Great lecture. Thank you Rabbi. BTW when listening with earphones, the sound only works on one side. Something to fix for future lectures. I'm not an audio professional, but my earphones are top notch so it's definitely an issue with the recording.

The GRA didn't end the controversy. In fact, as the GRA states in his letter printed in Luchos Edus, he declined to opine on the matter at all.

Megillas Eivah from the TY'T doesnt constitute an earlier autobiography?

Great lecture! I was trying to better understand the two rabbis disagreement and was struggling. You explained it so clearly. Thank you. Very interesting.

@HenryAbramsonPhD

Жыл бұрын

Wonderful!

When is the next lecture?

Great lecture as always! Do you know what the position of the chassidic community was on the eibishitz controversy? And just to clarify, was Rabbi Emden pro concubines or polygamy?

Hello Professor Abramson. I really enjoy your lectures and have learned a lot from you. With all due respect, this is the only lecture I have seen in which I think you are unaware of very important scholarship and have misrepresented the actual history, from both a rabbinic and academic perspective. Briefly: 1. It is not true that the dispute over Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz’s embrace of Sabbateanism began in 1751 with the discovery that he wrote Sabbatean amulets. Actually, it began 26 years earlier with a much more serious violation than the amulets. In 1725, Eybeschutz’s disciple and emissary, R’ Moshe Meir Kamanker of Wolkief was discovered to be distributing Eybeschutz’s heretical, Sabbatean, kabbalistic work, Ve-Avo Ha-Yom El Ha-Ayin. That book is full of so much antinomian heresy, including kabbalistic justification for all sorts of prohibitions, including deviant sexuality. The rabbinic leadership of the generation felt it would be a much greater Chillul HaShem to publicize that this heresy was authored by one of the leading gedolim and roshei yeshiva of the generation, and they therefore allowed Eybeschutz to deny that he wrote it and to speak against the book. But it is very interesting that his “disavowal” of the book was written in a manner that Sabbateans would recognize contained encoded messages that in fact he approved of its contents and that he believed in the Messiahship of Shabbatai Tzevi You. You can read about this here: www.kotzkblog.com/2020/10/. You can also read about this in Pawel Maciejko’s critical edition of Ve-Avo Ha-Yom. 2. I understand why it is so difficult for members of our community to believe that the author of the Urim Ve-Tumim, Ya’arot Devash, and the Kereisi U-Peleisi could have been the European leader of all of the crypto-Sabbateans, but it is simply not plausible to imagine, as you suggest, that perhaps Sabbatean ideas had made their way into mainstream seforim. To the contrary the Amulets which he wrote contained encoded messages declaring Shabbatei Tzevi’s kingship and divinity. And they were written in an encoded manner in order to conceal all of this. These are not “ideas” which “made their way into the mainstream” of Jewish thought. These are explicit Sabbatean declarations which Eybeschutz did not want anyone to realize he had endorsed. He knew that these ideas are considered heretical. 3. If anyone doubts what I wrote above in (2), please see Sid Leiman’s article showing the amazing discovery of the records from the Beis Din of Metz, where the mazkir of the Beis Din has notarized his copies of the contents of the amulets in question. And this Court Official was actually a loyal student of Eybeschutz who did not want to turn on his Rebbe, but he fulfilled his obligation to carry out his duties to the community and to report what he saw honestly. In addition, his denials of the amulets attest to his consciousness of guilt. He first denied that they were Sabbatean codes, then he said his eyesight failed, him and he miht have made errors. None of this is plausible. You can read about all of this this here: leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/95.%20New%20Evidence%20on%20the%20Emden-Eibeschuetz%20Controversy%20The%20Amulets%20from%20Metz.pdf 4. It is not true at all that the Vilna Gaon “settled” the controversy. First of all the Vilna Gaon was not yet the leader of the generation in 1751. He was a rising star, but he did not yet have a stature that equaled Eybeschutz, Yaakov Yehoshua Falk (the Pnei Yehoshua), Dovid Oppenheimr. Yechezkel Katznellenbogen, Yechezkel Landau (the Nodeh BiYhuda) or even Yaakov Emden). Furthermore, the Gra” did not exonerate Eybeschutz at all. He opted out of taking a stand. In fact it has been shown that the letter allegedly writte by the Gr”a which Eybeschutz included in his Luchot Edut was in fact a forgery by his disciple, Shimon Rogoler: leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/82.%20When%20a%20Rabbi%20is%20Accused%20of%20Heresy%20The%20Stance%20of%20the%20Gaon%20of%20Vilna.pdf 5. It is also not true that Emden was the leading player among the anti-Eybeschutz forces. He was the most important historian/polemicist of the controversy, but the most important anti-Eybeschutz authority was the leading posek of the generation, the Pnei Yehoshua. It really should not be called the Emden-Eybeschutz controversy. Here is a summary of Yaakov Yehoshua Falk’s stance on Eybeschutz, including the cherem he issued against him, which restates the huge amount of testimony which was heard against Eybeschutz throughout the rabbinic courts of central Europe, and a summary of the different approaches used by leading rabbis to oppose Eybeschutz. leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/82.%20When%20a%20Rabbi%20is%20Accused%20of%20Heresy%20The%20Stance%20of%20the%20Gaon%20of%20Vilna.pdf Therefore, even though much of the popular Orthodox world is unaware of the evidence against Eybeschutz, It is not fair to say that Eybeschutz’s Sabbateanism remains a matter of scholarly debate. Again, I really love your lectures and have learned so much from them. This is the only lecture which I have yet heard which seems to be unaware of both the traditional as well as academic scholarship about the Eybeschutz controversy. Sincerely yours, Nachum Klafter, Cincinnati OH.

