a Lilith-like demonic woman, murderess of children, Eibeschütz the father draws out the fruit of her womb, dissects the fetus into pieces, flays it and finally, ‘opens his mouth in slaughter (Ezek. 21:27)’ and ‘eats the flesh of the tender child’ under the melancholy light of Saturn.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alleson-Gerberg, Shai, ‘The way of a Man with a Maiden; The Way of a Serpent upon a Rock – R. Jonathan Eibeschütz View of Christianity in And I came this day unto the fountain’ [Hebrew], in: P. Maciejko (ed.), R. Jonathan Eibeschütz, And I came this day unto the fountain, Los Angeles 2014, pp. 278-300.

Avramescu, Cătălin, An intellectual history of cannibalism, Princeton 2009.

Eibeschütz, Jonathan, Luḥot ‘edut, Altona 1755, pp. 63a-71a.

Idelson-Shein, Iris, Difference of a different kind: Jewish constructions of race during the long eighteenth century, Philadelphia 2014.

Kahana, Maoz, ‘An esoteric path to modernity: Rabbi Jacob Emden’s alchemical quest’, MJS 12/2 (2013), pp. 253-275.

Leiman, Sid Z., and Simon Swarzfuchs, ‘New Evidence on the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy: The Amulets from Metz’, Revue des etudes la juives 165 (2006), pp. 229-249.

Maciejko, Paweł, The mixed multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist movement, 1755-1816, Philadelphia 2011.

Mintz-Manor, Limor, The discourse on the New World in early modern Jewish culture [Hebrew], Doctoral thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2011.

Schachter, Jacob J., ‘Rabbi Jacob Emden, Sabbateanism, and Frankism: attitudes toward Christianity in the eighteen century’, in: E. Carlebach and idem (eds.), New perspectives on Jewish-Christian relations, Leiden and Boston 2012, pp. 359-396.

Scholem, Gershom, ‘Al kame‘a eḥad shel Rabbi Yehonatan Eibeschütz ve-pirusho ‘alav’, Y. Liebes (ed.), Meḥkarey Shabbetaut, Tel-Aviv 1991, pp. 707-733.

Source 1 Translation

Jacob Emden, She’elat Y’aveẓ, I, responsum 41, Altona 1739, 69a.

In my youth, twenty five years ago, I saw a responsum of the Gaon, our teacher R. David Oppenheim, of blessed memory, who sent a few pages from his book which he wanted to publish in Amsterdam, but changed his mind. I still have some memory of it. It was about whether using human skin is permitted [‘al ‘esek hana’at ‘or ‘adam ‘im mutar]. And I remember that he rejoiced that he had found clear evidence in the Gemara, chapter Lulav ve-Aravah: ‘There were once two minim etc. R. Abbahu said [to Sason, one of them]: a water-skin will be made of your skin, and water will be drawn with it’.¹ But this is nonsense, for it is nothing more than a scholar’s talk, mocking this heretic by answering a fool according to his folly (for it is permitted to laugh at idolaters). And I am surprised that he [i.e. Oppenheim] bothered to deal with such a trifle. This is nothing but ridicule of a heretic who is wise in his own eyes, by answering him in his own way; let them be appalled because of their shame, R. Abbahu answered mockingly. He [i.e. Oppenheim] could also have added the verse, ‘Behold, the people (etc.) [shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion], he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain’ (Numbers 23:24). This verse talks of slain idolaters and clearly says that one should eat human prey and drink his blood [she-yokh’al teref ‘adam ve-dam ḥalalim yishteh]. Using his [i.e. Oppenheim’s] reasoning, this verse is better. Even their meat and blood is permitted for eating like stag and deer [she-‘afilu ha-basar ve-ha-dam shelahem hutar la-‘akhilah ke-basar ẓvi ve-‘ayal] (therefore, even more so to use their skin). Indeed, the matter contradicts itself, for who would consider learning about prohibited and permitted and any laws from allegories and fables, whether from the Torah or Kabbalah, or from the sayings of the sages and their puzzles. Even more so, we cannot learn from what is a complete mystery. God forbid that we should understand things literally [ḥalilah lehavin devarim ke-mashma’an] and twist the words of the living God. Far be it from our sages of blessed memory from doing so! because those words were said to mock and deride. We scoff at the heretics according to their foolishness… And this is way of the wise to corner a perverted man so that he has no answer.

