The Identity of an unknown Yiddish Prayer Book
(From Zürich to Zürich)

Dr Moshe Nathan Rosenfeld, London

Moshe Rosenfeld has published books on Jewish printing in Augsburg, Wilhermsdorf and Karlsruhe as well as articles on Fuerth and Sulzbach prints. His most recent publication is the biography ‘The Rav of Fuerth’, highlighting Rav Dovid Kahana Spiro szl (1901-1970).

His contact information is mnrosenfeld@gmail.com

Yiddish printed books are the stepchildren of Hebrew bibliography.

We have systematic bibliographies of Hebrew books from nearly 500 years ago, amongst the authors are non-Jews like Gessner[1a], Bartolocci [1b] and Wolf [2]. To single out Yiddish prints for a separate bibliography did not happen until Moritz Steinschneider [3], presented a listing in 1848-9.

C. Shmeruk [4] offered in 1981 a list of Yiddish imprints from Poland until the year 1649, followed in 1982 by a similar list of Italian Yiddish prints [5]. The Poland bibliography lists 68 items, of which a staggering 40% are listed as unique copies and 23% are only known from earlier references. The Italy list of 35 Yiddish works contains 35% unique and 31% unlocated items.

The scarcity of early Yiddish prints has two main reasons. Firstly, the Yiddish text was not accredited with the same holy status as Hebrew texts. Since the contents was often of a secular nature, the book did not command the same respect. Additionally, the heavy perusal by common folk led to disproportional wear and tear. This was certainly true for prayer books and biblical works and so much more for profane texts.

In 1985 I examined the origins of Yiddish printing, covering the first 25 years and including items published in Prague and Germany [6]. I have since compiled a yet unpublished database, which to date lists close to 1000 Yiddish works until the year 1700.

Some years ago, I was sent copies of a few pages from a Sidur, a Jewish book of daily prayers, printed completely in Yiddish. The earliest all-Yiddish prayerbook known to us was printed in 1544 by Chaim Schachor in the small Bavarian town Ichenhausen, of which a single copy survives today in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek). It is likely that earlier Yiddish translations of the common prayer book existed, and we find such a manuscript, dated 17 Tevet 5296 = 12 December 1535, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford [7].

A Venice 1552 unlocated edition is mentioned in the Mantua censorship list, 1595, Nr. 176, quoted by Shmeruk, Italy Nr. 9 [5]. This imprint might have been a mixed Hebrew/Yiddish edition. Otherwise, only a Prague s.a. edition (translation by Avigdor Sofer of Eisenstadt) is quoted by Wolf II, p.1457 [2]. With the Amsterdam 1650 quarto imprint, these count amongst early all-Yiddish prayer books for all year round. (All-Yiddish Festival Prayers, also called Krovetz, are not part of this discussion).

The unknown Prayer book – an early Yiddish Sidur

It became clear to me that the copies sent to me did not match any of the known editions and as beginning and end was missing, other clues were needed in order to identify this imprint.

Since I had no access to the original, my efforts were quite limited. The typeface clearly belonged to the 16^th century and had Southern Germany features. This excluded locations like Prague and Krakow. I drafted an initial list of potential printing places (printing activity in brackets):

1. Augsburg (1533-1544). Chaim Schachor apparently did not print here anything in Yiddish. There are, however, three all-Yiddish prints published by the apostate Paulus Aemilius. These are the Melochim Buch (1543), the Shmuel Buch (1544), and the folio Pentateuch, Megillot and Haphtaroth in two versions (1544). Whilst Aemilius only mentions his name in the Pentateuch (reverse of title and end of introduction) destined for the Gentile market, it has now been proven, that the Melochim and Shmuel editions were also published by him [8]. Till today we have no knowledge who actually translated these Biblical texts into Yiddish.

2. Basel (1557-1600). Basel started printing Yiddish books from 1557 onwards. Prijs [9] records titles like Sefer Daniel (Nr 97), Die Megilla s.a. (Nr. 101), (unique copy in Basel UB), a Yiddish alphabet, 1561 (Nr. 108a) and a Pentateuch 1583 (Nr. 137). The Basel printer Froben relocated to Freiburg i. Breisgau for two years, where some Yiddish was printed, but all this activity takes us past the date we can safely assume for the unknow prayer book. We should however note, that through the activity of the Basel printer Waldkirch, starting towards the end of the 16^th century, appeared an amazing output of Yiddish prints.

3. Heddernheim (1546). We know of two books produced by Chaim Schachor in 1546, but no Yiddish prints.

4. Ichenhausen (1544-45). Chaim Schachor published here two books, one is the first all-Yiddish prayer book (1544), the second is a Hebrew Pentateuch (1544-1545).

5. Isny (1541-42). Elia Levita published here the famous Buovo Buch (1541) in the printshop of Paulus Fagius. The same Yiddish type was also used in the small dictionary, Shemot Devarim (1542). The equally famous and rare Yiddish Sefer Midot appeared here in 1542, though no printer is mentioned.

6. Konstanz (1543-44), Paulus Fagius moved from Isny to Konstanz in 1543, and 3 out of 4 known products from this press have Yiddish texts: a) Compendiaria Isagoge in Linguam Hebraeam (e.g. folios E2a, E3 ,T2; 1543); b) Prima Qvatvor Capita Genesos Hebraice, cvm Versione Germanica e regione Hebracis (extensive Yiddish, with Grammar, possibly taken from Merkevet Hamishne/ Sefer R. Anshel, Kraków 1535; 1543); c) Pentateuch, Megillot and Haftaroth (First all-Yiddish edition, 1544). The translation is credited to Michael Adam, an apostate, whose name is also mentioned at the end of the Yiddish edition of Jossipon, Zürich 1546.

7. Tiengen (1560) is located in southwestern Baden-Württemberg, close to the Swiss border. Printing activity was limited to the year 1560 and none of its known 6 books carries any Yiddish text.

8. Zürich (1546-1558). We know of an all-Yiddish Josippon and Sefer Hayira (both 1546), as well as a Yiddish Psalms issued by R. Eliezer Treves in 1558.

I felt it safe to exclude Heddernheim and Tiengen from this list, where no Yiddish was ever printed.

Comparison of Typeface and fonts:

Augsburg

Taking samples of the last page of the Shmuel Buch and Melochim Buch and comparing it with a text sample from the unknown Sidur, we find:

Melochim Buch, Augsburg 1543, part of last page, Courtesy British Library

Shmuel Buch, Augsburg 1544, last page, Courtesy British Library

Unknown Sidur, quire D3

The fonts are distinctly different, especially the letters ע, ש, ק, ם, ט

In addition, the numbering system of the quires includes both Gothic and Hebrew fonts, whereas the Sidur shows only the German font.

Quire numbering, Shmuel Buch, Augsburg 1543

Based on this information, Augsburg can be excluded.

Basel

The earliest known Basel Yiddish print, the Biblical Daniel Buch, appeared in 1557. It is listed by Prijs [9] Nr. 97.

The square type seems identical. But Yiddish letters, like א,צ,ק are quite different and the quire numbering is only in Hebrew, as is the pagination.

Prijs also describes another all-Yiddish book, Die Megilla (Nr. 101), a Yiddish paraphrase of the Book Esther (unique copy at UB Basel). The square type again appears to be identical, and I did not find any significant changes with regards to the Yiddish fonts. The same vignette was used in Zürich with the Yiddish Psalms, 1558, as well as in Tiengen, both publications of the known Rabbi Eliezer Treves of Frankfurt.

Die Megilla (Universitätsbibliothek Basel)

Psalms, Zürich 1558 (British Library) Shir HaYichud, Tiengen 1560

The quires for both Die Megilla and Psalms 1558, show the same Yiddish font. The book is complete but does not present us with a location or date. Sidorko p.169-174 [10] suggests, it might be a Tiengen imprint based on the vignettes used. There are two reasons to disagree with this possibility. Firstly, as mentioned, there are no Yiddish fonts used with any of the 6 known Tiengen publications, all from the year 1560. Secondly, the watermark is an oxhead, totally different from the Tiengen imprints, which show a crowned snake (except for Begidat Hazman and Malkiel, for which I did not find any watermarks). I would rather assign Die Megilla to Zürich, ca. 1558-9, a product of the Treves activity, while still present in that city. We know that at a meeting of the Eidgenossenschaft in Baden, the Catholic representatives of Luzern, accused their Zürich colleagues of allowing the sale of anti-Christian pamphlets in the streets of Zürich. Undoubtedly this put pressure on the fledgling Zürich print activity of Rabbi Treves. The missing place and date of printing could be due to the producer Eliezer Treves wanting to finish this small booklet without getting the printshop of Froschauer into trouble. By the end of 1559 Treves re-located to Tiengen with the permission of the Count of Sulz, but clearly had to leave the Yiddish types behind. By summer 1560, the threats of the Swiss from across the border, also brought the Tiengen activities to an end.

