Avodah Mailing List

Volume 39: Number 29

Wed, 31 Mar 2021

• 1. Re: A Question Raised by the Shabbatai Tzvi Movement (Prof. Levine)
• 2. R. Eybeschutz and ST (Prof. Levine)
• 3. updated short (in English) tshuvos from Horav Shlomo Miller of Toronto (3100 questions) (mco...@touchlogic.com)
• 4. Correct Spelling Of Foreign Terms (Jay F. Shachter)
• 5. Re: Can Egg Matzah Be Used for Lechem Mishna? (Akiva Miller)

At 03:30 PM 3/24/2021, Micha Berger wrote:
>Ask R Yonasan Eybshutz and R Yaaqov Emden.
>
>There was a LOT of speaking up and finger pointing by the gedolei
>hador. Didn't help.

There was not a LOT of speaking up and finger pointing by the gedolei 
hador.  Jacob Sasportas was the one who had the courage to come out 
against the movement.  He was essentially a loan voice.  Others 
either went along with the movement or said nothing.

R. Eybeschutz was himself suspected of being a follower of ST. in 
fact, I believe that his son outwardly became a follower.  Whether R. 
Eybeschutz was indeed a follower was never fully determined.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz

YL

At 06:24 PM 3/24/2021, mi...@aishdas.org wrote:
>I grew up living around the corner from the home of R SZ Leiman. He davened
>(davens?) in the shteibl where my father sheyichyeh was president. I kind of
>heard this story before, in a lot more detail. Which is why my post got
>written to begin with.
>
>You are mistaken. The RYE vs RYE fight was one of many.

Keep in mind that Rabbi Eybeschutz was born in 
1690,  long after Shabbatai Tzvi converted to 
Islam. Indeed ST died in 1676. Hence he could not 
have been involved in any discussion about ST 
being Moshiach when ST was alive.  Rabbi Yaakov 
Emden was born in 1697, so he also could not have 
been involved in any discussions about ST being Moshiach when ST was alive.

The following is from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz

Already in Prague 1724, he was suspected of being 
a 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatean>Sabbatean. 
He even got up on 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur>Yom 
Kippur to denounce the Sabbatean movement, but he 
remained 
suspected.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-ReferenceA-2>[2] 
Therefore, In 1736, Rav Eybeschutz was only 
appointed 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayan_(rabbinic_judge)>dayan 
of Prague and not chief rabbi. He became rabbi of 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metz>Metz in 1741. 
In 1750, he was elected rabbi of the "Three 
Communities:" 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altona,_Hamburg>Altona, 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg>Hamburg, 
and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandsbek>Wandsbek.

In July 1725, the Ashkenazic beit din of 
Amsterdam issued a ban of excommunication on the 
entire Sabbatian sect (kat ha-ma?aminim). 
Writings of Sabbatian nature found by the beit 
Din at that time were attributed to Rav 
Eybeschutz 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-3>[3] 
In early September, similar excommunication 
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.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-4>[4] 
Rabbi Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen, the chief rabbi 
of the Triple Community 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-5>[5] 
was unwilling to attack Rav Eybesch?tz publicly, 
mentioning that ?greater than him have fallen and 
crumbled? and that ?there is nothing we can do to 
him? 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-6>[6] 
However, Rabbi Katzenelenbogen stated that one of 
the texts found by the Amsterdam beit din "Va-Avo 
ha-Yom el ha-Ayyin? was authored by Rav Jonathan 
Eybesch?tz and declared that the all copies of 
the work that were in circulation should be 
immediately burned. 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-7>[7]As 
a result of Rav Eybeschutz and other rabbis in 
Prague formulating a new (and different) ban 
against Sabbatianism shortly after the other bans 
were published, his reputation was restored and 
Rav Eybeschutz was regarded as having been 
totally 
vindicated.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-8>[8] 
The issue was to arise again, albeit 
tangentially, in the 1751 dispute between Rav Emden and Rav Eybeschutz.


Sabbatian controversy

Rav Eybesch?tz again became suspected of 
harboring secret Sabbatean beliefs because of a 
dispute that arose concerning the 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amulet>amulets 
which he was suspected of issuing. It was alleged 
that these amulets recognized the Messianic 
claims of 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi>Sabbatai 
Zevi.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-EB1911-9>[9] 
The controversy started when Rav Yaakov Emden 
found serious connections between the Kabbalistic 
and homiletic writings of Rav Eybeschutz with 
those of the known Sabbatean 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Leib_Prossnitz>Judah 
Leib Prossnitz, whom Rav Eybesch?tz knew from his 
days in 
Prossnitz.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-ReferenceA-2>[2] 
Rabbi 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Emden>Jacob 
Emden accused him of 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy>heresy.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-EB1911-9>[9] 
The majority of the rabbis in Poland, Moravia, 
and Bohemia, as well as the leaders of the Three 
Communities supported Rav Eybesch?tz: the 
accusation was "utterly incredible"?in 1725, Rav 
Eybesch?tz was among the Prague rabbis who 
excommunicated the 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatean>Sabbateans. 
Others suggest that the Rabbis issued this ruling 
because they feared the repercussions if their 
leading figure, Rav Eybesch?tz, was found to be a 
Sabbatean. Rabbi Jacob Emden suggests 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 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-10>[10] 
The recent discovery of notarial copies of the 
actual amulets found in Metz and copying the 
amulets written by Rav Eyebeschutz support Rav 
Emden's view that these are Sabbatean 
writings.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-11>[11]

