I JACOB KIMCHI AND
i SHALOM BUZAGLO
BY
Dr. CHARLES DUSCHINSKY
LONDON
LUZAC & CO., 46 GREAT RUSSELL STREET
1914
JACOB KIMCHI AND
SHALOM BUZAGLO
BY
Dr. CHARLES DUSCHINSKY
LONDON
LUZAC & CO., 46 GREAT RUSSELL STREET
1914
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
(Paper read before the Jewish Historical Society of England,
March 7, 1913.)
The greater part of the eighteenth century was comparatively uneventful
as far as the inner life of the Anglo-Jewish community was concerned.
Politically, we find a number of eminent men like Samson Gideon
(Abudiente), Emanuel Mendez da Costa the eminent scientist, Baron
d'Aguilar, and others. Political events, too, of singular importance,
such as the Bill for the Naturalisation of the Jews, 1753, happened in
this period. About the inner life of the community, however, very little
is recorded. The term of office of the Ashkenazi Kabbi Aaron or Uri
Phoebus Hart 1 was an era of stagnation. The important struggle he had
had at the beginning of his career had resulted in the establishment of
the Hamburger, or Hambro Synagogue, as it was afterwards termed.
The differences between Uri Phoebus Hart and his adversaries Jochanan
Holleschau and Mardochai Hamburger, and the great stir which this
affair created in the Ashkenazi community of London, have already been
dealt with in a masterful paper by the late Prof. David Kaufmann,
printed in this Society's Transactions, vol. iii. pp. 102-125. In this
paper 2 Prof. Kaufmann gave a sketch of Jewish communal life in
London from the beginning of the German Jewish community (about
1690) until about 1750, and made some short references to as late a date
as 1772. The chief part of his narrative is based on a pamphlet 3 which
1 He was born about 1070 and died in 1756.
2 Rahhi Zewi Ashkenazi and his Family in London.
3 31 nK>J?E in the volume entitled 31 ntJ>J/»l DWUn tTDWD. SeeZedner,
Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the British Museum, London, 1867, p. 325.
2070240
4 JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
was printed in Amsterdam and also in London, 1707, and which records
in detail the disputes which led to the foundation of the Hambro
Synagogue. Uri Hart was appointed Rabbi in 1705 and died in 1756.
The Hambro Synagogue was built in the year 5485 (1725). From that
date we do not hear anything more about the Rabbi until the year 1755,
when Jacob Kimchi refers to him in his pamphlet on the Shechita
question.
Jacob Kimchi was a descendant of the great Kimchi family, the
most famous members of which were the great Hebrew scholar, linguist,
and grammarian, David Kimchi, his father Joseph, and his grandfather,
Isaac Kimchi. The chronology of the Kimchi family was published by
Dr. P. Frankl in the Breslau Monatsschrift, 1884 (pp. 552-561).
Jacob's father was Samuel, Rabbi in Constantinople, contemporary of
Jehuda Rozanes, the author of the Mishneh Lammelech, one of the
most important commentaries on the Code of Maimonides.
Jacob Kimchi seems to have studied diligently under his father, as
he became well versed in Talmudics, according to Azulai, who met him
in London. Azulai characterises him as " a sharp and well- versed
scholar," l a title which is generally reserved for men of exceptional
attainments. How old he was when he left. Constantinople we cannot
ascertain. It seems, however, that he was already in the prime of man-
hood when he started to travel all over Europe. Like many other poor
scholars of his and our times, he published a book whilst travelling, in
order to earn his livelihood. The book, The Rose of Jacob, 2 which is a
commentary on the Talmud, Tractates Beza and Taanith, was printed
in Sulzbach by Zalman, son of Aaron the printer, in the year 5508
(1748). On the title-page the author tells us that he had completed a
commentary on several other parts of the Talmud — Section Moed.
Josef Krotoschin, Rabbi of Raschowitz, in Bohemia, and Isaac, Rabbi
of Kalden and the District of Bechingen (probably Hechingen in
Bavaria), 3 who gave him approbations for his book (dated 18th of
Cheshvan and 17th Kislev, 5508, respectively), describe him as a great
Hebrew scholar. Josef Krotoschin writes, in addition, that Kimchi had
1 *p31 epn. See D^HJH DB> s. v. TIOP tal»B\
- mi?™ TWi hv ■ ■ ■ npy r>3B>iK> -isd.
1 Or Hechlingen in Westphalia,
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 5
several works ready, but had no money to print them, and was thus
obliged to come from Constantinople to Germany to collect funds for the
purpose, and he recommended him as being worthy of help from the
rich. Similarly, speaks the Rabbi of Hechingen on his behalf. In the
preface Kimchi explains the method which guided him in his book. He
informs us that he was chiefly anxious to find the " Peshat " (the simple
meaning of the words of the Talmud and commentaries). He ends up
with a poetical acrostic on his name. 1 In this verse he humorously
explains that the printer would not print his book for nothing, and as
he had no money himself, he had to tread the bitter path of asking help
from others, and now that he has got the money he can only afford to
have the volume printed in very small type, for which he asks the
forgiveness of his readers. After he had printed his book he appears to
have travelled further, and ultimately he reached London. Mr. Israel
Solomons possesses a print which represents him in Eastern costume
selling slippers. The book seems to have had no great market; this
would probably account for his having started business. The Jewish
Encyclopedia (vii. 495), quoting from Leisure Hour, 1886, states that
he used to frequent the vicinity of the Royal Exchange, and that Oseas
Humphreys, attracted by his picturesque appearance, painted his portrait
in 1799. I have been unable to ascertain where this portrait is to be
found at present, but Mr. Solomons' print is made after it.