Source 2 Translation

Jacob Emden, Shevirat luhot ha-aven, Żółkiew [Altona] 1756, 53a-b.

[p. 53a] Now we shall consider the amulet’s interpretation [‫פרש‬‎. also: excrement], which is prohibited because its swollen body pleases the idolater, and from which stench arises. Therefore we should not sully our hands and stir it, so that its fetidness and stink and foulness should not get worse and defile the air. But first I wonder where the merciful [‫רחמן‬‎] father’s compassion (Gematria ‫רצ”ח‬‎ [‘murder’, 298]) is for his small son, the first to be born in his old age (after the seven-year gestation of the serpent’s son and initial coming [‫בביאה ראשונה‬‎] to the holy community of Metz) it being now five years after the foolish act wherein there has been no sign of blessing on his work. And this darling tender [‫ר”ך‬‎] child (Gematria ‫קמי”ע‬‎ [‘amulet’, 220]) amuses him daily. Despite that in Sabbath-ai [‫בשבתי‬‎] he lifts his son, with the wickedness and idolatry in him, as a son whose father longs for him; he turns cruel towards him, tortures him, rips his skin and cuts strips from his flesh to feed to Na’amiyot [=she-demons], and cracks open his bones, opens his mouth in murder, son of falsehood and deception. Is there not in all his great deeds, much more than this small tender thing, to pour out his wrath upon them and rip them to shreds and judge them as the seed of evildoers, for their mother has played the harlot: she who conceived them, has acted shamefully with others. He pitied them, because the older sons had achieved understanding and implored him with these words: is there anyone who can cover the falsehood with lies? He did not despise their prayers nor did he know how to answer their complaints, because their cries rose up, are you not our father and you gave birth to us to do wickedness? Discern, we pray thee, whose is this signet. Please show the man, so that the old [‫הזק”ן‬‎, in small Gematria: ‫אייבשיצר‬‎, ‘Eibeschütz the enemy’, 20] and the righteous will not die. Therefore he was cruel to the foundling boy and hung an amulet on him to make him fit to come into the assembly. And now hear the charm of his deeds, to make the child [‫ילד‬‎] weak [‫דלי‬‎], like the legs of a lame man which hang useless [‫דליו‬‎], so is a parable in the mouth of fools. In vain to circumcise the boy when his father is Sabbatai [=Saturn] the large and high wandering star whose fortune sinks into a bottomless pit, brings him down and does not raise him up, as if the child was the soul of the heretic [‫מי”ן‬‎, possibly an acronym: ‫מורנו יונתן‬‎, ‘our teacher Yonatan’], and when he was in Aquarius² [‫דלי‬‎, 44] his name became ‫אלד‬‎ [=‘I will give birth to’, 35] woe to him that says to his father, what begettest thou and has conceived mischief and brings forth falsehood. Then the child became deathly ill and a letter [yod] was added to his name and he was called ‫אילד‬‎ (35+10=45) (that the boy’s name [‫היל”ד‬‎, in small Gematria ‫קמי”ע‬‎, ‘amulet’, 13]). And know that he was not content until he split his blood [‫דמו‬‎]. After that he returned to being weak [‫דל‬‎, 34] because his blood had been thinned. And after the boy’s blood was spilt on the ground, he again threw out of his mouth [‫שפתיו בדל‬‎] the letter yod with the kolel so that it [=‫דל‬‎] became mem-heh [‫מה‬‎, 34+10+1=45].