Rabbi Yosef Prager - Pelorous Years of London - You and US.pdfRabbi Yosef Prager Modiin Illit The Early Years of London’s Ashkenazi Community The so-called “Minhag Anglia” 1,

Yerushaseinu | Fifth Yearbook 5771

Rabbi Yosef Prager Modiin Illit

The Early Years of London’s Ashkenazi Community

The so-called “Minhag Anglia” 1, used in many synagogues throughout the world under the authority of the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, although based on Minhag Polin2, has much in common with Minhag Ashkenaz3 as practised in the synagogues of Machon Moresheth Ashkenaz, so that a visitor from one to the other would feel quite at home. A short list of examples might include:- the “au” or “ō” pronunciation of Cholam4; wearing of Tallith by boys; communal singing with many common melodies5; Maaravoth on Festival evenings; Av Harachamim on two Sabbaths6 annually; Friday evening Kiddush in the synagogue; Tefillin on Chol HaMoed; no Avinu Malkenu on fast days; no Berich Shemeh; etc.

This article aims to record details of how the London Ashkenazi community came into being, which Torah sages led it from the beginning, and how it developed. The story was thoroughly researched during the last century by Professor Cecil (Bezalel) Roth (1899-1970), whose many books on the subject are readily available. This article, however, highlights several points not fully discussed by Roth. References to Roth’s work are mostly omitted for brevity’s sake.

1 For more details of the customs, see Dayan Dr. Yitzchak Shabbetai Lerner, The Minhag of

the United Synagogue London – Torat HaMinhagim, Gateshead, 1994. The customs have been zealously maintained for over 300 years, although today, a large majority of Anglo-Jews are of Eastern European descent.

2 The Polish rite, which developed from the Medieval Austrian rite, was employed, as well as in Poland and Lithuania, in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Hungary and Northern & Eastern Germany.

3 The German rite, which evolved from the custom of the Rhenish communities, was used in Western and Southern Germany. The dividing line between the two rites ran approximately along the Elbe River, see Binyamin Shlomoh Hamburger, “Minhag Ashkenaz”, in HaMaayan, vol. 27, issue 3, Jerusalem, Nissan 5747, p. 4-5. Its use in Amsterdam was the result of an accident reverse to that of London, i.e. the first Ashkenazim there happened to come from Frankfurt. An example of the differences between the two rites can be found in the VeYiten Lecha prayer recited at the termination of Sabbath. In the German rite, a shorter version is employed, omitting several paragraphs.

4 Of late, this has been replaced in large measure by Modern Hebrew pronunciation. 5 Much of the common musical heritage is owed to Julius Yisrael Lazarus Mombach (1813-

1880), Choirmaster at the Great Synagogue from 1841-1880. Born in Pfungstadt near Darmstadt, he was brought as a youngster to London in 1827, as soprano Meshorrer, by Chazan Binom Heinich (Enoch) Eliasson, or Elias, of Darmstadt. He became one of the greatest composers of synagogue music. Many of his compositions and arrangements travelled back to Germany where they became standard pieces. His music was published after his death under the title The Sacred Musical Compositions of the late Israel Lazarus Mombach, London, 1881.

6 Before Shavuoth and before 9th of Av.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


2

The First Ashkenazim It is difficult to ascertain with certainty when the first re-settlement7 Ashkenazi Jew set foot on British soil. It is said8 that in 1648 or 16499, a ship full of Polish Jewish refugees from the Chmelnitsky massacres arrived in London. It is probable that they set up a clandestine Ashkenazi place of worship; the Marranos already had a secret congregation in London at that time.

By 1657, the Sefardim had established the Shaar Hashamayim community, with their synagogue in Creechurch Lane10. The Beadle there was Samuel Levy, of Cracow, popularly known as Ribbi Shemuel, perhaps one of the passengers on the Polish ship. The famous London diarist Samuel Pepys visited this synagogue twice, on 3rd December 165911, and on 14th October 166312, Simchath Torah13. Many of the Sefardim came from the large Spanish and

7 Having been expelled from England on 9th Av 5050 (18th July 1290) by the Edict of

Expulsion of King Edward I (1239-1307) “Longshanks”, Jews were not readmitted to England until 1656 when Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658, ruled 1653-1658), hoping to induce the rich Jews of Amsterdam to transfer to London their lucrative trade interests with the Spanish Main, gave informal permission for Jews to return (the edict of expulsion was, however, never repealed).