In 1700, twelve years after the publication of his volume, The Rose of
Jacob, he published a booklet under the title of Question and Response
in Altona. 2 The contents of this pamphlet, and the motive which led
Kimchi to its publication will be the first subject to which I would
direct attention. It refers to a Shechita 3 question in the London com-
munity, which apparently caused disunion in both the Sephardi and
Ashkenazi sections for a number of years.
In 1755 the Sephardi congregation elected as Shochet, Haim
Albahaly. Shortly after entering upon his duties he complained that
1 tidp bww znn p ipv\
3 The full title of the book is: X^Dinn i)lin \)MT\ TinD miBTl p6nS}>
rutins nanon bya na 'nop apy» -nrnoa tra ma \ry n aonon sptan
•P"sb i"pn n^a wiota p"paiDD*u apy*
3 nO'ntJ\ i.e. the slaughtering of animals for food.'
6 JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
the meat used in London was mostly terefa, or unfit for use according to
Jewish law. The animals, he declared, were affected by a disease of the
lungs, 1 through which the luugs adhere partly to the surrounding parts of
the body.
This statement contained a grave accusation against the other
Shochetim, because, before Albahaly's appointment, very few cattle were
pronounced unfit for use. Not only were the Shochetim concerned in
this charge, but the controversies about the same had serious effects
on Haham Isaac Nieto, and on the Ashkenazi Rabbi, Hirsch Lb'bel (or
Hart Lyon). Involved, too, in the dispute, were Israel Meshullam
Zalman Emden, Rabbi of the Hambro Synagogue, and his father the
famous Jacob Emden, and Emden's adversary, Jonathan Eybeschiitz,
was almost drawn into it.
Briefly, the affair is mentioned by Prof. Kaufmann in the paper
already referred to ; also by Dr. Adler in his paper on The Chief Rabbis
of England ; 2 by Dr. Gaster in his History of the Ancient Synagogue
Bevis Maries (London, 1901, pp. 133-35); and by Mr. A. M. Hyamson
in his History of the Jeios in England (London, 1908, pp. 244-45).
The affair lasted from the year 5515 a.m. ( = 1755) till 5526
( = 1766), and perhaps even a year longer— that is, for nearly twelve years.
In 1760 Kimchi published his Question and Res2Jonse, which contains
his version of the case, together with copies of letters which he wrote
and received in connection with it. Let us hear what he himself says at
the beginning of his pamphlet.
Page 1. It happened in the year 5515, when Rabbi Phoebus (i.e.
Uri Hart) was Rabbi of the Ashkenazim in London, and in the Sephardi
congregation was Haham the learned R. Isaac Nieto, the second to him
in rank being R. Isaac del Vaale, and the third Benjamin Lorenzo. (The
two latter were the Dayanim and constituted with Nieto the Sephardi
Beth Din or Law Court.) As will be explained later, they resolved to
discharge the Shochetim who had been in office until then (1755),
because they were under suspicion of declaring unfit animals as fit, and
they retained as Shochet Rabbi Hayim Albahaly, and allowed " the
1 NST'D, literally adhesion.
2 Dr. Adler's essay is contained in the volume of Papers read at the Anglo-
Jewish Historical Exhibition, London, 1888. The Exhibition was held in 1887.
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 7
inflation of the lungs." " But after that date," Kimchi continues,
"misfortunes befell us. The punishing hand of God removed from our
midst the Rabbi of the Ashkenazim and he died; also the pious Rabbi
Isaac del Valle passed away, whose every deed had been directed to the
glorification of the Almighty. When Rabbi Isaac Nieto saw that his
helper (I. del Vaale), who had been unto him like a loving brother, was
no more, he resigned from the Rabbinate. The leaders of the com-
munity then appointed as Head of the Beth Din Rabbi Benjamin
Lorenzo, as second to him, R. David de Castro, the Hazan, and as third,
R. Moses Hacohen d'Azevedo. Their first decision was to reinstate as
Shochetim those who had formerly been under suspicion, and to dismiss
from his position the above-mentioned R. Hayim."
So far Kimchi himself. I have summarised this part of his pamphlet
almost verbally, because it brings us in medias res, showing the composi-
tion of the Beth Din and introducing nearly all the other persons who
have a part in this affair as sketched by Kimchi, their contemporary.
We at once see that Rabbi Uri Hart seems to have stood high in the
respect of the community at the end of his life, as Kimchi gives him the
title, " The Great Rabbi, "and deplores his death as a punishment from God.
