Editing Sabbateans (section)

===The Emden-Eybeschutz controversy===
{{main|Jacob Emden|Jonathan Eybeschutz}}
The [[Emden-Eybeschutz Controversy|Emden-Eybeschutz controversy]] was a serious rabbinical disputation with wider political ramifications in Europe that followed the accusations by Rabbi [[Jacob Emden]] (1697–1776), a fierce opponent of the Sabbateans, against Rabbi [[Jonathan Eybeschutz]] (1690–1764) whom he accused of being a secret Sabbatean.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}

The Emden-Eybeschutz controversy arose concerning the [[amulet]]s which Emden suspected Eybeschutz of issuing. It was alleged that these amulets recognized the messianic claims of Sabbatai Zevi.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}} Emden then accused Eybeschutz of heresy. Emden was known for his attacks directed against the adherents, or those he supposed to be adherents, of Sabbatai Zevi. In Emden's eyes, Eybeschutz was a convicted Sabbatean.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}} The controversy lasted several years, continuing even after Eybeschutz's death.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}

Emden's assertion of [[Heresy in Judaism|heresy]] was chiefly based on the interpretation of some amulets prepared by Eybeschutz, in which Emden professed to see Sabbatean allusions. Hostilities began before Eybeschutz left [[Prague]]; when Eybeschutz was named chief rabbi of the three communities of [[Altona, Hamburg|Altona]], [[Hamburg]], and [[Wandsbek]] in 1751, the controversy reached the stage of intense and bitter antagonism. Emden maintained that he was at first prevented by threats from publishing anything against Eybeschutz. He solemnly declared in his synagogue the writer of the amulets to be a Sabbatean heretic and deserving of [[Herem (censure)|''ḥerem'' (excommunication)]].{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}

The majority of the rabbis in [[Poland]], [[Moravia]], and [[Bohemia]], as well as the leaders of the Three Communities, supported Eybeschutz:{{citation needed|date=April 2015}} the accusation was "utterly incredible".

In July 1725, the Ashkenazic [[beth din]] of Amsterdam had issued a ban of excommunication on the entire Sabbatian sect ({{transliteration|he|kat ha-ma’aminim}}). Writings of Sabbatian nature found by the beit Din at that time were attributed to Eybeschutz.<ref>Emden, Beit Yehonatan ha-Sofer, fol. 4.</ref> In early September, similar proclamations were issued by the ''batei din'' of Frankfurt and the triple community of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck. The three bans were printed and circulated in other Jewish communities throughout Europe.<ref>Excerpts from the testimonies were printed by Emden in his Beit Yehonatan ha-Sofer, Altona 1762, fol. 4v; the full text of the testimonies, letters, and proclamations pertaining to the investigation can be found in [Josef Prager], Gahalei Esh, Oxford, Bodleian Library. Ms. 2186, Vol. I, fols. 70r -129</ref> [[Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen|Rabbi Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen]], the chief rabbi of the Triple Community and [[Moses Hagiz|Rabbi Moses Hagiz]]<ref name="Gahalei Esh, Vol. I, fol. 54">Gahalei Esh, Vol. I, fol. 54</ref> were unwilling to attack Eybeschütz publicly, mentioning that "greater than him have fallen and crumbled" and that "there is nothing we can do to him".<ref name="Gahalei Esh, Vol. I, fol. 54"/> However, Rabbi Katzenelenbogen stated that one of the texts found by the Amsterdam beit din ''Va'avo Hayom el Ha'Ayin'' "And I Came This Day into the Fountain" was authored by Jonathan Eybeschütz and declared that the all copies of the work that were in circulation should be immediately burned.<ref>Prager, Gahalei Esh, Vol. I, fol. 54v.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Maciejko |first1=Paweł |title=The Rabbi and the Jesuit: On Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschütz and Father Franciscus Haselbauer Editing the Talmud |journal=Jewish Social Studies |date=2014 |volume=20 |issue=2 |page=147 |doi=10.2979/jewisocistud.20.2.147 |s2cid=161462387 }}</ref> Emden later suggested that the rabbis decided against attacking Eybeschutz out of a reluctance to offend his powerful family and a fear of rich supporters of his living in their communities.<ref>Emden, Sefer Hitabbkut, fos. 1v-2r</ref> As a result of Eybeschutz and other rabbis in Prague formulating a new (and different) ban against Sabbatianism in September of that year his reputation was restored and Eybeschutz was regarded as having been totally vindicated.<ref>[Prager], Gahalei Esh, fol.112r</ref> The issue was to arise again, albeit tangentially, in the 1751 dispute between Emden and Eybeschutz.

The controversy was a momentous incident in [[Jewish history]] of the period, involving both [[Yechezkel Landau]] and the [[Vilna Gaon]], and may be credited with having crushed the lingering belief in Sabbatai current even in some Orthodox circles. In 1760 the quarrel broke out once more when some Sabbatean elements were discovered among the students of Eybeschutz' [[yeshiva]]. At the same time his younger son, Wolf, presented himself as a Sabbatean prophet, with the result that the yeshiva was closed.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}}