8 Roth, chap. 1, p. 2, quoting Lucien Wolf (1857-1930). 9 This was before Jews were officially readmitted by Oliver Cromwell in 1656. 10 A plaque on the rear of Cunard House, 88 Leadenhall Street, reads: “Site Of First Synagogue

After The Restoration 1657 - 1701”. Some of the furniture from Creechurch Lane is still in use today at the Esnoga, Bevis Marks.

11 “Being this morning (for observacion sake) at the Jewish Synagogue in London I heared many lamentacions made by Portugall Jewes for ye death of Ferdinando ye Merchant, who was lately cutt (by the same hand wth my selfe) of ye Stone”. This was a memorial service for his friend, Antonio Ferdinando (Fernandez) Carvajal (1590-1659), the first naturalized English Jew. The lamentations referred to by Pepys may well have been the recitation of the “Ashkabah” by the Haham, and subsequent recitation of Kaddish by the mourners.

12 “Thence home and after dinner my wife and I, by Mr. Rawlinson’s conduct, to the Jewish Synagogue: where the men and boys in their vayles, and the women behind a lattice out of sight; and some things stand up, which I believe is their Law, in a press to which all coming in do bow; and at the putting on their vayles do say something, to which others that hear him do cry Amen, and the party do kiss his vayle. Their service all in a singing way, and in Hebrew. And anon their Laws that they take out of the press are carried by several men, four or five several burthens in all, and they do relieve one another; and whether it is that every one desires to have the carrying of it, I cannot tell, thus they carried it round about the room while such a service is singing. And in the end they had a prayer for the King (Charles II who ruled 1660-1685 JP), which they pronounced his name in Portugall; but the prayer, like the rest, in Hebrew. But, Lord! to see the disorder, laughing, sporting, and no attention, but confusion in all their service, more like brutes than people knowing the true God, would make a man forswear ever seeing them more and indeed I never did see so much, or could have imagined there had been any religion in the whole world so absurdly performed as this”.

13 The dates tally if we take into account that 14 October Julian = 24 October Gregorian = 23



3

Portuguese congregations in Amsterdam and Hamburg14; it did not take long until Ashkenazi merchants of those cities started following their Portuguese brethren across the North Sea.

In 1666, the Great Fire of London destroyed almost all of London. “Little of the City remaynes, save part of Broad and Bishopsgate streete, all Leadenhall street, and some of the adjacent lanes about Algate and Cretchett Fryers15”, writes a contemporary Londoner16. Fortuitously, this area was precisely the location of the Jewish community and its synagogue. Naturally, the Ashkenazim inhabited the same area as their Iberian brethren17.

After the “Glorious Revolution” of 168818, the influx of Jews from the Netherlands increased substantially. The arrival of so many Ashkenazim caused considerable concern to the Portuguese congregation. It was feared that the newcomers might inundate the congregation and alter its distinctive Spanish and Portuguese nature. This led to draconian measures. In 5439 (1678/9), an “Askamah”19 was passed forbidding any Tudesco20 to hold office in synagogue, to vote at meetings, to be called to the Torah, to receive any congregational honour, or even pay imposts or make offerings, without special permission. (Some versions21 add that the Askamah also forbade members to marry a Tudesca22). This intolerant rule made an exception only for the devoted

Tishrey 5424. 14 Roth’s assertion that the most prominent and most numerous Ashkenazi community of

Western Europe at this time (with the possible exception only of Amsterdam) was that of Hamburg, is incorrect. The community of Frankfurt was considerably larger. Prague was larger still, but is not in Western Europe. Hamburg did, however, if the Sefardim are included, overtake Frankfurt in the 18th century. See Rotraud Ries, “Die Mitte des Netzes: Zur zentralen Rolle Frankfurts für die Judenschaft im Reich (16.-18. Jahrhundert)”, in Fritz Backhaus, Die Frankfurter Judengasse: jüdisches Leben in der frühen Neuzeit, Frankfurt, 2006.

15 Cretchett Fryers = Crutched Friars. 16 Quoted by Walter George Bell (1867-1942), The Great Fire of London, London, 1923, p.

315; Wilfred Sampson Samuel (1886-1958), Some Notes on 17th Century London Jews, London, 1937, p. 8, note 26.

17 Probably the first Jew to choose this area as his home was Antonio Fernandez Carvajal (1590-1659), who settled in Leadenhall Street in about 1635! The area hence became a Ghetto for over two centuries.