Although Kimchi, like most oriental Jewish writers, is not very econo-
mical in applying titles, I think we can infer from his few words about
Rabbi Uri that the latter succeeded in gaining authority and reverence
in the community, although at the beginning of his career he had many
opponents, and was not recognised as an eminent Talmudical scholar. 1
We hear further of the death of Isaac del Vaale, who had been
Dayan of the Sephardi Congregation for a number of years, and we
gather that he was a saintly man. Isaac Nieto, one of the most pro-
minent men who took part in this controversy, is likewise introduced
here, and we are given to understand that the reason for his resignation
was the death of Isaac del Vaale. It is more probable, however, that
Nieto found it difficult to work harmoniously with Benjamin Lorenzo, and
especially with his pupil, Moses Hacohen dAzevedo, the later Haham.
Isaac Nieto, the son of the famous Haham David Nieto, was first
appointed Haham in 1737, 2 and gave up his post in 1741, but was
1 see m newci "jn nnicn, p. 7. xnyoBn xmivn in* sin.
- M. Gaster, op. cit., p. 129.
8 JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
reappointed in 1751, after a lapse of ten years. Kimcki's report seems
to indicate that he was Haham, and not, as Dr. Gaster (p. 131) says,
Ab Beth Din only, as Kimchi gives him the same title as he applies to
the Ashkenazi Rabbi. Isaac Nieto resigned in 1757, but remained in
London, and seems to have had great influence in the community,
although he held no office.
Nieto endeavoured to dissuade the new Beth Din — Lorenzo, da
Castro, and dAzevedo — from reinstating the deposed officials, but his
protest was ineffectual. He then personally approached the Parnassim,
or lay heads, and they asked him to write them an English letter
setting forth his reasons and objections. Kimchi prints a Hebrew
translation of this letter. 1 In it Nieto sets forth how he had proposed
to the Beth Din that investigation should be made into Albahaly's
statements. His own observations, and those of the Hazan Benjamin
Lorenzo, confirmed Albahaly's opinion. When the Ashkenazi Rabbi
(Uri Phoebus) heard this, he likewise prohibited the Shechita of the
Sephardic Shochetim. As a lung with the defect referred to cannot be
properly examined without being filled with air, he (Nieto) allowed the
inflation of the lungs, 2 although this had not been done previously, for
only quite faultless cattle had been used by the Sephardim heretofore.
Nieto, however, permitted this method of examination, because, he said,
it would be very hard on the poor if they were compelled to use mutton
exclusively, as the price of beef was only 2d. or 3d. per lb., while mutton
cost 4c?. and 5c?. per lb. ; besides 2 lb. of beef would go further
than 3 lb. of mutton. Had he not allowed this examination of the
lungs people would have bought terefa meat, for, he says, " this is a free
country and nobody could forbid them." The new Beth Din agreed to
the investigation, but conducted it under conditions so unsatisfactory to
Nieto that he felt convinced Albahaly was right, and reported in that
sense to the Mahamad, as the Council of the Sephardi congregation is
styled.
The Mahamad, however, took the contrary view, with the result
that parties were formed for and against Albahaly. The Mahamad then
asked Nieto to give his reasons for declaring Luria and Miranda as
untrustworthy. Nieto answered that although the Beth Din was bound
1 n"K>, pp. 2-5. •■ nrpsy
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 9
to give an explanation for their ruling — it being a decision of pupils
against their master — for the sake of peace, and to clear the situation,
and also for the good of the community, he consents to formulate his
reasons in the Kesponsum, which then follows (page 5).
In his Responsum he reiterates the reasons set forth in his letter,
and strengthens his decision by citing Solomon ben Aderet (Resp.
Aderet., No. 782), where the case is clearly given. A Shochet is trust-
worthy in matters of Shechita, as a single witness, 1 only so long as there
is no shade of suspicion against him ; when, and as soon as, such
suspicion arises, he becomes at once an unfit person for that office, and
meat killed by him is terefa. Nieto further justifies in the Response his
opinion as to the lawfulness of examining the lungs by inflation.
On receipt of this letter and Responsum the Mahamad convened a
meeting of the Elders, and resolved to have a strong letter written to
Nieto, prohibiting him from that day onwards from assailing the actions
and resolutions of the Mahamad, whatever they might be ; that the Beth
Din had the right to do what they pleased ; and they formulated a
regulation that no Jewish scholar should speak against the Beth Din,
and that anyone who infringed this rule should be fined five pounds.
When Kiinchi saw that Nieto had failed, he felt it his duty to step
forward. "I (Kimchi) am not one of the Yehidim," 2 he says, "the
Mahamad cannot impose a fine upon me. I therefore take it upon
myself to plead the cause of justice to the Jewish law." As at that time
they had just elected a new Rabbi for the Ashkenazi congregation, at the
beginning of 5517 (1757), and as he thought two are better than one,
he would wait till the new Rabbi (Hirsch Lobel or Hart Lyon) was
installed. " As soon as he arrived I put the matter before him, and he
asked me to lay the whole case before him in writing. He promised
that if he saw that we were right he would join us, would put his
decision in writing, and should there be any doubt between us and him,
he would ask other authorities, and thus would try to restore peace in
the community."