Further Yiddish printing occurred in Basel only in 1583 (Pentateuch, Prijs Nr. 137). There followed Sefer Hayirah (not mentioned by Prijs), Chaye Olam (Nr. 138), Mishle Shualim (Nr. 140), (a copy of which has since been located by Erika Timm in the Alliance Israélite Universelle, Paris) and Targum Chamesh Megilot (Nr. 143), all published by the Basel printer Ambrosius Froben in Freiburg i. Breisgau, 1583-1584. Here we have a fair match of Yiddish fonts, yet the square type is completely different. The quires show Hebrew and German letters, which does not match the unknown Sidur.

The later Basel Yiddish imprints by Waldkirch (Prjis Nr. 153 and onwards) seem to have inherited some of Froben’s typographical material.

Whilst none of the Basel publications are perfect matches to the unknown Sidur, Basel cannot be completely excluded as a potential printing location.

Ichenhausen

As mentioned, the first known Yiddish Sidur was published here in 1544. A comparison of pages, showing identical text, will exclude Ichenhausen as a potential candidate.

Unknown Sidur, last existing page Sidur Ichenhausen, 1544, page [148b], Courtesy BStB Munich

Again, there are distinct differences between the letters א, ש, ט etc. and most markedly the completely different style of the capital letters. Whilst Ichenhausen used a fair amount of punctuation, this is completely missing with the unknown Sidur. It is however possible, that the text, which only shows mild alterations, was copied from one to the other.

Isny

The famous Buovo Buch was printed in Isny אייזנה in 1541 by Elia Levita. This edition has come down to us as a unique copy, preserved in the Zentralbibliothek Zürich. The book is completely in Yiddish, but for a few Hebrew words in the title and the final leaves. The Yiddish type differs from the prayer book, especially the letters ט, ל, ע, צ, ק, ש, ך. The square Hebrew font is totally different, and the quires are numbered with Yiddish letters, there is no pagination. The printer Paulus Fagius is not mentioned.

Sefer Midot is the forerunner to the ever-popular Orchot Zadiim. It was printed in Isny אייזנא in the year 1542 and the all-Yiddish text has only square Hebrew type on the title and at the beginning of chapters. Till today, a mystery surrounds this edition, as no printer or publisher is named. The types used throughout match with the Buovo Buch. The quires are marked with bold square font and Latin letters. The pagination utilizes Yiddish letters. No printer is mentioned.

Shemot Devarim is a multilingual dictionary compiled by Elia Levita and published by Paulus Fagius in Isny, 1542. The fonts match the Buovo Buch, there is no pagination, and the quires are printed in Latin characters.

The above examples exclude Isny as a possible printing place for the unknown Sidur.

Konstanz

The Pentateuch, Megillot and Haftarot, printed by Paulus Fagius in 1544 represents its first known Yiddish translation, which was followed two months later by the Augsburg edition, published by Paulus Aemilius. Whilst the Yiddish font shows certain similarities, there are small differences with letters like ט, ע, פ, ק, ם etc.

Unlike the unknown Sidur, this Pentateuch has Hebrew page numbers. The quire numbering seems to be a close match, the square Hebrew font is however the ‘Chaim Schachor – Augsburg’ style. One also needs to consider, that a Yiddish prayer book would not fit into the portfolio of Fagius, whose Yiddish prints served mainly to assist non-Jews in their studies.

Pentateuch, Konstanz, 1544

Comparison of quire signatures:

Jossipon, Zürich

Pentateuch, Konstanz

unknown prayer book

Zürich

Even knowledgeable bibliophiles barely know of the existence of the all-Yiddish Josippon edition, which appeared here in 1546. The existence of the Yiddish Sefer Hayirah, also printed in 1546, has escaped all but a few bibliographers. The most comprehensive work by Manfred Vischer: Bibliographie der Zürcher Druckschriften des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, erarbeitet in der Zentralbibliothek Zürich, 1990, failed to list another all-Yiddish Zürich book, namely Psalms 1558.

Initially, I had some doubts, if Zürich was a possibility, until I noticed the following entry in the helpful booklet by Karl J. Lüthi, Hebräisch in der Schweiz, Bern 1926. He quotes some addenda on p.32:

Lüthi 1926

The first entry caught my eye: Adamus Michael, Liber Precum etc., ‘Liber Precum’ (‘Gebetbuch’ or book of Prayers) with Hebrew Germanic types, Quarto, without date, Froschauer (the printer). I assumed, Lüthi had seen a copy, but my search in Swiss libraries was without a positive result and I realized, that Lüthi (p.30) probably quoted from Julius Fuerst, Bibliotheca Judaica, Leipzig 1849 and 1863, or earlier sources. Indeed, the same entry is found in E. Camillo Rudolphi, Die Buchdrucker Familie Froschauer in Zürich, Zürich 1869, quoting a Yiddish book (Hebraeo Germanico) Liber Precum, by Michael Adam, printed without date in quarto.

Rudolphi, Buchdruckerfamilie Froschauer in Zürich, 1869

It is unlikely that Rudolphi saw this book and some further research led me to Johann Heinrich Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Lexicon aller Wissenschaften, Leipzig 1751. He quotes on p.426 (referring to Hottinger and Leus) :

“Adam (Michael), a born Jew, later of Lutheran faith, citizen of Zürich. He was still alive in 1550 and published etc., Librum Precum, Yiddish characters in Zürich, quarto”.

It is likely that Zedler got his information from Johan Scheuchzer’s Bibliotheca Helvetica, Tiguri (=Zürich 1733). He lists the activities of Michael Adam, ‘previously a Jew and authorized by the emperor to settle in Zürich; still alive in 1550’. Scheuchzer features the Yiddish Josippon (Libris de Bellis Jud.), the Konstanz Pentateuch (wrongly dated 1545) and our Liber Precum, Zürich, Froschauer, in quarto.

Scheuchzer, Bibliotheca Helvetica

It appears, that Scheuchzer did not see these books, but refers to Hottinger (Hottinger, Johann Heinrich the Elder), presumably his Schola Tigurinorum Carolina: id est, demonstratio historica, ostendens … Reipub . Tigurinæ Scholam a Carolo Magno deducendam … Accedunt. I. Bibliotheca Tigurina, sive Catalogus librorum … a Tigurinis scriptorum. II. Observationes de Collegii Carolini origine … III. Judicia quædam exterorum de schola Tigurinorum reformata. Tiguri 1654.

There on p.65 we read: ‘Adamus Michael, ex Judaeo, … quanquan oblervo imperatori quodam privilegio aliquot retro seculis … Tiguriono permissum Suisse, ut certum etiam iudaeorum numerum civitatis jure dnatem. Sex libros de belle judaicis capitibus 97. Distictos germanice vertit & editit, sed characteribus hebraeo germanicis. Ita & pentateuchum & libros VT historicos. Excusos Constantiae 1545. Vixit adhuc 1550.

(Adamus Michael, a Jew, … the emperor had given a certain privilege some centuries ago … allowed Zürich to assign a certain number of Jews to the city by law. He translated and published the six books belle judaicis in 97 chapters (i.e. Josippon), translated and published in distinguished (?) German, but in Germanic Hebrew characters. As well as the Pentateuch and the historical books of the Old Testament. He left Konstanz in 1545. He was still alive in 1550).

Hottinger does not mention our Liber Precum and it is therefore possible that a copy of the Zürich Yiddish prayer book was only seen somewhere or noted between 1654 and 1733.

Michael Adam

Not much is known about this apostate, but important information can be gleaned from Konrad Pellikan’s Chronikon (ed. Bernhard Riggenbach, Basel 1877). He left the Jewish faith around 1537/38 whilst in Strasbourg, where he probably met Hebraists like Capito, Bucer and Calvin. It is also fair to assume, that he met there Paul Fagius and his brother-in-law Jacob Froschesser (Ranivore), which later laid the basis for their joint venture, the Konstanz 1544 Yiddish Pentateuch. Seeing no future in Strasbourg, Adam moved on to Zürich. Here he found employment at the important printing house Christoph Froschauer, who employed him to assist with the German Bible editions. There Konrad Pellikan befriended Adam and provided lodging for him for many months (Leeman-Van Elck, Paul, Die Offizin Froschauer, Zürich, [1940], p. 136). In 1539 he married the widow Stapfer and spent time travelling on behalf of Heinrich Bullinger. After taking part in the first all-Yiddish Pentateuch edition in Konstanz, Fagius moved to Strasbourg and Michael Adam returned to Zürich. In 1546, he prepared the Josippon (Pseudo-Iosephus Flavius book) and the Sefer Hayirah (which does not feature Adam by name) both exclusively in Yiddish. After this activity he seemed to have fallen again on hard times and financial and family issues made him return to Strasbourg. He borrowed and lost money, was arrested in Basel (1549) and the famous Hebraist Sebastian Münster refused his request to post bail for him [11] (Note 13). As mentioned, he was still alive in 1550, but no further traces of him are found in the literature.