18 Which brought England and Holland together under one ruler, Willem Hendrik, Prins van Oranje or William III (1689-1702).

19 Resolution. 20 The Ladino expression for German or Ashkenazi. “Tudesco” is the Portuguese form, whilst

“Tedesco” is the Italian word for “German”. 21 Lady Katie Magnus (1844-1924), Outlines of Jewish history, from B.C.E. 586 to C.E. 1929,

London, 1886, p. 318. It seems, however, that this was a different Askamah. See Dr. Hirsch Jakob Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, London, 1958, p. 62.

22 Tudesca = feminine Tudesco. The taboo against marrying Ashkenazim vanished in 1812,

Rabbi Yosef Prager


4

Shamash, Samuel Levy of Cracow, and two other persons. They were Benjamin Levy and his uncle Michael, wealthy merchants from Hamburg who had for long enjoyed a position of privilege. Eventually the Ashkenazim realized that the time had come to form a congregation23 of their own. 1690 is the date given by Roth24 for the founding of the Ashkenazi community.

The Jewish world in 1690 Like most other years of the seventeenth century, the year 1690 was a fairly miserable one. Ashkenazi Jewry languished under the repressive rule of the Habsburg Kaiser Leopold I25, Holy Roman Emperor, who had been crowned emperor in 1658. The Jews had been expelled from Vienna in 1670, though several Jews, including the Imperial court factors Samson Wertheimer and Samuel Oppenheimer, had returned to the city in 1684. One of the exiles, R. Meshulam Zalman Mirels26 had become Rabbi of Hamburg. Another exile, R. Gershon b. Yehudah Oulif Ashkenazi Poss27 now headed French Jewry as Rabbi in Metz. Prague was for the time being without a Rabbi, R. Aharon Shimon b. Binyamin Wolf Spira having died in 1679. In the interim, his son R. Binyamin Wolf Spira Wedeles28 (father of R. Eliyahu Spira29 who wrote Eliyah Rabbah), performed the rabbinic functions. In Nikolsburg30, R. David b. Avraham Oppenheim31 had just become Rabbi.

The literary achievements of the period were, however, most impressive. Most of the major commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch32, the Sefer Meirat

when Sir Moses Montefiore (1784-1885), the most esteemed member of the Community ever, married Lady Judith (1784-1862), daughter of Levi Barent Cohen and older sister of Hannah Rothschild.

23 To his very day, all Ashkenazi Batey Din in London use the Sefardi convention in spelling London with a Vav, “לונדון”, in divorce bills, rather than using the standard Ashkenazi spelling with an Aleph, “לאנדאן”. The reason is that the Sefardim had already established a precedent before the Ashkenazim arrived. This is a matter of grave severity as incorrect spelling can invalidate a divorce bill.

24 Page 3. 25 1640-1705. 26 1624-1706. See Mishnah Berurah, section 90, para. 9, small para. 29, who quotes a story

about R. Zalman Mirels. See also Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p. 607, entry Mirels, Meshullam Zalman ben David (Neumark); vol. 9, p. 238, entry Neumark, Mirels (Meshullam Zalman ben Jacob David).

27 1618-1693. 28 1640-1715. 29 1660-1712. 30 Today Mikulov in the Czech Republic. 31 1664-1736, author of Responsa Nishal David et al. 32 Which had been first published in Venice 5325 (1564).



5

Enayim, known as Sm”a33, Sifthey Kohen (Sha”ch)34, Turey Zahav (Ta”z)35, Chelkath Mechokek36 and Beth Shemuel37, had by now made their debut. Only the Magen Avraham38 had yet to appear. In Frankfurt, the community was headed by R. Yisrael Yosef Shemuel39 b. Tzvi Hirsch of Cracow, author of additions to Messoreth Hashas40, whilst R. Eliyahu b. Yehudah Löb41 of Fulda had just published the first volume42 of his commentary to the Jerusalem Talmud. The city of Worms had been burned by the French army of Louis XIV 43 in 1689; R. Yair Chayim b. Mosheh Shimon Bacharach, who was yet to return there as Rabbi, would not publish his Chavoth Yair44 for another 9 years. Italy was about to see the birth of R. Mosheh Chayim Luzzatto45, author of Messilath Yesharim, whilst in Poland, R. Yonathan b. Nathan Nata Eibeschütz 46 had just been born. The advent of R. Yisrael b. Eliezer, “Baal Shem Tov”47, would change Polish Jewry beyond recognition.