Kimchi then wrote him a letter (pp. 8-15) stating the whole case
as we have already heard it in Nieto's letter to the Mahamad. The proofs
i inx iv.
2 The ordinary member of the Sepharclic congregation is still known
as a T!"P.
A 2
10 JACOB KIMCH1 AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
of his accuracy on the point of religious law he adduces in a very lengthy
and complicated argument, whereby he connects this question with a
great number of other Talmudical and Rabbinical laws. The important
decisions and opinions about " average," " supposition," laws of " borrower
and creditor," the (i law of the majority," x &c, are ventilated from all
sides with quotations from the Talmud and its commentators, from
Maimonides' Code and its commentaries, and from various Responsa.
This letter Kimchi handed over to the Ashkenazi Rabbi, Hirsch
Lobel. The latter, also called Hart Lyon, was a son of Rabbi Aryeh,
Rabbi of Resha and afterwards of Glogau and of Amsterdam, who was a
son-in-law of the Haham Zewi Ashkenazi. Hirsch Lobel was born in
1721, and was elected a Rabbi of the Ashkenazi congregation in 1757.
He was therefore thirty-six years of age when he came to London (see
Azulai s.v. Heschl, part 1, and s.v. Saul). His brother Saul 2 was suc-
cessor of his father as Ashkenazi Rabbi in Amsterdam, and in his book,
Binjan Ariel, appears a Hebrew poem by Rabbi Hirsch Lobel. He
was called Hirsch (Zewi) after his grandfather, the Haham Zewi, and
Lobel after his father. He was in office in London until 1764, when he
was elected Rabbi of Halberstadt, and in 1773 he accepted a call from the
Berlin community, and was known afterwards as the " Berliner Rav."
He died in 1800 at the age of seventy-nine. His son was the late Rabbi
of Duke Place Synagogue, Solomon Herschel. 3
Kimchi tells us (p. 16) that he gave his letter to Rabbi Hirsch
Lobel and waited for a reply. The Rabbi, however, informed him that
his Parnassim had forbidden him to answer. Mr. A. Hyamson says in
his History of the Jews in England (p. 245) : " Jacob Kimchi declared
that all the Shochetim under the control of Rabbi Lobel were unfit to
hold their offices. The Rabbi desired to defend his subordinates, but
his wardens refused him the necessary permission to do so, and it was
probably in consequence of this action that Rabbi Hirsch Lobel, other-
wise known as Hart Lyon, resigned his office in 1764 and retired to the
Continent." From the foregoing it is obvious that Mr. Hyamson's
statement needs amendment. Kimchi did not accuse the Ashkenazi
i jmtm nptn, mh) mta, an-
2 ^xnx pn "iQD no'nw.
3 Dembitzer, >D"P nb^2, Cracow, 1888, p. 134.
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 11
Shochetiin, but those of the Sephardim. He never spoke or wrote any-
thing against Rabbi Hirsch Lbbel, but on the contrary asked him for
support in the accusation originally initiated by Isaac Nieto. Mr.
Hyamson also states that Hirsch Lbbel was appointed in 1757, and that
his father, Rabbi Aryeh Lob, was at that time Rabbi of Resha. Rabbi
Aryeh Lob left Resha before 1739, to follow a call to Gross Glogau, as
in the winter of that year he signed an approbation on the book B
^jm nuf> p"\h d"xidi Tim sata i?"pn nam 2^ nns mxa- See
also Dembitzer, p. 132, and Buber, DE^ *£WX, pp. 38, 39. I did not see Buber's
book until after I had written this paper. Buber mentions an approbation by
R. Aryeh Lob for the D"E? Frankfort-Berlin (1715-39) in similar terms, dated
already TYn = 1734. R. Aryeh Lob seems to have had a call to Lemberg in or
before 1734, to which he did not respond until 1739, but seems to have gone back
to Glogau, which he leaves the 24th Tanimuz, 1740, for Amsterdam.
12 JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
Simon b. Zemacb. Duran, 1 wherein this celebrity decided that one ought
not to accept the decision of a Beth Din where the Assessors are a/raid of
the Parnassim and leaders of the community. The more does this apply
to the Rabbi, who is even afraid to put his opinion in writing, and
confesses himself that he, does it by order of the Parnassim. This letter
he signs in the week when the Sidra Noah is read (beginning of Cheshvan)
in the year 5517 (towards the end of 1756). R. Hirsch Lubel ignored
the second letter as he had the first. Then Kimchi addressed himself to
the Sephardi Dayan or Hazan, a member of the Beth Din, Isaac Belisario,
who in answer expressed the opinion that it was the Rabin's duty to
answer Kimchi's questions. Kimchi had sent to Belisario — on whom see
Gaster. op. cit. p. 150 — the first responsum which he had previously sent
to R. Hirsch Lbbel (n"E> p. 8-16), and received a reply in Spanish. We
have now Kimchi's reply to Belisario (on p. 18). It is marked No. 3.