³ In this way he breathed living soul into him. Again he sliced him into two and gave him milk [‫חלב‬‎, 40] to drink, tortured him with rope [‫חבל‬‎, 40]. And [the letter] heh [‫ה‬‎, 5] stands alone, as it is said, Do you thus requite the Lord [‫ה’ תגמלו זאת‬‎], O foolish people (Deut. 32:6), lo, you have false seed. Afterwards heh [‫ה‬‎] turns to dalet [‫ד‬‎] and dalet to heh and blood [‫דם‬‎, 44] becomes mem-heh [‫מה‬‎, 45]. Afterwards the boy’s brain is filled with water [‫מים‬‎, 90] and it is not yet forbidden [treyfah], because they burst and were cut into two pieces (and here he hinted and concealed his secret, his wasting and destruction), pail [‫דלי‬‎] and water [‫מים‬‎] were connected and Reshef and Ketev meriri [=demons] ensued, and became again a childless man [‫אדם ערירי‬‎, 45], and lived and rose on his feet. And again he received a blow [‫מכה‬‎], and still lived, and made him fit to come into the assembly. Where is such a great wonder seen?! After being ripped and cut and his blood ran out, and he metamorphosed through a number of hard and bitter cycles, the fractures were healed, and then his limbs broke apart again and once again straightened out, and behold, he is fully a bridegroom to his father. And finally he suffered a great blow [‫מכה‬‎] with a rod, a wound of a cruel enemy striking with a hammer. Has there ever been such a terrible thing? Has anything like this evil deed been done in Israel by someone created in the image of God? And from this heartless deed in one cut, you learn about the rest of the boy’s pieces that he cut and arranged piece by piece, not simply as a loving father. And it is forbidden to correct a child’s limbs on the Sabbath, so we will not deal with it ourselves, but only lance the abcesses and blisters that can be seen on the child, which are full of pus and fetid water. So all his flesh is corrupted and raises up vanity and vexation of spirit in swollen blisters. There is no vitality in them, only sin and wickedness. To him who tried to solve the calf’s parts in false visions, to seduce to evil, thorns will grow from his jaws. His words will bring destruction upon him and sentence him to drown in his own spittle, because his drool flows on his beard like deceptive water. We will not delay by considering the state of his soul, by removing the ragged sandal, so as not to laugh. The fool rubs his hands together and eats the flesh of the tender child. However, it is permitted to laugh at idolatry. It is time to mourn over the child who is born in sin under one of the shrubs, who has no brothers to eulogise him, only the creatures of the desert and jackals and the scops owl. On the second cut he combined the name ‫נבדלי‬‎ and made a small mistake, because it certainly should be two words, ‫נבל די‬‎ [‘enough with the villain’]. We shall not stand in the filthy entrance, it is, however, worthy of mention that even at a time of danger his appetite did not abate, he is like a hungry dog with a carcass. He was not satisfied until he had slept with Ẓilah [‫צילה‬‎], the mother of demons, whose name he cried out. And he said: understand that this name comes from the verse, Ze ha-sha’ar la-ha-Shem, ẓadikim yavo’u vo [‘this is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter it’ (Ps. 118:20), ‫זה השער לה’ צדיקים יבואו בו‬‎]. He entered additional wisdom into this woman, and from this we learn that he slept with her and she bore him Ẓvi [‫צבי‬‎], who is hinted at in an acronym ẓadikim yavou vo. [‫צדיקים יבואו בו‬‎].⁴

[53b] He is the beloved son, his lastborn, whose pieces he arranged here, and their souls bonded together [and his soul is bound up in his soul]⁵ so he crowned his skeleton [‫שלד‬‎] according to custom, flayed his skin from his bones, scraped it and stood it on its scabs, and his hands were fouled with the placenta [‫שליא‬‎] and he called him Shiloh [‫שלה‬‎] (to hint that it was he who came to him because it is stated that Shiloh will come), and he lied when he birthed him. From now on, he called him Tzeled Sheled [‫צלד שלד‬‎] Gematria (?) Yonatan [‫יונתן‬‎, 516], to announce that he raised him. And from this deed of chaos and deception you learn about the tangled acts in the rest of the cuts, so that there is no need to describe them in length, woe is the hour that I lost reading them, I will simply go over them quickly in passing so as not to pause too long from meditating on the Torah.