R. Yehudah Chassid of Siedlce (Shedlitz)48 was about to embark on his ill-fated49 attempt to establish an Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. There were, however, many Sefardi sages in Jerusalem. R. Hezekiah b. David da Silva50 had completed his Pri Chadash51. He had to travel to Amsterdam to have it printed. R. Mosheh b. Shlomoh Ibn Chaviv52 (known as Maharam ben Chaviv) was another of the sages of the Holy Land53. His grandson and pupil R. Yaakov Culi54 was 33 By R. Yehoshua b. Alexander HaKohen Falk Katz (d. 1614), appeared in Prague, 1606. 34 By R. Shabbetai b. Meir HaKohen (1621-1662), published Crakow, 1646. 35 By R. David b. Shemuel HaLevi Segal (c.1586-1667), published Lublin, 1646. 36 By R. Mosheh b. Yitzchak Yehudah Lima (c.1605-1658), published Crakow, 1670. 37 By R. Shemuel b. Uri Shraga Phoebus of Wodzisław (dates unknown), published

Dyhernfurth, 1689. 38 By R. Abraham Abele Gombiner (c.1633-c.1683), Dyhernfurth, 1692. 39 He was Rabbi of Frankfurt from 1690 until his death on 1st Kislev 5464 (9th November 1703). 40 Printed in 1714 in Amsterdam and Frankfurt Talmud editions, and subsequently in all later

editions. 41 c.1650-1731. 42 Tractate Shekalim, Frankfurt, 1689. 43 1638-1715. 44 Frankfurt, 1699. 45 1707-1746. 46 1690-1764. 47 1700-1760. 48 1650-1700. 49 The group arrived in Jerusalem in 1700, R. Yehudah himself died 3 days later. 50 1659-1698. Sometimes known as Hezekiah Silva. 51 Amsterdam, 1692. 52 1654-1696. 53 Author of Kappoth Temarim (Constantinople, 1727) and other works. 54 1689-1732.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


6

author of Yalkut MeAm Loez55. Turkish Jewry was led by R. Yehudah b. Shemuel Rosanes56, author of Mishneh Lamelech57. In North Africa, R. Chayim b. Mosheh ibn Attar58, author of Or Hachayim was born at Meknes, Morocco, in 1696.

The First Ashkenazi Synagogue in London The first Shul was situated in a large upper room of a house rented from the Sefardi, Isaac Fernandes Nunes (a close friend of Benjamin Levy). The prayer room was situated in Broad Court, Mitre Square, identical with Duke’s Place59 on which site the first permanent synagogue was built in 1722. This remained the location of the Great Synagogue (rebuilt several times) until 10th May 1941, when the synagogue was destroyed60 by German bombing. A surviving accounts book of the Ashkenazim tells us that Isaac Nunes was paid the sum of £28 13s. 4d., as rent for the synagogue for a year and a half61.

Plaque at the site of the former Great Synagogue, Duke’s Place

55 Constantinople, 1733. 56 1657-1727. 57 Constantinople, 1731. 58 1696-1743. 59 Some non-Londoners may be confused. The street today known as Duke’s Place is a

continuation of Bevis Marks. It was originally known as Shoemaker Row, until the late 18th century, and then Duke Street until the 1920’s. For two and a half centuries, the Sefardi and Ashkenazi places of worship stood virtually side by side, albeit in different parishes, the one in the Parish of St. Andrew Undershaft, the other in the Parish of St. James Duke Place. The name Duke’s Place came from the house of Thomas, 4th Duke of Norfolk (1536-1572), which was situated there.

60 In 1943, a temporary building was erected on the site, where Services continued until 26th October 1958. An unimpressive plaque at the corner of Duke’s Place and St. James’s Passage reads: “Corporation of London. The Great Synagogue Dukes Place, a constituent of the United Synagogue, stood on the site adjoining from 1690 and served the community continuously until it was destroyed in September (sic) 1941 in World War II. ק כנסת ישראל"ק ”. The Marble Arch Synagogue was built between 1955 and 1961 as a replacement for the Great Synagogue.

61 From September 1706 until March 1708.



7

The most dominant contingent amongst the founders of the community was that from Hamburg62. As a result, it was resolved63 that the new community would adopt the Polish rite as observed in Hamburg64. The members from Amsterdam, or South Germany, familiar with the German rite as followed in Frankfurt, may well have been very disappointed by this choice.