In this letter Kimchi first reproaches Belisario for writing in Spanish, a
language which Kimchi did not understand. He had, however, seen a
further letter from Belisario on the matter, written to a certain Jacob
Mesgoro, and this induces Kimchi to reply. Kimchi then copies Belisario's
letter, and we see that the latter did not agree with Kimchi, but thought
that the Shochetim were not under suspicion. 2 The rest of Belisario's
letter consists of a refutation of all the points raised by Kimchi —
Belisario seems to have been a thorough Hebrew scholar. He is familiar
with all the laws and Talmudical passages relating to the question.
Two years elapsed, writes Kimchi, and things went on as before ;
the same Shochetim were still in office, and thus people were, eating meat
which is forbidden. " I find," he says, " that I cannot get any help
from within, namely, the London Community, so I will appeal to those
well versed in the questions of the law, the Rabbis and Geonim in other
lands, and they shall show the Children of Israel the right path wherein
they shall walk." As a friend of his was going to Hamburg, he placed
the whole of the case and the Responsa and letters Avritten by him and
others before the famous Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz, and said that he
1 See PjDV 1V3, to Tur., D'Tl, § 14, ed. Vienna, p. 11a.
2 n^k nn^y n^n db> pa nnTon d*ptudb> mna nni? pro? pi ?3E>
mo Nin B>fc5>rn nnm sin *wr\v ,v&nb ntrn pn pi^nn Kin nr *3 wn
.(]"»"£>, p. 19, bottom) .N~QD
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 13
would abide by his decision. The whole pamphlet was therefore written
for this purpose. It is dated 5520 (1760).
It is well known that Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschiitz was at the
time Rabbi of the threefold congregation of l"nx (Altona, Hamburg,
and Wandsbeck), and that he had been engaged in a heated dispute
with Rabbi Jacob Emden Ashkenazi, son of Haham Zewi Ashkenazi,
who accused him of being a secret follower of the Sabbatai Zewi, the
famous claimant of Messianic dignity. The controversy was one of
great importance in the whole of Jewry throughout the world, as in it
were involved not only the Rabbis of Germany and Holland, but also
those of Russia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Turkey. Eybeschiitz
was already an old man when this pamphlet reached him, he died in
1764, four years later, at the age of seventy-four. He does not seem
to have taken much notice of the whole matter, as it is not mentioned in
any of his bonks, nor is any Responsum of his known relating to the
question. The fact, however, that Kimchi addressed himself to Eybe-
schiitz was sufficient to make Emden take the other side. Emden was a
man of strong determination and a vigorous controversialist. Even his
nephew, the already mentioned Rabbi Hirsch Lobel, Rabbi of London
and later of Berlin, reproaches him for his self-will. 1 Emden's son,
Israel Meshullam Zalman, Rabbi of the Hambro Synagogue, writes to
him on the 8th day of Elul, 5526 (1766), i.e. six years after the publica-
tion of Kimchi's pamphlet. 2 He states that for years past many people
did not eat from the Shechita of the Sephardi Shochetim on account of
the accusation already explained. 3 The Sephardim at last addressed
themselves to him for a decision in the matter, and he found indeed that
the cattle were subject to the sirclia disease. He thereupon appointed
two new Shochetim and allowed them to try and release the adhesion by
1 In Emden's commentary, D^fc^ DPI?, on Pirke Aboth, edited with notes
by Hirsch Lobel, Berlin, 1834, Hirsch Lobel says (p. 34) of his uncle, Jacob
Emden : D'l M 3 UTWpni 1Dpn HEWO ^31 HT^H "QriDn r^HJ TUn* DVH DX
»awa bw jni^ta wnwh pearin^ !>3v »» b"d "ini nn Nin q:w2 "-pdidi
2 py n?w, ii. No. 145.
3 He mentions that R. Isaac Nieto and 3"KH 'Tim, which probably means
Rabbi Shalom Buzaglo (about whom we shall hear further) were among those
who did not eat from the Sephardi Shechita.
14 JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
lifting it up with the finger, but not by the inflation of the lungs, and
now he asks Emden whether he approves of it. In Emden's answer, he
approves of his son's decision, but points out to him that there is no
harm in inflating the dungs — in fact it is imperative to examine the
lungs in that way if a sircha was torn off. It is difficult to understand
how the whole controversy about this went on, as the law in this respect
is quite clear. Jacob Emden, however, does not reproach his son for this
mistake, but his whole wrath turns against Kimchi, whom he calls an
unreliable talker, whose whole Responsa in the matter are ridiculous. 1 In
the Responsum, vol. ii. 145, Emden says he will not go further into
the matter unless the two parties address a question to him and undertake
to abide by his decision. Whether such a question was put to him is not
to be ascertained. In the following Responsum (No. 146) he does not
refer to it, and does not give the date on which he wrote it, but takes
every word of the pamphlet and replies to it in such a lengthy way that
this Responsum fills nearly five folio pages, and is therefore nearly as
long as Kimchi's whole pamphlet. He makes light of Kimchi's argu-
ments from beginning to end. One answer is especially notable.