It is amazing that the Liber Precum, a Prayer book printed with Hebrew German characters in the Zürich printshop of Chr. Froschauer, through the efforts of Michael Adam, although mentioned in a variety of publications, escaped the attention of bibliographers. Its identity with the unknown Yiddish Prayer book in hand cannot be doubted. The final confirmation comes by comparison with the known Yiddish imprints, Josippon and Sefer Hayirah. Both show a perfect identity of the Yiddish font, the square Hebrew letters and the numbering system of the quires.

Recently I traced today’s owner, the known bibliophile David Jeselsohn of Zürich.

The book had returned home.

Yiddish Sidur

Dr Jeselsohn shared with me a digital copy of this book, which is lacking beginning and end. By comparison to the layout of the Ichenhausen prayer book, we can estimate its actual pagination.

Pagination: A-Z⁴ (no letter U), a-h⁴. Quires A1-4 missing, R1-4 missing, last quire h3 (totalling so far 127 pages). Page 127 equals to Ichenhausen p.148 . Hence, by interpolation, the unknown Sidur had 144 pages, A-Z⁴, a-m⁴. It is missing the first 4 pages, and 17 pages at the end. The size is 18 x 14 cm. [Zürich, Chr. Froschauer, ca. 1546]. It appears to be a close reprint of the Ichenhausen 1544 edition.

Addenda: Hebrew in Zürich

For Hebrew bibliographers, Zürich is only on record for the Josippon, Sefer Hayirah (both 1546) and the Psalms, 1558. It should however be noted that occasionally Hebrew text appeared in other Zürich books from the 16^th century and deserve to be mentioned. Here is a tentative list:

1. Zwingli, Ulrich, Complanationis Isaiae prophetae foetura prima cum apologia qur (sic) quidque sic versum sit, Tiguri: Christophorus Froschouer, 1529 (some odd Hebrew words).

2. Bibliander, Theodor Institvtionvm Grammaticarvm de Lingva Hebraea liber unus, Zürich: Froschauer, Christoph d.Ä., 1535, (p.193v large Hebrew ABC, odd Hebrew words throughout. (for a detailed description of this book see [11], repro on p.133)

3. Zwingli, Ulrich: Operum Huldrychi Zuinglii. Tomus Tertius, Ea, Quae In Genesim, Exodum, Esaiam & Ieremiam prophetas, partim ex ore illius excepta, partim ab illo conscripta sunt, una cum Psalterio Latinitate donato, co[n]tinens, Tiguri: Froschauer 1544

4. Bibliander, Theodor, De ratione communi omnium linguarum et literarum commentaries, Zürich 1548

5. Bibliander, Theodor, Christanismus sempiternus, verus, certus et immutabilis, Zürich 1556

6. Stucki, Johann Wilhelm, Antiquitatvm Convivialivm Libri III, Tiguri: Excudebat Christophorvs Froschovervs, 1582

Chr. Froschauer Stucki, Antiquitatum, Zürich 1582 p.27

Froschauer often used a signet with the text “Ein yeglicher guter Boum etc.”, which sometimes shows Latin, Greek and Hebrew translations. Elck notes on p. 166, that Hebrew Letters were in use already in 1526, (found in Oekolampad, Johannes, Apologetica. De dignatato eucharistiae sermones 2, Zürich 1526). A similar signet is found at the end of Zwingli, Ulrich, Svbsidivm Sive Coronis De Evcharistia Huldrycho, Zürich 1525, without Hebrew text.

Printer’s mark, Apologetica Zürich 1526, (Courtesy OeNB)

It is remarkable that Michael Neander (Sanctae linguae Hebraeae Erotemata: … Accesserunt ad finem dicta ueterum Rabinorum, Basel 1556, p.240) quotes a German Bible with Hebrew characters, prepared by Michael Adam the Jew, for the Jews, printed in Zürich. It is more likely, that he refers to the known Josippon, published by Michael Adam in Yiddish, printed in Zürich 1546, but lists this book as ‘Bible’. Or did he mean the Konstanz 1544 Pentateuch, by Michael Adam?

Michael Neander (Sanctae linguae Hebraeae Erotemata)

Notes:

[1a] Conrad Gesner,: Bibliotheca Universalis, Zürich 1545 (pages 38a-42b).
[1b] Giulio Bartolocci, , Bibliotheca magna rabbinica de scriptoribus, & scriptis Hebraicis, ordine alphabetico Hebraicè, & Latinè digestis, Rome 1675.
[2] J.Ch. Wolf, Bibliotheca hebraea, sive, notitia tum auctorum hebr. cujuscunque aetatis, vol. 1-4, Hamburgi, [1715-1733].
[3] Moritz Steinschneider, Serapeum, Jüdisch Deutsche Literatur, Leipzig, 1848-9.
[4] C. Shmeruk, Yiddish Literature in Poland, Jerusalem 1981.
[5] C. Shmeruk, (Yiddish prints in Italy), ITALIA, Studi e ricerche sulla cultura e sulla letteratutra degli ebrei d’italia, Vol. III, Jerusalem 1982.
[6] Moshe N. Rosenfeld , The Origins of Yiddish Printing, in Origins of the Yiddish Language, Winter Studies in Yiddish Volume 1, ed. Dovid Katz, Oxford, 1987,111–126).
[7] compare M. Steinschneider, Jüdisch Deursche Literatur, Serapeum, Leipzig 1848-9, No. 338-340, suppl. 361; MS Opp. 656, Neubauer 1214; Yiddishe Prachtdrucken, Yivo Bleter, N.Y. 1949, 16, 45-58.
[8] Hans Striedl, Paulus Aemilius an JA. Widmanstetter, in: Ars Jocundissima, Festschrift für Kurt Dorfmüller, Tutzing 1984.
[9] Joseph Prijs, Die Basler hebräischen Drucke (1492-1866), Olten 1964.
[10] Clemens P. Sidorko, Basel und der jiddische Buchdruck, Basel 2014.
[11] Clemens P. Sidorko, Zürich und der hebräische Buchdruck in der Frühen Neuzeit, Judaica, Heft 2, June 2013.

©2024/5 mnrosenfeld@gmail.com

The Illusory Portrait of R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller: Deceptive Art and Jewish Images in Vienna

By: Dan Rabinowitz

For if I am deceived, I am.
for he who is not, cannot be deceived;
and if I am deceived,
by this same token I am.

Wolfgang Kemp after St Augustine of Hippo
(Epigraph to Rembrandt Hoogstraten: Colour and Illusion)

On October 8, 2024, Vienna’s Museum of Fine Arts, the Kunsthistorisches Museum, opened the exhibit “Rembrandt – Hoogstraten Colour and Illusion.” The museum’s permanent collection features remarkable works by Rembrandt, including a self-portrait and a now-confirmed portrait of his son, Titus van Rijn. This exhibit showcased many more items from its collection and loans from other museums. The term “illusion” in the exhibition’s title primarily refers to Samuel van Hoogstraten, a student of Rembrandt, and his exceptional use of the trompe-l’oeil technique. Trompe-l’oeil, from French, “fools the eye,” is an art that typically uses architectural elements, light, and perspective to trick the viewer into seeing a three-dimensional image, even when rendered on a single plane. Hoogstraten was one of the most skilled practitioners of this technique. It remains among the canonical approaches to art. Most recently, the Metropolitan Museum of Art recently held an exhibition, “Cubism and the Trompe-l’oeil Tradition,” featuring works by Picasso and his contemporaries.

In the lead-up to the Vienna museum’s exhibit, the city’s Morris columns were adorned with posters, and large billboards were scattered throughout the city announcing the exhibit. There were three variations of these advertisements: one featuring a Rembrandt self-portrait and two “illusory” portraits, Rembrandt’s “Girl in the Window” and Hoogstraten’s “Old Man at a Window.” In Rembrandt’s painting, the girl gazes directly at the viewer, gripping the exterior window frame, with her fingers extending beyond it. Combined with Rembrandt’s unparalleled usage of light and color, the image is unsettlingly realistic, even when reproduced in books.

Hoogstraten’s painting, “Old Man at a Window,” depicts an old, wizened, bearded man, crowned with a round fur hat, seemingly poking his head out of the window like a gargoyle protruding from the building. While the exhibit’s advertisements are silent about the man’s identity, many Orthodox Jews might recognize him as R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller, the author of, among other works, the Tosefos Yom Tov commentary on the Mishna. Heller is associated with Vienna, having served as its Chief Rabbi in the early 17th century; however, art historians and Jewish scholars have conclusively shown the impossibility of this being an authentic representation of Heller. Nonetheless, much like the trompe l’oeil technique, the Old Man at a Window continues to deceive, and many still believe it is Heller.