In 1689, Rev. Robert Kirk65, Presbyterian minister of Aberfoyle in Scotland, came to London to supervise the printing of the Gaelic Bible. He carefully recorded everything he saw. He lists the places of worship of each sect: “ten Quaker, two Lutheran, six Anabaptist, and 3 Jewish synagogues”66. Clearly one was the Sefardi synagogue and the second was the fledgling Ashkenazi community. The identity of the third is puzzling. Roth surmises that it might have been a synagogue of Italianim, for London had then a considerable number of immigrants from Italy. Nothing further has ever been heard of such a community. We might, however, conjecture that synagogue number 3 was in fact an abortive attempt by the Amsterdam émigrés, to establish a synagogue following the German rite. To the best of the author’s knowledge, few further attempts to use German rite have been made in the United Kingdom67.

Just a Synagogue The newly founded congregation in Duke’s Place differed vastly in its communal structure from Jewish communities on the continent. The traditional Jewish community as an entity, although deeply rooted in Jewish Law and custom, was, practically speaking, imposed by the government, mainly for tax collection purposes. Membership was compulsory for every Jewish person; communities enjoyed a large measure of autonomy, and were responsible for

62 The remark by Abraham Bick (Shauli) (1913-1990) in his edition of Megilath Sefer by R.

Yaakov Emden, Jerusalem, 1979, p. 270, note 82, stating that Duke’s Place Synagogue was founded by Frankfurt Jews, is inaccurate.

63 To this very day, all synagogues, throughout the Commonwealth, under the authority of the Chief Rabbi, meticulously follow the customs of Hamburg.

64 See Yochanan Holleschau, Maaseh Rav, Amsterdam, 1707, p. 16a: “Here (London) the rite of Hamburg is followed”.

65 c.1641-1692. 66 The quote from Kirk’s MS. Commonplace Book, appears in Norman George Brett-James,

The Growth of Stuart London, London, 1935, p. 510; idem, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, New Series, vol. 6, London 1932, p. 324; vol. 7, London 1937, p. 151; quoted by Roth, p. 12. The Papers of Robert Kirk are preserved at Edinburgh University Library, Special Collections Division.

67 In contrast, congregations founded by Frankfurt Jews in the U.S.A., South Africa and Israel use the German rite. Curiously, the authoritative English translation of the German machzor, published by Victor Goldschmidt of Basel, Switzerland, and widely used in these communities, was actually compiled in England, and by a native of Hamburg!

Rabbi Yosef Prager


8

providing all social and educational institutions required by the Jewish populace. The Chief Rabbi’s appointment was subject to ratification by the Crown, by letters patent. A global sum of tax liability was imposed on the community as a whole, the community institutions being at liberty to divide the liability amongst the individuals as it saw fit.

In the relative freedom given to the Jews in England, none of the above applied. Membership of the synagogue was voluntary. English Jews paid taxes68 in exactly the same way as their gentile neighbours; the community needed nobody’s approval to appoint a Rabbi. The law permitted disputes between Jews to be brought before secular Courts of law69. As a result, the newly established London synagogue was precisely that, just a place of worship.

No attempt had been made to establish a community providing all other communal services normally associated with a Jewish community70. This was in stark contrast to the Sefardi community71 who rapidly established every conceivable form of communal institution72. One of the most basic communal functions lacking was burial facilities.

The First Ashkenazi Cemetery Deceased Ashkenazim were buried in the Sefardi cemetery. This soon created serious problems. In 1692, the Parnas of the Sefardi Burial Society, alerted the Mahamad73 to “the many tudescos who are at present in this city and increase every day”. The Sefardim duly summoned the “the Mahamad of the tudescos” (sic) to their vestry room, and delivered an ultimatum. The Ashkenazim were given six months to establish a cemetery of their own, after the lapse of which

68 There had been an attempt in Parliament in 1689 to levy a £100,000 tax on the Jewish

community, but it was never enforced (see Edgar Samuel, “London’s Portuguese Jewish community, 1540-1753”, in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton, From Strangers to Citizens, London, 2001, p. 241).

69 See Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, section 26. 70 In the course of time, the blatant lack of educational and social institutions brought about a

serious crime problem amongst poor Ashkenazi youth. Delinquency was virtually unknown amongst Sefardim.