Kimchi, he says, wants to stamp all the cattle in England as being
terefa, because most of them are affected with sircha. Probably, says
Emden, the animals have this slight defect on account of their being
fat, and such sirchoth which are only caused by the fatness of the
animal, are not terefa at all. He charges Kimchi with giving decisions
in matters which he does not understand, and which he has no right to
give. Emden goes so far as to say that Solomon ben Aderet, one of
the greatest commentators of the thirteenth century, had given a decision
against tradition. 2 Only those who are familiar with the spirit of the
Rabbis in the last centuries, and who know in what reverence and
authority the opinion of Aderet was, and is, held by every Rabbinical
student and scholar, can realise what audacity was necessary on Emden's
1 xc^jn fyn »»^B3 reason mix by xnn nysso Doin^o Tnnm
ni»KB» .^3 Kin N3DD -Q )i6i ^ nsnaa rrmroKa onns ynar6 nvn
Y"2W, ii. ed. Lemberg, p. 45a).
2 *6n lens* sin nbipn »bd ab p^B twnn nta nai> waenn pi
»bd nb . . . "131 . 131D pxi mns "iivnn *w i^nx D":iktip d»3W3 by P^iro
{iUd.) -ro^an irmDi mino n!?n -p s"3{jn anu rfaon
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 15
part to write this. " How cau Kimchi know what is inside an animal
before it is opened?" Emden continues, "why, then, does he suggest
that the majority are terefa ? " In this manner he speaks from beginning
to end, and the whole Responsum reveals an unfavourable aspect of
Emden's character. This decision is very important for the illustration
of Emden's disposition, and I wonder whether Graetz did not overlook
it when he glorified him at the expense of Eybeschiitz. More important
than the whole Shechita affair and Kimchi's Responsa are these letters of
Emden, as they throw light upon a personality who played a great part
in the history of the Jews in general, and who is even nowadays regarded
as one of the greatest Talmudical authorities of his time.
II.
A similar incident still less known (neither Dr. Gaster nor Mr.
Hyamson mentions it) is the one I shall next deal with. Jacob Emden's
son, Israel Meshullam Zalman, was, as we have heard, Rabbi of the
Hambro Synagogue in London. There lived in London at the time of
the Shechita dispute (1766) a scholar named Shalom Buzaglo. He was
born in Morocco, and seems to have been Dayan there or in Amsterdam,
and later we find him in London. He had published in 1769 in
Amsterdam a Cabbalistic work, 1 to which he received approbations from
the Chief Rabbi Saul of Amsterdam, grandson of the Chacham Zewi
Ashkenazi, and therefore cousin of Rabbi Israel Meshullam Zalman, who
likewise gave Buzaglo an approbation for this work. His testimonial is
the more interesting, because of the terms in which he signs himself, 2
" who at present dwells among the chosen people of God, the Hamburger
Congregation, and is Rabbi elect of London and the Provinces." Already
Wagenaar, in his Biography of Jacob Emden 3 and Dembitzer (loc. cit. ,
p. 94), felt the difficulty of explaining this signature. We know that
Rabbi David Tevele Schitf was elected Rabbi of Duke's Place Synagogue in
1 -^ron ndd 'D-
The phrase Q"¥01 is an abbreviation of riDllQ lmiVOI — "his net is drawn" ;
it implies that he has been appointed to another congregation.
3 fair nnSn-
16 JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
1765, and the general opinion (see Jewish Chronicle, February 21, 1913)
is that he was the first Chief Rabbi of the whole of England. Dembitzer
suggests that the signature, Rabbi elect of London and the Provinces
may have been a standing signature of Meshullani Zalmau Ashkenazi,
and means that people from the whole town and country addressed them-
selves to him with questions ; and thus he said that "his net was drawn
over London and England." This opinion, however, is hardly justifiable.
Not only is no other similar signature of Emden known, but it is
indisputable that the expression, his net is spread, is exclusively used by
a Rabbi when elected from one position to another before he takes up the
new one. I think the explanation is as follows. There was no Chief
Rabbi of London and the United Kingdom at the time. This title only
came into existence under the late Dr. N. M. Adler. There were the
Rabbis of the Duke's Place and the Hambro Synagogues, and later also
the Rabbi of the New Synagogue. They were independent of one
another, and the Rabbi of Duke's Place, being the head of the more
important congregation, signed himself Rabbi of London, 1 or Rabbi of
the Great Synagogue, while the others signed as Rabbi of the Hambro
Synagogue, and so forth. Possibly they formed with a Dayan, or any
other third scholar, a Beth Din, and Meshullam Zalman Emden was
elected head of that Beth Din, and signed the approbation before
actually taking up that position. 2
A proof for my explanation will, I think, appear in the incident I
am about to relate. Shalom Buzaglo had enjoyed repute as a famous
1 R. Solomon Herschel signed himself rtfHDm CUDB'K p"p HD HJln in
the "Caution" issued by him against Prof. Marks' Form of Prayers, etc,, on the
24th October 1841, and in his approbation to S. J. Cohen's Elements of Faith,
London, 1815 ; but from the Laws of the Great Synagogue, printed in 1827, it is
obvious that he was not elected as Chief Rabbi of England. Nothing is mentioned
of his duties or rights in connection with any other congregation ; even the elec-
tion of the Rabbi is under the same rules as that of the Chazan, Beadle, and
Collector (see Law, 218, p. 55).