Figure 1 Samuel Von Hoogstraten, Old Man at a Window, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

Rabbi Heller’s Chronicle of Imprisonment & Redemption

Rabbi Yom Tov Lipman Heller was born in 1578 in Wallerstein, a small village in Southern Germany, home to around twenty Jewish families (Davis 21). As a teenager, he married into a prominent family in Prague. His perspicacity and deep knowledge were quickly recognized, and at 19, he was appointed to serve on the Prague Beis Din, overseeing the largest Jewish community in Christian Europe (Davis 25-33). A year later, he published his first book, a somewhat unusual choice for a traditional rabbinic scholar, a commentary on the philosophical work Behinas Olam. He subsequently authored dozens of books across varied genres, completing his magnum opus, Tosefos Yom Tov in Heshvan 1616 (Davis 225-231). His identity quickly became bound up with this work, and even on the epitaph of his daughters’ headstone from 1639, he is referred to by the book and not his given name (Muneles 321). (The book’s original title is Tosefes Yom Tov, and later Tosefos Yom Tov. While some posit that this change was first documented in 1653, it already appears on the epitaph. (cf. Haberman 125n1)). He also “left ample records of himself… books, letters, archival documents, responsa, poems, prayers, sermons, commentaries, and even a memoir” (Davis 1). Nevertheless, there are no surviving portraits or other images.

Rabbi Heller spent time in Vienna on two occasions. The first, in 1625, he was induced to leave Prague for Vienna’s chief rabbi position. Despite his short tenure of only two years, he scored a significant victory for the Viennese Jewish community. Until then, it was dispersed throughout the city, and Heller secured the right for the community to reside in a single area and strengthen its ties. That cohesion was shattered in 1670 when Emperor Leopold I expelled them (one of the many expulsions Viennese Jews suffered), and the area was renamed after its extirpator, Leopoldstadt. Prague, however, drew him back, and in 1627, he took on the role of chief rabbi there.

Just two years later, some of the city’s Jewish community bristled at his involvement in tax collection, accusing him of determining tax rates unfairly. In June 1629, they denounced him to the government, which resulted in his arrest and summons to Vienna. He recounts the events in his autobiographical work, Megilas Eivah—an allusion to the first letters of the first four words of Megilas Eicha, written between 1644 and 1648. Initially placed under house arrest, he was imprisoned on the 17th of Tammuz and confined in a common jail with prisoners awaiting execution. He was denied visitors and remained isolated, “no one could speak with him, even via the window.” Two days later, following appeals from the Jewish community, he was transferred to a special prison and granted visitation rights. After forty days, the community agreed to pay a substantial fine, and he was released, almost immediately departing for Prague, never to return to Vienna. By 1643, he arrived in Krakow, where he served as chief Rabbi until his death in 1654. 

Megilas Eivah circulated in various manuscripts but was published only in 1836 (Davis 228 n31). While its authenticity is beyond doubt, the additional section that first appeared in the Hebrew 1880 edition is considered a forgery. Allegedly written by Heller’s son Samuel, it “has a quality reminiscent of Dumas and The Three Musketeers: [Heller] saves a young woman from a bull, and her husband, the French ambassador, intercedes on behalf of Rabbi Yom-Tov.” In 1905, “Moritz Steinschneider identified the source as based on a short story written by Ludwig Philippson (1811‒89), a rabbi and journalist, and the author of a series of Jewish historical novelettes and stories for young readers” (Davis 146 n36).

Samuel van Hoogstraten, Master of Illusion

Samuel van Hoogstraten was born in Dordrecht, one of the oldest cities in the Netherlands, on August 2, 1627. He was the eldest child of the artist Dirk van Hoogstraten and Maeiken de Coninck. Samuel started his art studies with his father, continuing until his father passed away in 1640. Around 1642, Samuel moved to Amsterdam and began studying under Rembrandt. He rapidly proved himself to be a standout student, leading classes, reviewing his classmates’ work, and so effectively absorbing his teachers’ lessons, that some of his works were mistakenly attributed to Rembrandt (Brusati 16-31). As part of the preparation for the current exhibit, “Young Woman at an Open Half-Door” (1645) has been reassigned to Hoogstraten (Illes; Van Sloten 125).

In 1651, Samuel traveled to Vienna, the epicenter of power and prestige within the Hapsburg Empire, seeking to enhance his reputation and standing among elite society. He succeeded almost immediately. Samuel’s student, Arnold Houbraken, recounted how, on August 6, 1651, Samuel presented three of his paintings to the emperor. The first two were well received, but “the third piece,” in the trompe l’oeil style, was a still life that captivated the Emperor, who appeared to be completely taken by it. He looked at it for a long time and, finding himself still deceived, said, ‘This is the first painter who has deceived me.’ And he went on to say that he would not get the picture back as a punishment for that deception, for the Emperor wished to keep it forever.” (Houbraken 2:157-58). However, Samuel did not leave empty-handed. The Emperor awarded him an imperial medallion and a gold chain, which he took immense pride in; this would become a standard element in his subsequent self-portraits and among the items he viewed as symbolic of successful artists (Hoogstraten 371-72; Brusati 54).

Hoogstraten broadly characterized art as a form of deception. In his magnum opus on the theory of painting and color, Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: anders de zichtbaere werelt (Introduction to the Academy of Painting; or, The Visible World), he describes what he considers the “perfect painting.” It “is like a mirror of nature; it makes things that are not there appear to exist and deceives in a permissible, pleasurable, and praiseworthy way” (Hoogstraten 79). One way to achieve this effect is by combining architectural elements such as open doors or windows and adding “some figures” to the composition, “by which many have been artfully deceived” (Hoogstraten 304). He takes pride in having accomplished this with his paintings completed in Vienna. One is “Old Man at a Window,” painted in 1653. (Brusati 65).

The Religious Conversion and Reversion of the Old Man at a Window 

The earliest catalogs describing the painting Old Man at a Window do not mention the man’s religious affiliation. It was not until the 19th century that two scholars suggested a Jewish connection, and even then, there was no mention of Heller. Nonetheless, this association never gained traction, and the painting continued to be described without any reference to Jews. We must wait until the 1950s for Heller’s connection to emerge. However, that link lacked any supporting evidence, leaving us in the dark about what prompted the change from an Old Man to Heller. Even that association was quickly dismissed due to the significant gap between when Heller was imprisoned and when Hoogstraten painted Old Man at a Window.

The 1653 painting is one of the first works by Hoogstraten that Emperor Charles II acquired for his castle in Prague, possibly commissioned specifically for him. The painting is described in detail in an early catalog:

No. 4. By Samuel van Hoogstraten. A lifelike, grey-bearded old man looks out of a window. His fur hat, the furrows on his face from his age, and his grey beard are so well painted that one believes one can see nature itself in each one. Hoogstraten, who did not only paint as a mere colorist, showed his deep insight into the subject and reflected light in the chiaroscuro and the deep and penetrating shadows. Just look at the head . . ., and you will find that in it, the master’s hand, which . . . expresses itself quite magnificently. The lead on the round window pane, the wooden frame, that is the glass frame, is also very well painted, but the window’s stone frame makes you believe entirely that it is the work of a mason, almost as if you can see the mason’s hand on it. The straw stalk lying on the window stone, the feather, and the bottle standing there are no less well-painted and serve to prove the excellence of the whole. This picture is painted on canvas, 3 feet 6 inches high, 2 feet and 9 inches wide. The head is life-size. The artist has engraved his monogram and the year 1653 on the window stone of this painting” (Rigler 163-164).

During the 17th century, two inventories were created for the collection. In both, the painting is described as “a man sticking his head out of the window through the shutter,” without any reference to the man’s religious affiliation or any connection to Rabbi Heller (Köpl clvnn330; Brusati 361n76). Hoogstraten’s Old Man at a Window was relocated to Vienna after the Habsburgs acquired the Belvedere Palace in the 1730s. The Palace is perhaps best known today for Gustav Klimt’s “The Kiss” and other notable Viennese Expressionists. In one of the earliest catalogs of the Belvedere by Christian van Mechel from 1783, the subject is referred to simply as a “grey-bearded man with a round fur hat on his head, looking out curiously from a window” (Mechel 84n4). That is how the description remained, unadorned with any religious identity until the 19^th century.

In the 19th century, two descriptions of the Old Man at a Window added his religion: he was a Jew. In 1839, German art historian Georg Rathgeber, in his study of Netherlandish art, asserts that “this picture’s title is “Böhmischen Juden,” “Bohemian Jew.’” Rathgeber disputes the identification not for its lack of historicity but because “the character of the facial features does not seem to correspond very well to” his antisemitic views on Jewish physiognomy (Rathgeber 147). Similarly, in 1861, French art critic Charles Blanc, in his encyclopedic work Histoire des Peintres de Toutes les Écoles, asserts that the Belvedere catalog now refers to the painting as “Un vieux juif (dit le Catalogue)” or “an old Jew (as it appears in the Catalog)” (Blanc 4). This portrait impressed Blanc and is among the few he reproduced in his discussion of Hoogstraten (Blanc 1). However, Blanc is notorious for identifying Jews in Rembrandt’s and his school’s works without any supporting evidence (Knotter and Schwartz 7-9). Contrary to the “catalog’s identification,” Blanc, like Rathgeber, asserts that the face “is not Israelite” (Blanc 2). Neither Blanc nor Rathgeber mentions Rabbi Heller.