In 1752, the controversy between Rav Emden and 
Rav Eybesch?tz raged.Clashes between opposing 
supporters occurred in the streets drawing the 
attention of the secular 
authorities.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-12>[12] 
Rav Emden fled. The controversy was heard by both 
the Senate of Hamburg and by the Royal Court of 
Denmark. The Hamburg Senate quickly found in 
favour of Rav 
Eybeschutz.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-13>[13] 
The King of Denmark asked Rav Eybeschutz to 
answer a number of questions about the 
amulets.Conflicting testimony was put forward and 
the matter remained officially 
unresolved<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-14>[14] 
although the court imposed fines on both parties 
for civil unrest and ordered that Rav Emden be 
allowed to return to 
Altona.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-15>[15] 
At this point Rav Eybeschutz was defended by Carl 
Anton, a convert to Christianity, but a former 
disciple of Rav 
Eybesch?tz.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-16>[16] 
Rav Emden refused to accept the outcome and sent 
out vicious pamphlets attacking Rav 
Eybeschutz.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-17>[17] 
Rav Eyebeschutz was re-elected as Chief Rabbi. In 
December of that year, the Hamburg Senate 
rejected both the King's decision and the 
election result. The Senate of Hamburg started an 
intricate process to determine the powers of Rav 
Eybesch?tz, and many members of that congregation 
demanded that he should submit his case to rabbinical authorities.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210324/97ed2647/attachment-0001.html>

RYGB writes.I would be leery of psakim quoted from RSM. 

 

I have personally been present multiple times when Rabbi Bartfeld discusses
his questions w RSM.

RB often will write them up, and then review his written answer (if complex)
with RSM a second time.

 

I can't promise that broken telephone has never occurred, but the process is
pretty error free.

 

Offhand I have only found one RB psak that was different than what RSM told
me personally (wearing snowshoes where there is no eruv). It is possible
that RSM has changed his mind on that issue (it has been 25yrs+ since I
asked the original shaylah)

 

As for your question, I personally have discussed whipped cream from a can
on Shabbos with RSM and it is true that he is matir, and is also not
concerned with the shape (round, T, etc) formed in the whipped cream by the
tip either.

As for your question from foaming soap, yesh l'tareitz

KT, CKvS,

MC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210324/84a57a54/attachment-0001.html>

>
>>
>> So, I think that one must ask, "Where was Daas Torah when it came
>> to the Shabbatai Movement?
>>
>
> Ask R Yonasan Eybshutz and R Yaaqov Emden.
> 
> There was a LOT of speaking up and finger pointing by the gedolei
> hador.  Didn't help.  The thing is, a number of rabbanim fell for
> him.  So, those who wanted to believe had who[m] to rely on.  (Kind
> of like what happens with much of "Daas Torah" today, now that it
> actually is co[n]sidered "a thing".)
> 

I don't remember whether I have said this before on this mailing
list.  If I have, I apologize for the redundancy.

The Hebrew words for kimono and sushi are (I am guessing with strong
confidence) "kimono" and "sushi".  They are foreign terms, describing
foreign things, and when we speak Hebrew, we pronounce them they way
they are pronounced by the people who brought these terms into our
language.

(To be more pedantically correct, we pronounce them they way they are
pronounced by the people who brought those terms into our language, to
the extent that we are able to imitate them.  Our ancestors, for
example, could not pronounce foreign words that begin with a shva nax,
like Platon and specularia and Xshawerosh, but they did the best they
could.)

The people who believe in Das Torah do not pronounce the word with a
pharyngeal, or even a glottal, stop.  They pronounce it "Das Torah".
And, since Das Torah is a foreign concept, that does not exist in
traditional Judaism, it should be pronounced the way it is pronounced
by the people who brought the term into our language, for the same
reason that we pronounce kimono "kimono", and sushi "sushi".  And when
we write it with the Latin alphabet, we should write the first word
with one 'a', not with two, showing the same fidelity to its correct
pronunciation that we do with any other foreign word.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

.
R' Yitzchok Levine quoted the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis

<<< Rav Schachter says that if one has egg matzah that they know was made
with grape juice (matzah ashira according to all opinions) it may be eaten
in the afternoon for shalosh seudos, up until 3 hours (sha?os zmaniyos)
before Yomtov. >>>

I don't understand. Is there a machlokes about the definition of matzah
ashira? If I have egg matzah that was made with *apple* juice, is it matza
ashira only according to *some* opinions?

Do other ingredients affect this? I have always presumed that all kinds of
Matza Ashira are a subset of Pas Habaa Bkisnin, excluding any and all
Chometz. In other words, flour and whatever you want except water. Am I
mistaken? Is the definition more complicated than that?

(Note: I was surprised to find such a wide variety of recipes for egg
matza. (We had a large crowd on Erev Pesach, so I bought 4 different boxes
so people could sample the different flavors.) Streit's has apple cider and
eggs. Aviv Egg Matzah has apple juice, egg, and sugar. Aviv Egg & Onion has
an unnamed "pure fruit juice" with sugar, onion powder and egg.
Manischewitz contains "pure apple or grape juice" and eggs.)

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210330/c5e25af7/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)