2 Kaufmann, loc. cit., p. 121, suggests that Emden had had a call to the Duke's
Place Synagogue before R. David T. Schiff, but that this invitation was immedi-
ately withdrawn. We have no records anywhere that he was actually elected
nor of the withdrawal, and, besides, Emden's signature on that approbation is
dated 1769, while Schiff was already Rabbi of the Great Synagogue in 1765, so
that it could hardly refer to that suggested election four years previously, and
my explanation seems to me the more acceptable.
JACOB KIMCIII AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 17
Cabbalist, and probably, while in Amsterdam, took part in the dispute
about vaccination (see Sckechter, Studies in Judaism, i. p. 377), and in
the accusation about the famous amulets of Jonathan Eybeschiitz he
also gave his opinion (n»X riQE>, p. 60, and Graetz Gesch., vol. x. p. 404).
He edited several works on Cabbalistic subjects. 1
On Wednesday the 15th day of Sivan of the year 5534 (1774)
Buzaglo writes a pamphlet, 2 which was shortly afterwards published. 3
The contents are as follows :
On the day mentioned the Parnassim of the Ashkenazi Synagogue,
accompanied by the woman Rebekah, daughter of Jehuda, with her Get
(letter of divorce), together with the authority to hand it over to her, 4
came to Buzaglo and asked his decision as to the validity of the document.
He, not being in office, declined to answer ; but on their third visit they
explained that their own Haham had sent them to refer the case to him.
Six years previously (1768) a messenger named Saul ben Jehuda had
brought the letter of divorce and authorisation from Amsterdam. The
matter was referred to Rabbi Israel Meshullam Zalman (who is styled by
Buzaglo as the Haham of the Ashkenazim) ; but the Rabbi declined to per-
form the ceremony of delivering the Get. The beadle (shcwiash) of the con-
gregation, "an old and venerable man named R. Channoch," now verified
the woman's statement. As the Rabbi was not to be persuaded, the
messenger, who began to feel unwell and feeble, brought three Polish
Jews to her house. They read the Get from beginning to end, and the
messenger said all which it is prescribed to say in such a case accord-
ing to Jewish law, and in the manner he had been instructed by Rabbi
Saul, Rabbi of Amsterdam. 5 The messenger then went back and
1 They include the Zohar (Amst., 1772), which he prepared when still in
Morocco (sec preface), the already mentioned "l^D ND3, the ~|ta min 13D
(Amst., 17G6, and London, 1772), and *p» BHWD 'D, edited by Haham David
b. R. Meldola (Amst., 1750).
2 m pnpna wn ~p wnw rwo.
3 So far as I know the only extant copies of each of the three pamphlets are
those contained in the British Museum (Cat. Zedner, p. 163). A reprint of these
with my introduction and notes will appear in the January 1914 issue of the
II, brt w Quark /•/// (Tin pN£ HSIVH). which is edited by Prof. L. Blau in Budapest.
4 nxtjnri.
5 imp nwD, p. 2.
18 JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
shortly afterwards died. The woman Rebekah brought two witnesses to
corroborate this evidence, and said that she, and the father of her two
children, now desired to marry according to the law of Moses and Israel ;
but the Rabbi declined to marry them, giving no reason for his refusal.
Before continuing Buzaglo's narrative, it may be recalled that
Rabbi David Tevele Schiff was elected in 1765. The Get in question
was brought by the messenger in the year 1768. Had Schiff really been
Chief Rabbi of London and Great Britain the Get surely would have
been brought to him. The head of the Ashkenazi community seems to
have been Emden, and therefore the Get was brought to him. He seems
to have been the head of the Beth Din, and to have performed exclusively
all the ceremonies which only a Beth Din can perform, like Get and
Chalitzah ; otherwise surely the woman would have gone to Rabbi David
T. Schiff.
Buzaglo gave his decision to the Parnassim of the Ashkenazim after
three days' careful consideration, and declared the Get valid and the
children as legitimate, according to Jewish law. The Parnassim then
told him that Rabbi Meshullam Zalman Emden had told them that
he regarded the Get as invalid, and as the woman was still the wife of
her first husband, the children therefore were illegitimate. Buzaglo
asked to hear his reasons, and Emden came to his house on the follow-
ing day. Buzaglo explained to him his grounds for the validity of the
Get, quoting passages from the codes and commentaries. Emden agreed
with him, and said that the children were legitimate, but that he pre-
ferred to apply the stricter opinion of Moses Isserlein. When Buzaglo
told him that even Isserlein decides that the woman need not bring
witnesses for the delivery of the letter of divorce, 1 he became silent, and
started speaking about something else. Emden, says Buzaglo, had agreed
in presence of all his household that the children were legitimate ; but
Emden withdrew what he had said, and had an announcement read on
the following Sabbath in the Synagogue declaring the Get not valid.
Buzaglo then writes a letter to Emden asking for an explanation of his
decision. He repeats practically the whole case, and ends up that he
expects an answer, and suggests putting the case before other Rabbis.
Twelve days elapsed and he received no reply. Buzaglo thereupon
i yna iriK\ ch. cxii. § 13.