Figure 2 Charles Blanc, Histoire des Peintres de Toutes les Écoles

Blanc’s and Rathgeber’s Jewish association did not take hold. For example, G.H. Veth, in his 1889 article discussing artists from Dordrecht, including Hoogstraten, cites Blanc and notes his reproduction of Old Man. However, Veth describes it without mentioning any Jewish connections (Veth 145). Similarly, a 1903 tour guidebook of Vienna confirms that at the Belvedere, the painting’s title remains unchanged as “Old Man at a Window” (Baedeker 73; cf. Gerson, 282).

Despite the absence of objective evidence and the dismissal of Blanc’s and Rathgeber’s 19th-century Semitic connection, one scholar in the 1950s cryptically associated Rabbi Heller with Hoogstraten’s painting. Margarethe Poch-Kalous, the head of the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna (Akademie der bildenden Künste in Wien), in her 1959 survey of Dutch art in Vienna, refers to the figure as “ein bärtiger alter Mann (Rabbi Heller),” “a bearded old man (Rabbi Heller)” (Poch-Kalous 198). The basis for her identification is opaque. Poch-Kalous’ two citations offer no support; neither mentions Heller nor suggests that the figure is even Jewish, nor does she reference Blanc or Rathgeber (Poch-Kalous 198 citing Engerth 207n928 and Köpl clvnn330).

Oddly, unlike other personalities, artists, and subjects discussed in her article, which consistently include personal names and birth and death dates, Poch-Kalous provides nothing beyond “Rabbi Heller.” This is especially puzzling for an article in the Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorische Sammlungen, whose readership is unlikely to be sufficiently familiar with the history of 17th-century Bohemian rabbis to provide the missing details.

Whatever the basis for Poch-Kalous’s connection between Hoogstraten’s painting and Heller, it was swiftly dismissed. In 1972, Klaus Demus, the art historian and curator at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, demonstrated that it was impossible for Heller to be the model. He explains that Heller was imprisoned in 1629, and by 1644, he was serving as a rabbi in Krakow, where he remained until his death in 1654. Hoogstraten, who was only two years old when Heller was imprisoned in Vienna, painted Old Man at a Window in 1653, long after Heller had left Vienna (Demus 47-48). Today, the Kunsthistorisches Museum’s website alludes to Poch-Kalous’ attribution and rejection: “According to a tradition that is now presumed to be mistaken, the man is Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller.” Hoogstraten’s “deception” and “illusion” did not extend to rendering persons he never saw.

Illustrious Jews and Illusionary Jewish Sources

Jewish sources similarly are not more persuasive in linking Heller to Hoogstraten’s painting. Generally, rabbinic portraits prior to the 19th century lack authenticity (Cohen), and Heller is no exception. Most of the few early verifiable images exist as frontispieces in books rather than as paintings, and none depict Eastern European rabbis. Heller’s image first appears in Jewish sources in the early twentieth century. It depicts an old man, yet he is completely different from Hoogstraten’s version. The first instance of Heller masquerading as the Old Man at a Window is over a decade after Demus debunks that theory!

Figure 3 Bader, Drasig Doyres, 175

The first Jewish source of an alleged portrait of Rabbi Heller appears in a Yiddish collection of stories and hagiographies of rabbis in Gerson Bader’s Drasig Doyres Yiden in Poylen, published in 1927 (Bader 175). Bader’s depiction of Rabbi Heller does not resemble the individual shown in Hoogstraten. Bader claims that his source is an “old drawing,” yet he does not provide any further details, such as where or when it was published.

Bader’s book features other alleged rabbinic images from “old drawings” that are demonstratably false. For example, Bader’s portrait of R. Aaron Shmuel Kaidanover, author of the Birkas ha-Zevach on Kodshim, is of the Karaite and forger Avraham Firkovich (1787-1875) (Bader 185). It is undoubtedly Firkovich, as it appears in his Avnei Zikaron, published in 1872, during his lifetime. Similarly, Bader misattributes Joseph Delmedigo’s (1591-1655) portrait from the frontispiece of his Sefer Elim (Amsterdam, 1629), and the photo of R. Shmuel Salant by Zadok Bassan, assigning them to alternative rabbinic figures (Bader 204, 321). Nonetheless, Bader’s depiction of Heller was often reproduced, to the extent that in a 2000 biography of Heller, it is referred to as “iyur amimi nafuts shel ha-Tosefos Yom Tov,” “the widespread folk image of the Tosefos Yom Tov” (Herskovics 32).

Figure 4 Bader, Drasig Doyres Yiden in Poylen, 175.

Figure 5 Firkovich, Avnei Zikhron, From the Gross Family Collection, The Center for Jewish Art

It was only in 1984 that a Jewish source connected the Hoogstraten painting to Rabbi Heller. The cover of the book The Feast and the Fast: The Dramatic Personal Story of Yom Tov Lipman Heller, a translation of Megilas Eivah, depicts Rabbi Heller in prison and is modeled on the figure in the Hoogstraten painting. To eliminate any doubt about the source of the cover art, the back of the book features reproductions of title pages from Heller’s works and his gravestone, along with a photo “of the drawing in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria, entitled ‘Man at the Window’ (1653) by Samuel Van Hoogstraten (1627-1678)” (Lipschitz and Rosenstein). A similar image was used for the cover illustration of another translation of Megilas Eivah published in 1991 (Heller). The English section of the 2000 biography of Heller reproduces the cover of The Feast and the Fast, describing it as “featuring a picture of the Tosefot Yom Tov” (Herskovics 101). However, it does not attempt to reconcile this image with the clearly different “widespread folk image” presented in the Hebrew section of the biography. Although not mentioned in any of these sources, they were presumably misled by the bars on the window. However, those are not prison bars; rather, as was common in that era, the windows were supported by these architectural elements (Hermans 249).

Figure 6 Cover, Feast and the Fast, 1984

By 1999, however, Jewish sources also recognized the impossibility of associating Heller with the painting. R Ya’akov Yeruchum Wreschner republished Megilas Eivah based on four editions and two manuscripts and includes a comprehensive introduction regarding Heller. In two footnotes within the introduction, Wreschner briefly addresses Heller’s connection, or lack thereof, to Old Man at a Window. Like Demas, Wreschner contends that the nearly twenty-five-year gap between Heller’s departure from Vienna and Hoogstraten’s painting of Old Man renders it impossible for Heller to have been the model. Wreschner asks rhetorically, how could Hoogstraten “paint Rabbenu [Heller] when he never set eyes on him?” (Wreschner Megilas 48n3). Wreschner also contacted the Kunsthistorisches Museum and received a response confirming that “not only is it not the Rabbi, but it is not even a Jew” (Wreschner Megilas 17n4). As a result, Wreschner refused to reproduce that portrait in his book. Similarly, despite being titled Portrait of a Seventeenth-Century Rabbi, the most recent academic biography of Heller by Joseph Davis includes neither the Hoogstraten portrait nor any other image of Heller (Davis).

In 2024, Wreschner published a significantly revised and retitled edition of his book. Despite discrediting Heller’s connection to the painting over twenty years ago, various Jewish books, newspapers, and other ephemera continue to publish Old Man at a Window and link it to Heller (e.g., Alfasi 137; Stern 184-86; Berman). Wreschner was, therefore, compelled to revisit the painting, presenting additional arguments and greater detail regarding his discussions with the Kunsthistorisches Museum.

Wreschner, in 1999, first spoke telephonically with the Director of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Dr. Karl Schütz, who confirmed that the painting was not connected to Heller. Schütz followed up with a letter detailing the sources for his rejection. Schütz stated that, with one exception, from the earliest catalogs to contemporary analyses of the painting, it was never associated with any specific individual, Jewish or otherwise. This is consistent with Hoogstraten’s intent, showcasing the trompe l’oeil technique rather than portraiture. The only time it appears – in Demus’s “detailed catalog of Dutch painters from 1972”—is solely to repudiate Poch-Kalous’s chronologically impossible and otherwise undocumented connection to Heller. Schütz also discredited the claim that following the Anschluss, the painting was categorized as Jewish art and consigned to the museum’s basement. On the contrary, a coterminous catalog lists the painting among those on display.

Despite Wreschner’s certitude about Schütz’s rejection, for unclear reasons, Wreschner attributes an otherwise unrecorded episode to Schütz. This alleged event appears to offer some support for linking Heller to the painting, but it is completely absent from the letter. According to Wreschner, the letter references an event in 1972 when an unidentified Jew approached the museum and claimed there was “a tradition that it was Tosefos Yom Tov” (Wreschner 2024, 24-26). The museum expressed skepticism about that tradition but did not completely dismiss it. In Wreschner’s retelling, it suggested the possibility that “a Jew conjured up Heller’s image and Hoogstraten copied it.” The actual text of the letter directly contradicts Wreschner’s account. Schütz references 1972 not as the date of an important meeting that supports the “legend” but as the first substantial discussion – by Demus – and his definitive rebuttal without mentioning a meeting with the Jew.

