Response to the Recent Discussion Relating to the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy

By Shnayer Leiman

Whatever else the world may require, it certainly doesn’t need more bans emanating from the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. No one is insulted and no apologies are necessary.

All sober comments and criticisms are most welcome – איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם. I try to learn from everyone. I’m also a card-carrying member of the class of כל אדם, and I am a teacher, and pray that – at least on occasion – the passage in Pirkei Avos licenses others to learn from me.

Time constraints, and lack of knowledge on my part, make it impossible for me to respond to all the comments, which for the most part addressed everything except the specific focus of my essay: the פני יהושע and his alleged blindness during the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.

In general, scholars and amateurs have written extensively on R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz and R. Jacob Emden, often without having read all, or even most, of their works. It is commonplace to write on R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, with great confidence, without having read a single word of his אורים ותומים or כרתי ופלתי. Indeed, some of the scholars who have written much about him, were – and are – not capable of reading a word of his חידושי תורה. Similarly, everyone feels free to comment on R. Jacob Emden, never having read a word of his ויקם עדות ביעקב, or בית יהונתן הסופר, or ספר התאבקות, or מגלת ספר. Such selective reading of the primary sources can only lead to a one-dimensional and skewed view of history.

I shall respond directly to only one of the comments. After citing a line from the opening of the essay (which reads: “Emden…surely felt that he should have been appointed to succeed them [i.e., his father and grandfather (szl)] in the rabbinate…”), the commentator raises the following question: “Are we talking about the same R. Yaakov Emden who writes in several places of his gratitude to Hashem שלא עשני אב“ד?”

Citing a famous passage from the writings of R. Yaakov Emden, the commentator feels comfortable that he has captured Emden’s true feelings about the subject and nothing more needs to be, or can be, said. Unfortunately, the commentator chose not to mention the following:

1. R. Yaakov Emden served as Chief Rabbi (אב בית דין) of Emden from 1728 to 1733. One wonders if he recited the blessing on the day he was informed of, and accepted, his appointment as Chief Rabbi?

2. R. Yaakov Emden was one of the 7 finalists among the many candidates who applied to succeed R. Yechezkel Katznellenbogen (d. 1749) as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, Wandsbeck. The finalists who lost were: R. Aryeh Leib b. R. Saul, Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam; R. David Frankel, Chief Rabbi of Berlin; R. David Strauss, Chief Rabbi of Fürth; R. Samuel Helman Heilprin, Chief Rabbi of Mannheim; R. Moshe Segal Polak, Chief Rabbi of Mainz; and R. Yaakov Emden of Altona. The finalist who won was R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz. See Zinz, גדולת יהונתן (Piotrkow-Warsaw, 1930), vol. 1, p. 28.

3. Addressing the propriety of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz’ acceptance of the offer to become Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck, R. Yaakov Emden had this to say in בית יהונתן הסופר (Altona, 1763), p. 7a [authored entirely by R. Yaakov Emden, who, as in several volumes authored by him, created an imaginary narrator who speaks in the third person about him]:

ואולם חי אני כי גם מזה אות ומופת על מיעוט יראתו של המי“ן הלז, כי אם היה לו רק איזה רושם של יראת שמים, וכבוד
ת“ח, היה לו למנוע מזה, ואפילו אם היו מבקשים אותו ומחלים פניו להיות לרב בג“ק, היה מחויב לסרב מפני כבוד מ“ו
.שהוא שוכן שם, ושמו הטוב ומעשיו נודעים בשערים, ויש לו חזקת אבות שלשה דורות, ומובטח שלא תופסק תורה מזרעו

4. Addressing why he was removed from the list of candidates (who would succeed R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck) in 1765, R. Yaakov Emden writes in מגלת ספר (Warsaw,1897), p. 209:

שנת תקכ”ה] בשבט התועדו ג”ק על אודות מינוי רב חדש, והיו רבים חפצים להשיבני לנחלת אבותי, וכשעמדו למנין לעשות
רשימה מהראוים לאצטלא זו, נעשית מריבה ביניהם על אודותי, וכמעט היה הרוב על צדי, וכך
היה בודאי אם היו עושים דבר זה בגלוי, לא היה אדם אחר עולה להתמנות רב בג”ק בפעם הזאת. אכן
.התחכמו שלשה מאויבי [פושעי ישראל]…ועשו כן והצליח בידם מה שרצו לסלקני מן מנין הראוים

5. Among the many historians who state specifically that R. Yaakov Emden felt strongly that he should have been appointed to succeed his ancestors as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck are Yechezkel Duckesz (אבל מתחילה חרה לו מאד וקנאה ושנאה בוערת בו על שלא בחרו אותו הג“ק לאב“ד) and David Leib Zinz (גם מספריו נראה שחרה לו על רבינו [ר‘ יהונתן] שישב על כסא הרבנות דג“ק המגיע לו מנחלת אבות). Both were distinguished תלמידי חכמים. Duckesz was a מוסמך of the Pressburg Yeshiva and spent 50 years as rabbi of the “Kloiz” (founded by the חכם צבי) in Altona. Zinz was a Galitzianer whose biographies of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, R. Jacob Joshua Falk, and R. Nesanel Weil are frequently reprinted. For the Duckesz passage, see חכמי אה“ו (Hamburg, 1908), p. 56; for the Zinz passage, see גדולת יהונתן (Piotrkow-Warsaw, 1930), vol. 1, p. 29.

In sum, the commentator is free to explain away all this evidence (and there is more), dismiss it as irrelevant, and claim that the blessing recited every day by R. Yaakov Emden – שלא עשני אב“ד – captures the essence of his belief and practice throughout his life. What he cannot do is claim that anyone who reads this material differently than he does is creating a second R. Yaakov Emden. There was only one R. Yaakov Emden, and he was far more complex and sophisticated than the commentator makes him out to be.