@davester1010

4 ай бұрын

Over the past few days, I became very interested in R' Eybeschutz's alleged connections to Sabbateanism, and reviewed many of the sources you site in your comment. Mainly, I read the scholarly articles of Lyman, Schachter and Maciejko. I also listened to a few podcasts featuring Professor Maciejko. My interest in the subject is what led me to this video. I generally agree with the conclusions in your comment to this video. (p.s. I let my children create a KZread Channel on my Google account; hence the name of the account).

the sound is not working for me.

@Zelator1000

8 жыл бұрын

+Henry Abramson The audio in the intro is fine but during the talk the audio is extremely soft. I've tried both on my laptop and phone and the issue is the same.

oh! thank you so much for uploading this video Dr. Abramson. If some day you can give a lecture on the greek septuagint, the dead sea scrolls or the consonantic hebrew text (that is what we know it in México) I'd apreciate it. hi from Mexico City.

@OscarRamirez-we3gh

8 жыл бұрын

+Henry Abramson oh! please at least the consonantic hebrew text! i got the feeling i will have to beg you video after video. looking foreard for the next one.

@OscarRamirez-we3gh

8 жыл бұрын

+Henry Abramson how about a lecture on Rashi?

@OscarRamirez-we3gh

8 жыл бұрын

+Henry Abramson thank you so much. Just need my popcorn... joke. Thank you very much. I'll wacht it right now.

thank you for the dialectic theory of Zohar origins; even when two theories seem completely opposite, I usually assume there is some truth to be uncovered in both.

Will Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks be known as a great Jewish leader 100 years from now? It appears that he represents Modern Orthodox interests yet aims to articulate an universal vision as well as to strengthen interfaith programs. (Maybe you could do a video on contemporary Jewish leaders... of course, allowing a space on the list for yourself! :)

You completely distorted his book. He clearly says he hated rabbinate and only took the emden job becuse they begged him and when he left they Kept the position empty for years on the chance he came back . Furthermore when he came to Altona the rabbi katzelebogen didn't like him at first because he thought he would take away from his power, when he realized he wasn't there for power he started to love rabbi emden.you also didn't mention rabbi yeshousha falk agreed with him regarding eibschutz with a letter , also the letter that the gra got involved was said to be done even though he knew eibschutz was a sabbatan but the revelation would of destroyed the Jewish world so he showed support and letters that have been found in recent time back it up , including eibschutz students and son being confirmed sabbatan and Christians

Rabbi Yaacov Emden Z”L, was my Great Great Great … grand father …

@HenryAbramsonPhD

5 ай бұрын

Interesting