Beyond Schütz’s letter, Wreschner adds internal reasons why the painting cannot depict Heller in jail. The window is large enough for the man to stick his head out and features high-quality glass, an uncommon design for a prison. Furthermore, the expensive fur hat worn by the Man at a Window is an unlikely accessory in a prison housing hardened criminals sentenced to death and an incongruous headpiece for the July heat when Heller was imprisoned. Wreschner could have included another element in the painting that contrasts with a prison – the wall behind the Old Man has patterned wallpaper.

Following his earlier edition, Wreschner learned of an earlier source linking Heller to the painting, which is summarily dismissed. R. Shimon Fuerst, who lived in Vienna before 1940, in his book, Shem mi-Shimon, published in 1967, recalls visiting the museum where he saw firsthand “the painting made during the imprisonment” (Fuerst 426). Wreschner is unmoved by Fuerst’s identification. First, Fuerst was not an expert on Heller. Fuerst writes that Heller left Vienna to assume the Chief Rabbi position in Krakow, which is false. After his release, Heller returned to Prague, only leaving for Krakow fifteen years later. Aside from this obvious mistake, Fuerst’s opinion is irrelevant. Wreschner does not dispute Fuerst’s rabbinic bona fides, yet he is not an art historian. When faced with questions of rabbinic law, we defer to rabbis, but, according to Wreschner, “when it comes to questions of attribution of art, we look to experts in that field” (Wreschner 2024, 26). Regardless of the reliability of Fuerst’s claim, the mystery of Poche-Kalous’ source remains unsolved as her work predates Fuerst’s by four years.

Going Once, Twice, Three Times – Sold!

The identification of Heller with the Old Man at a Window is not the first, nor likely the last portrait erroneously attributed to a well-known Jew. One such example is the “traditional” portrait of the founder of the Hassidic movement, R Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov. This portrait depicts a Ba’al Shem, a Wonderworker, but not Yisrael; rather, it is of Ya’akov Falk of London (Oron). He was an alchemist and an eccentric, and according to R Ya’akov Emden, a crypto-Sabbatian. However, evidence does not always prevail. Books and numerous sukkah decorations continue to utilize this portrait.

There is even another Hoogstraten portrait that falls into this category. A 1670 Hoogstraten portrait now in the Jewish Museum in New York was previously associated with Baruch (Bento, Benedictus) Spinoza. This is just one of many alleged portraits of Spinoza. Yet, most, if not all, lack independent verification or directly contradict the existing evidence (Ekkart). Indeed, “It is the same with the portraits as with so many other aspects of Spinoza’s life: little can be said with any certainty” (qtd. in Ekkart 25). This portrait was first linked to Spinoza in 1929, partly based on “a slip of paper on the back bearing the scholar’s name” (Ekkart 5). It is unclear who made that determination or even when the paper was inserted into the back of the painting. Consequently, the Jewish Museum now describes the painting as “Portrait of a Man (previously thought to be Baruch Spinoza).”

Similarly, despite art historians and Jewish sources resoundingly rejecting Heller’s connection to the Old Man at a Window, it seems unlikely that the idea of Hoogstraten depicting Heller will be dislodged in the collective Jewish consciousness. The attribution is so deeply ingrained that someone spent a staggering $120,000 before fees on a late 19th-century reproduction of Hoogstraten’s painting.

Figure 7 Lot 318, Kestenbaum Auctions, March 12, 2014

In 2014, the American Judaica auction house Kestenbaum & Company listed an 1887 painting described as “Yom Tov Lipman Heller, Portrait: Imprisoned in Vienna,” with a $12,000-$18,000 estimate. The portrait also served as the front cover image of the catalog. It is described as “the celebrated portrait of the Tosefos Yom Tov” and claims that Hoogstraten “painted Rabbi Heller in 1653 and entitled it ‘Old Man in the Window.’” The catalog warns that “it is not known if van Hoogstraten ever met or saw [Heller]; however, it is likely that he was aware of the Rembrandt (School) painting of 1643 entitled ‘Portrait of an Old Jew’ (today in the National Gallery of Denmark) – where a similar, bearded Jewish man, with head cocked, looks emotively at the viewer.” Scholars acknowledge that elements of Man at a Window and other Hoogstraten paintings evoke “the face studies of costumed figures routinely produced in Rembrandt’s studio,” but this does not transform the man into a Jew, let alone Rabbi Heller. The Jewish identification of the painting in the National Gallery of Denmark is also of questionable relevance. Some aspects of that painting, most notably the chain around the man’s neck, make it highly unlikely that it depicts a Jew (Alexander-Knotter 80-81). The catalog’s only citation for attributing the subject to Heller is the 1984 book, The Fast and the Feast, mentioned earlier. It does not reference Demus’ or Wreschner’s discussions that challenge that attribution. 

The significance assigned to the artistic rendition of the original is also debatable. The 1887 reproduction bears the signature of the artist “Paul Krüger.” However, Krüger was not a recognized artist; instead, it was a commercial reproduction company in Vienna that commonly attached its labels to the works. Its full name is “Paul Krüger Atelier für Porträtmalerei in Wien” (Paul Krüger Studio for Portrait Painting in Vienna). The studio functioned in the late 19th century and reproduced numerous paintings from the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Today, for those wanting to display a similar commercial reproduction of the painting on their wall, it is available through many websites that specialize in creating highly accurate copies of famous artworks. One such site offers a hand-painted version, almost the exact size of the original, with a similar frame, for about $1,400.

If the buyer had waited a year, they could have acquired an earlier reproduction by a recognized and significant artist. On May 18, 2015, Ferdinand Waldmüller’s (1793-1865) painting “Old Man at the Window,” modeled after Hoogstraten and executed in 1819, was auctioned with an estimate of €22,400 to €28,000. Unlike Krüger’s shop, which served as a commercial entity, Waldmüller is regarded as one of “the most important Austrian painters of the Biedermeier period.” Nevertheless, the lot remained unsold.

The Krüger copy may not be the best reproduction, but the auction catalog description proved worthwhile for reproduction. Rabbi Moshe Bamberger is the author of a series of books on “Great Jewish” items published by Artscroll. One book focuses on letters, another on important Jewish books, and another titled Great Jewish Treasures, is “A Collection of Precious Judaica, Associated with Torah Leaders.” This work contains a chapter dedicated to “Artwork” that discusses some well-known examples of rabbinic images. He ably covers several of these topics and discusses the traditional portrayal of Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov, accurately aligning it with London’s Ba’al Shem, Jacob Falk.

Bamberger also includes a section focused on the “famous depiction of Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (1579-1654) peering through the window of his prison cell” and reproduces a version of the Hoogstraten painting. Bamberger tries to reconcile the inconsistency between the dates of imprisonment and the time when Hoogstraten painted Old Man. Bamberger’s source is the auction catalog, yet he seems to disagree with one item: which of Rembrandt’s “Jews” Hoogstraten supposedly used as a model for Heller. Rather than the 1643 “Portrait of an Old Jew” attributed to Rembrandt’s school and currently housed in the National Gallery of Denmark; according to Bamberger, the model was the subject of a painting by Rembrandt, also titled “Portrait of an Old Jew,” now held in the Hermitage Museum in Leningrad. Bamberger does not provide a rationale for selecting the Hermitage painting over the one in the National Gallery. Nevertheless, the Hermitage painting is equally unlikely to depict a Jew and is now referred to generically as “Man in an Armchair.” (Schwartz 371-373). Ironically, Bamberger’s use of the Hermitage painting only reinforces the unlikelihood that Heller served as a model for Hoogstraten. The Hermitage Rembrandt originates from 1654, one year after “Old Man in a Window.” Hoogstraten certainly did not use a nonexistent painting to model his artistic expression.

Whether we will ever fully explicate to our satisfaction the enigmatic history of Hoogstraten’s 1653 painting Old Man at a Window, Hoogstraten’s masterful execution of the Trompe l’oeil technique makes the painting worth seeking out on its own. The exhibition closed in Vienna on January 12, 2025, but relocated to Rembrandt House in Amsterdam, “The Illusionist. Samuel van Hoogstraten,” from February 1 to May 4, 2025. The Amsterdam exhibition is entirely dedicated to Hoogstraten. To accompany the Vienna exhibit, the Kunsthistorisches Museum published a collection of articles titled Rembrandt Hoogstraten: Colour and Illusion, edited by Dr. Sabine Pénot, the Curator of Netherlandish and Dutch Paintings at the museum. This book is of excellent quality, beautifully reproducing many of the exhibit’s paintings and etchings. One article is a detailed study of Hoogstraten’s process and technique in Old Man at a Window (Hermens). While it employs various infrared and other technologies to uncover what lies beneath the surface, no rabbi is lurking behind the layers of paint.