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 19
wrote his decision and the reasons, so that the public might judge for
themselves, and signed it in the week of Sidra Dpn (beginning of Tammuz)
of the year 5534 (1771). The last leaf of the pamphlet contains a
declaration that the two Rabbis of the Sephardim and Ashkenazim (Moses
d' Azevedo and David T. Schiff) had publicly declared that Buzaglo was
right. This declaration was written on the 28th day of Tammuz. This
last page is half printed in Hebrew and half in Yiddish, and ends up
with a Yiddish note as follows : " The public may be content with this
assurance until after Sabbath 1DITJ (the Sabbath following the ninth of
Ab), when there will follow a further publication, which will be a
satisfaction l to all who love justice." He seems to have written another
pamphlet in Ab soon after the fast, but this is lost. I cannot trace any
copy of it. It is not in the British Museum, which possesses the other
pamphlets. The next pamphlet is dated the 8th day of Elul, about a
month later, and entitled A Reproach to the Backsliders^ and a Reward
to the Penitents. 2 In this pamphlet, which consists of four leaves, of
which three are printed on one page only, and the fourth on both sides,
Buzaglo writes that on Monday the 8th day of Elul, 5534, there came
to his house the worthy Phoebus Levy, and told him he was a messenger
from Rabbi Zalman Emden, and had brought with him a letter from the
Rabbi of Prague (R. Ezekiel Landau), dated the 7th Ab, 5534. Buzaglo
said, after reading it, that he wishes to see also the letters which came
from the Rabbis of Frankfurt and Amsterdam, and a copy of the cpaestion
which Emden put to these Rabbis, because it seems to him that he had
not put the case before them adequately. When he has seen these, he
will willingly admit that he was wrong — if he really was wrong. He
had, however, strong doubts as to whether the Rabbi (Emden) had
presented the matter accurately to the Continental Rabbis. Then
follows a letter which Buzaglo gave to the messenger Levy for Emden.
Therein he uses strong language, and accuses the last named of ignorance.
At the bottom of page 2 follows a declaration from Haham Moseh Acoen
di Azevedo that Rabbi Tevele Schiff had shown him a Responsum by
himself given to Buzaglo, and that it is word for word a copy of the
Responsum which was printed by Buzaglo in the pamphlet, A Reproach
2 The Title is, WIW 1 ? n:Dni D^aitrb nmin. For 321^ see Jer. xxxi. 22.
20 JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO.
to the Backsliders and a Reward to the Penitents. The letter is dated
2nd of Elul. Whether this letter refers to Buzaglo's Respousum which
he printed in this pamphlet, or whether David Tevele Schiff wrote him a
Respousum which he promised to print in this pamphlet, and did not, is
not to be ascertained. It may have been printed in the lost pamphlet.
The few lines of Haham d'Azevedo are very carefully worded, and he
does not commit himself to an opinion one way or the other.
Buzaglo seems to have had some influence in the community, as in
spite of the abuses which he showered upon the Rabbi Emden, the latter
replies to him and asks him in humble words to guard Israel from strife
and not to listen to outside influences, calculated to bring about disunion
between scholars, and he asks Buzaglo to state his opinion clearly, as he
was quite willing to listen to argument, so that there should not be two
different laws in Israel. Emden signs himself as his "true friend."
Buzaglo thereupon writes his last letter in answer to Emden's, and
declines to accept Emden's proposal as seriously meant. Buzalgo says
that Emden's congregation were not satisfied with him, and would have
liked to send him away ; that only a few of the members were his
friends, who were attracted by the smoothness of his tongue. We
may infer from the last remark that Emden must have been a good
preacher.
Nothing more is mentioned about this affair iu the contemporary
Responsa, or as far as I know otherwise, nor have I been able to ascer-
tain when and where Israel Meshullam Zalman Emden and Buzaglo
died. We must assume that Buzaglo exaggerated the faults of Emden
in his zeal to plead the cause of the woman, to whom, he thought, an
injustice had been done. The dispute had become a bitter one, and we
have to be careful what to believe of Buzaglo's reports about his
antagonist. Some of the qualities attributed by him to Emden may
have been true ; for instance, that he was proud of his learning, and
that he was not of a peaceful nature and sweet temper, as it is pos-
sible that he was like his father, Jacob Emden, in this respect. With
careful reservation, we are able to conceive the part this grandson of the
Chacham Zewi played in the Jewish life of London, and we have to
thank Jacob Kimchi and Shalom Buzaglo for having giving us a glimpse
into these bygone times. Long- forgotten incidents like these, apparently
of little importance, unfold great aspects of history. It is from small
JACOB KIMCHI AND SHALOM BUZAGLO. 21
issues that great events follow. It is such records that provide the
historian with some of his most useful material. In themselves
perhaps of only local import, they nevertheless throw an intimate light
on the communal life. They reveal at once an anxiety to keep in true
line with the older Jewish tradition, and a desire to apply that tradition
vitally. Although no special glory is attached to either of these disputes
and incidents, I thought that the men involved in them deserve that
their names should not be overlooked by those engaged in writing
Anglo-Jewish history.
Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson &* Co.
at. Paul's Work, Edinburgh
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
01S
J 4 1979
Form L9-Series 444
)
n |