* I want to thank Dr. Shnayer Leiman for bringing to my attention Gershom Bader as the earliest source of Heller’s representation within Jewish sources. I also wish to thank Professor Marc Michael Epstein, Professor Marc Shapiro, Dr. Lara Lempertienė, and Menachem Butler for their thorough review of the draft and invaluable feedback, Dr. Sabine Pénot for scouring the Kunsthistorisches Museum’s collection for information regarding Heller’s link to the painting, and Shaul Seidler-Feller for his expertise in translating Yiddish. Additionally, I am grateful to Rabbi Yaakov Yeruchum Wreschner for sharing his correspondence with the Kunsthistorisches Museum, and, as always, Eliezer Brodt, whose enviable encyclopedic knowledge, which he freely shares, ensured I did not overlook crucial materials.

Sources:

Alexander-Knotter, Mirjam, et al. The ‘Jewish’ Rembrandt, The Myth Unraveled. Waanders Publishers/Jewish Historical Museum, [2006].

Bader, Gershom. Drasyig Doyres Yiden in Poylen. Oriom Press, 1927.

Bamberger, Moshe. Great Jewish Treasures. Artscroll, 2015.

Blanc, Charles. Histoire des Peintres de Toutes les Écoles, vol. 2, “Samuel van Hoogstraten”. Paris, 1861.

Brusati, Celeste. Artifice and Illusion: The Art and Writing of Samuel Van Hoogstraten. University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Cohen, Richard I. Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe. California UP, 1998.

Davis, Joseph M. Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller: Portrait of a Seventeenth-Century Rabbi. Littman Library of Civilization, 2004.

Demus, Klaus. Friderike. Katalog der Gemäldegalerie: Holländische Meister des 15., 16., und 17. Jahrhunderts. Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1972.

Ekkart, Rudi. Spinoza in Beeld: Het onbekende gezicht/Spinoza in Portrait: The Unknown Face. Amsterdam Vereniging het Spinozahuis, 1999.

Engerth, Eduard van. Gemälde Beschreibendes Verzeirchness, vol. 2. 1884.

Gerson, Horst. Ausbreitung und Nachwirkung der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts. De erven F. Bohn n. v, 1942.

Haberman, A.M. “Piyutav ve-shirav shel R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller.” Le-Kovod Yom Tov, edited by Judah Leib Maimon. Mosad HaRav Kook, 1956, pp. 125-145.

Heller, Yom Tov Lipmann. A Chronicle of Hardship and Hope. Translated by Avraham Yaakov Finkel, C.I.S. Publishers, 1991.

Hermens, Erma, et al. “Samuel van Hoogstraten’s Illusionistic Paintings for Emperor Ferdinand III – Two Case Studies.” Rembrandt Hoogstraten: Colour and Illusion, edited by Sabine Pénot. Hannibal, 2025, pp. 232-51.

Herskovics, Mayer. Two Guardians of the Faith: The History and Distinguished Lineage of Rabbi Yom Tov Lipman Heller and Rabbi Areyeh Leib Heller. Graphit Press, 2000.

Hoogstraten, Samuel Van. Introduction to the Academy of Painting; or, The Visible World. Edited by Celeste Brusati and Translation by Jaap Jacobs. Getty Research Institute, 2021.

Illes, Angelina. “List of Works.” Rembrandt Hoogstraten: Colour and Illusion, edited by Sabine Pénot. Hannibal, 2025, 258.

Knotter, Mirjam, and Gary Schwartz, editors. Rembrandt Seen Through Jewish Eyes: The Artist’s Meaning to Jews from His Time to Ours. Amsterdam UP, 2024.

Lipschitz Chaim Uri, and Neil Rosenstein, The Feast and the Fast: The Dramatic Personal Story of Yom Tov Lipman Heller. Moriah, 1984.

Mechel, Christian van. Verzeichniß der Gemälde der Kaiserlich Königlichen Bilder-Gallerie in Wien, Vienna, 1783.

Oron, Michal. Rabbi, Mystic, or Imposter. Translated by Edward Levin. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2020.

Poch-Kalous, Margarethe. “Das Legat Wolfgang van Wurzbach-Tannenberg an die Gemäldegalerie der Akademie der bildenden Künste in Wien,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien vol. 55, 1959.

Rathgerber, Georg. Annalen der Niederländischen Malerei und Kupferstecherkunst: Van Rubens Abreise nach Italien bis auf Rembrandt’s Tod. Gotha, 1839.

Rigler, Hieronumus. “Beschreibung und Beurtheilung verschiedener Gemälde der S.S. Bildergalerie in Belvedere van Hieronymus Rigler aus dessen 1783 herausgegebenen, ausser Wien wenig bekannten und bereits geendigten mächentlichen Anzeigen van Künstlern und Kunstsachen,” in Miscellaneen artistischen Innhalts, 21, 1784, pp. 158-177.

Schwartz, Gary. The Rembrandt Book. Abrams, 2006.

Stern, Yechiel Michel. Gedoli Ha-Doros. Minchas Yisrael, 1996.

Van Sloten, Leonore and David de Witt. “Challenged by Rembrandt,” in Samuel van Hoogstraten, The Illusionist. Edited by Nathalie Maciesza and Epco Runia. WBOOKS, 2025.

Wreschner, J. Megilat Eivah le-Ba’al Ha-TY”T.  [], Jerusalem, 1999.

Wreschner, J. Ha-Tosefos Yom Tov u-Megilaso. [], Beni Brak, 2024.

Appendix:

Hoogstraten’s painting was copied and reinterpreted multiple times, with variations in style and even gender. (See Brusati 361, which discusses two copies in royal collections.)

A few more examples:

A more compact version with a whiter and shaped bear is attributed to a Dutch painter of Hoogstraten’s school and possibly one of the versions mentioned by Brusati.

Described as 18^th Century Flemish School, without identification of a specific artist, sold for CHF 800.

Two versions: a man that is a crude likeness of Old Man in a Window and a woman wearing a linen cap sold for $2,000.

An alternative version of a woman was painted by Josef Hauzinger, (1726-1787), currently at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. A later version of this rendering appeared at auction in 2022.

Another example of a woman at the window is a 1936 Picasso painting.

Sale: Sefer on the Manna

By Eliezer Brodt

This week, we read Parshas Beshalach, and one of its key sections focuses on the Manna. As is well known, we live in a generation where there’s an explosion of information, and it’s simply impossible to know or read it all. Countless seforim have been written on virtually every topic, and the subject of the Manna is no exception.

In an upcoming podcast (to be released this week) from my Musings of a Book Collector Series, IY”H, I will delve deeper into the subject of the Manna and some of the recent literature about it.

One recent work I’d like to highlight is a remarkable sefer by Rabbi Abish Dachs, titled Otzar HaParshah: Parshas HaMan (Soft Cover, 435 pages), first published in 2024. This comprehensive, encyclopedic exploration covers every aspect of the Manna in great detail.

The sefer is currently available for purchase exclusively through me, while supplies last, as it has yet to be sold anywhere else. For more information or to order a copy, please contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.

Below is the Table of Contents, which provides a glimpse of the vast range of topics addressed in the book.

New Books from Kodesh Press

By Eliezer Brodt

The Seforim Blog is proud to announce the publication of our frequent contributor Mitchell First’s newest book From Eden to Exodus: A Journey into Hebrew Words in Bereshit and Shemot. It comprises short essays on the parshas in Bereshit and Shemot, mostly related to words.

Here is the table of contents:

Available for purchase from Kodesh Press here

I would also like to point out two other special recent new books from Kodesh Press:

1. Rabbi Gil Student’s Articles of Faith: Traditional Jewish Belief in the Internet Era.

Here is the table of contents:

Available for purchase from Kodesh Press here

2. Dr. Moshe Sokolow’s Pursuing Peshat:

Here is the table of contents:

Available for purchase from Kodesh Press here

Half Faith, Half Heresy: Between S.Y. Agnon and Gershom Scholem

Jeffrey Saks

The bonds of friendship between S.Y. Agnon and Gershom Scholom are well documented in their writings and in the copious scholarship on the celebrated Nobel laureate and the revered professor of Jewish mysticism. In this context, the interview that Dan Miron conducted with Scholem about Agnon (broadcast on Israeli television in February 1981, a year before Scholem’s death) is noteworthy. The recording (part 1 not preserved; part 2 and 3 available) and the transcript of the interview (in Hebrew or translation) are available online.

Agnon and Scholem met during the First World War, in the reading room of the Jewish Community Library in Berlin. Last summer, we marked the centennial of the burning of Agnon’s house in Bad Homburg, an event that brought the writer’s fruitful stay in Germany to an end. On the night of June 4-5, 1924, Agnon’s fellow tenant set fire to his apartment in the shared building in an act of arson and insurance fraud, thus proving the Sages’ adage, “Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor” (M. Negaim, 12:6). The Agnon family lost almost all of their possessions in this fire. In addition to the manuscripts of two almost-finished books, “four thousand Hebrew books, most of which I inherited from my ancestors and some of which I bought with money I scrimped from my daily bread,” went up in flames, as Agnon later recounted in his speech at the Nobel Prize ceremony in 1966. Among these 4,000 books was at least one that Agnon had received as a gift from Scholem: the young scholar’s first publication, Das Buch Bahir, a product of Scholem’s doctoral dissertation. It was an annotated German translation of a Hebrew manuscript from 1298 of that ancient Kabbalistic text. The book was published by Druglin in Leipzig in 1923, and subtitled Ein Schriftdenkmal aus der Frühzeit der Kabbala auf Grund der kritischen Neuausgabe, which means: “A written monument from the early days of Kabbalah based on a new critical edition.” It appeared in a series called Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Jüdischen Mystik (Sources and Researches on the History of Jewish Mysticism). On the cover, decorated with a woodcut image of a Kabbalist next to a diagram of the Ten Sefirot, is the title “Qabbala.” The backstory of the publication of this dissertation—published at the height of the German inflationary period on a rather esoteric subject—is told by Scholem in From Berlin to Jerusalem: Memories of My Youth (Schocken Books, 1980), 142-143.

In the same year that he published his edition of the Bahir, Scholem left Germany for the Land of Israel, arriving on Yom Kippur 1923. A little over a year later, Agnon also left Germany and returned to Jerusalem on Friday, erev Shabbat Parashat Noah 1925. Upon renewing their relationship, Scholem gave Agnon another copy of his book in place of the original, which had been consumed by the flames in Bad Homburg. As an inscription Scholem wrote:

Scholem inscription to Agnon on Das Buch Bahir (Agnon House Library, #2473).

A gift to my friend S.Y. Agnon
May this enter the treasury of his books
Instead of Replacing the first one that was burned
From me, his faithful loving [friend]
Gershom Scholem

Like many new arrivals he was self-conscious of his Hebrew, making occasional errors in his speech (less so in writing). The inscription shows that Scholem had written and crossed out the word bimkom, replacing it with the more poetic tahat. Is there a hint in this edit (on a note to one he considered master of the Hebrew language) to this self-consciousness on the part of the new immigrant to the Hebrew Republic? Upon his arrival in Jerusalem, Scholem deliberated between two job offers: teaching mathematics in a high school or working in the National Library. It was clear that librarianship was a better fit for his personality and interests, but he himself admitted that he was afraid that in school “who could say whether my pupils would not laugh at my Berlin-accented Hebrew?” (From Berlin to Jerusalem, 163).

The Agnon House library in Jerusalem preserves dozens of books, booklets, and offprints by Scholem, many of which bear dedications from the author to Agnon. Agnon, for his part, paid tribute to Scholem and he too inscribed books in exchange (see, for example, an enigmatic dedication from 1952 to his book Ad Henah, published by David Assaf on the Oneg Shabbat website).

One of the most interesting dedications is written on an offprint of Schalom’s well-known article “Mitzvah Ha-ba’ah be-Aveirah,” which was first printed in Knesset: Divrei Sofrim in Memory of H.N. Bialik, vol. 2, edited by Fischel Lachower (Bialik Institute, 1937), 347-392.

The article appears in English as “Redemption Through Sin,” translated by Hillel Halkin, in The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (Schocken Books, 1971), 78-141 (the acknowledgment on p. 365 misstates the publication date as 1937 rather than the correct December 1936).

This is one of Scholem’s most important studies that broke new ground in understanding Sabbateanism, and it shaped all subsequent research on the subject. Later, the article was republished at the beginning of his collection Mehkarim u-Mekorot le-Toldot ha-Shabtaut (Bialik Institute, 1974), and just last year in a new edition edited by Yonatan Meir, supplemented with an introduction, a comparison of the article’s manuscripts and published versions, notes, and appendices (Blima Books, 2024).

In this broad-ranging article, Scholem sets Sabbateanism as a touchstone through which the continuity of Israel’s history should be reassessed. In his opinion, that false messianic movement led to a disconnect between Halakha and Rabbinic Judaism, on one side, and Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism on the other. The vacuum created in the space in between allowed the rise of modern movements such as the Jewish Enlightenment, secularism, and Zionism. One of Scholem’s well-known assertions in this article is that Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz was a believer in Shabbtai Zvi, as his contemporary Rabbi Yaakov Emden had claimed (see the Y. Meir edition, p. 52 and especially in n. 15). This claim provoked the ire of scholars from the rabbinical world, which may explain the Hebrew rhyme that Scholem wrote on the offprint he gifted to Agnon:

Scholem inscription to Agnon on “Mitzvah Ha-ba’ah be-Aveira” (Agnon House Library).

Half-faith and half-heresy
Almost completely undisguised
To S.Y. Agnon, with friendships’ blessing
From me, Gershom Scholem

In the 1981 interview with Dan Miron, Scholem mentioned the fact that Agnon stood by him when he was attacked by religious and Haredi scholars who were upset by what he wrote in “Mitzvah Ha-ba’ah be-Aveirah” and in subsequent articles. Miron asked about this and the extent of Agnon’s interest in academic research in Jewish studies in general. Scholem replied:

He was interested, he wanted to hear details, understand my grounds for saying what I did. The details were what interested him, the research. He stood up for me when rabbis came and said to him: He’s such an aberration, that Scholem—a perfect ignoramus where the Torah is concerned, Talmud he knows nothing of—and he says the most outrageous things about Sabbetaians, and so on and so forth. Because so long as I wrote about the Zohar, nobody cared a bit, you see, but when I happened to mention in one line—after being convinced of the truth of it—that Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz had been a Sabbetaian—Heaven help me! Agnon’s friends from Poalei Agudat Yisrael—that was a large part of Agnon’s theatrics, his friendship with the Poalei Agudat Yisrael people—well, their rabbis called on him and they said whatever it was, and Agnon told them: “You don’t understand what it’s all about, you don’t understand what Scholem is doing.” So when I came to see him, he told me: “Rabbi So-and-So just left here ten minutes ago, and he called you a…” And he told me what his answer to the rabbi had been too. In a word, Agnon could have regard for a scholar when he considered there was some point to his work. And in all, it was a matter of individuals—respecting some, and some not—because research as such didn’t frighten him, because what did he care whether the Zohar was written at the time of the Tannaim so and so many centuries later. Agnon would have been the first to understand a thing like that. But the world of research in general—that, I think, did not exist for Agnon.

“Gershom Scholem on Agnon: Interview by Dan Miron—Part Two,” Ariel 53 (1983), 62-63.

It is unclear who Agnon’s Haredi “friends from Poelei Agudat Yisrael” were. It is possible that at the time of the interview, 45 years after the publication of “Mitzvah Ha-ba’ah be-Aveirah,” Scholem confused them with members of Mizrachi and the Religious Zionist Community, since among his staunch critics were Yitzhak Werfel (later Yitzhak Raphael, who also went under the penname A. Hashiloni) and Rabbi Reuven Margolies (1889-1971), both of whom were identified with Religious Zionism.

After Scholem deepened and substantiated his assertion regarding R. Eybeschutz’s Sabbatean beliefs (in a critical review of a psychoanalytic biography of R. Emden written in English by Mortimer Cohen), Margolies published a harsh response against Scholem. Margolies, who authored dozens of Torah books, was then the chief librarian of the Maimonides Library in Tel Aviv (now part of Beit Ariella) and was a distinguished Torah scholar. The current librarian, R. Avishai Elbom, published a column “Rabbi Reuven Margolies vs. Professor Gershom Scholem” (Am HaSefer Blog, 2021) reviewing the controversy that spilled over into adjacent topics in Zohar research.

Rabbi Reuven Margolies (1967)

Scholem, for his part, authored a twenty-page pamphlet published by Schocken in 1941 and titled Leket Margaliot (whose English subtitle would be: Assessing the New Defense of Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz). It is reprinted in his Mehkarei Shabtaut, edited by Yehuda Liebes (Am Oved, 1991), 686-706, with a bibliographical appendix reviewing the substance and stages of the debate. The pamphlet was a sharply worded response to Margolies’ criticisms.

A copy of the pamphlet with an inscription from Scholem to Agnon survives in the Agnon House collection:

Scholem inscription to Agnon on Leket Margaliot (Agnon House Library, #2839).

To S.Y. Agnon, my friend and comrade in the war against the ignoramuses (amei ha’aretz).
With blessings, Gershom Scholem

Agnon appreciated Scholem’s dual personality: an open faith and an almost undisguised heresy. As far as we know, he had little or no relationship with R. Reuven Margolies, who was also a native of Galicia, despite their common affinities. The years of Agnon’s and Margolies’ lives overlapped almost entirely. Margolies, a Lviv native studied in Agnon’s hometown of Buchach, receiving semikha from Rabbi Meir Arik (1855-1925), the town’s dayyan and posek, who appears a number of times in Agnon’s ‘Ir u-Meloah (A City in Its Fullness), a collection of his tales of Buchach. The Agnon House library has thirteen of Margolies’ books in its collection, but unlike the inscriptions that memorialize the warm friendship between Agnon and Scholem, there is not a single dedication to Agnon in Margolies’ books.

Rabbi Jeffrey Saks, Director of ATID and its WebYeshiva.org program, is Director of Research at Agnon House in Jerusalem and editor of the journal Tradition. Thanks to Profs. David Assaf and Yonatan Meir for their assistance.