71 The London Sefardi community was structurally modelled on the Community of Amsterdam, which had an excellent educational network. See Shabbetai Bass’ great praise of the Sefardi Yeshivah system in Amsterdam, which he considered superior to Ashkenazi communities (Introduction to Sifthey Yeshenim, p. 8).

72 These included the Yeshibah, the Medrash of The Society of Heshaim (Etz Haim) for the study of the Law (later merged and named the “Medrash” ), Shaarey Tikvah School for boys, Villa Real School for girls, The Sephardic Orphan Asylum, Honen Dallim to support the poor, Marriage Portion Society, Synagogue Doctor, Beth Holim Hospital, Mikveh Yisrael Burial Society, Mahesim Tobim, etc.

73 Executive.



9

time no more Tudescos would be buried in the House of Life, except those who had paid their burial assessment (finta de Bethahaim).

The deadline came and went but nothing was done. Eventually, it was Benjamin Levy, the wealthy magnate from Hamburg, who came to the rescue of his brethren. In 1697, he purchased from Captain Nathaniel Owen a plot of land in Mile End, adjacent to the Sefardi Bethahaim, for use as an Ashkenazi cemetery. His action was truly selfless, for he had full rights in the Spanish and Portuguese congregation, and his first wife74 had already been buried in their cemetery. The cemetery was subsequently enlarged several times by further purchase of land75; it is known today as Alderney Road Jewish cemetery76, close to Stepney Green Underground Station.

R. Refael of Novardok and his son Reb Zalman London In the now-published77 burial register of the so called “Velho Bethahaim”78, we find details of the Ashkenazim buried during the early period. Of special interest is the entry for 26th Shevat 5452 (3rd February 1692), when Rib Moseh Rephael ben Solmon Zalman Asquenazy was laid to eternal rest (Sin piedra79), the first Ashkenazi scholar to be buried in England. Little is known of R. Refael80, who came from Novardok81, but much more is known about his son who became known as Reb Zalman London82, a prolific publisher of Hebrew

74 Initially, he expressed the wish to be buried next to his first wife. However, when his second wife

predeceased him and was buried in the new Ashkenazi plot, he decided to be buried at her side. 75 In 1749, adjacent ground was bought in “Three Colt Yard”, whose name was later changed to

Colt Yard, and finally metamorphosed to Alderney Road. 76 The cemetery was closed in 1853, but is well maintained. Sadly most of the old inscriptions

are no longer legible, see Susser. 77 See R. D. Barnett, “The burial register of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, London 1657-1735”,

in Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England, part VI, London, 1962, p. 1ff. 78 = Old Cemetery (Velho is Portuguese). It got this name in 1733 after the purchase of an

additional Sefardi cemetery which became known as Nuevo Bethahaim = New Cemetery. 79 Without a stone. 80 Roth, chap. 1, p. 8, suggests it was perhaps R. Refael who convinced the Sefardim in 1682 to

repeal the Askamah of 1678/9 which barred Ashkenazim from any synagogue honours. From then on, the presiding Parnas was empowered to call Ashkenazim to the reading of the Law at his discretion. There is, however, no evidence that R. Refael was already in England in 1682. Roth (ibid), p. 2, seems to believe that R. Refael died in 1684.

81 Today Navahrudak in Belarus. 82 For his biography, see Abraham Schischa, “Reb Salmen London: immigrant, emigrant,

migrant”, in Migration & Settlement : proceedings of the Anglo-American Jewish Historical Conference held in London jointly by the Jewish Historical Society of England and the American Jewish Historical Society, July 1970, London, 1971, pp. 14-39; Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8, col. 179, entry London, Solomon b. Moses Raphael; Encyclopaedia Judaica (German), Berlin, 1928-1934, vol. 10, cols. 1106-1107, entry London, Salomo

Rabbi Yosef Prager


10

books. The one thing we do know is that only two weeks before his death, he had published in Amsterdam the definitive edition of Perek Shirah. All subsequent editions have relied on his version of the text, which R. Refael based on all of the earlier prints and several manuscripts. The hymn has become very popular in recent years, but few who recite it remember R. Refael.

Perek Shirah, Amsterdam, 1692

Perhaps he visited London to sell his book; perhaps, because of his untimely death he sold very few copies, whatever the reason, the book is extremely rare83. There was, however, one customer who had a standing order with the printers of Amsterdam for a copy of every book they printed, preferably in luxury format where available. That customer was R. David b. Avraham Oppenheim84 zt”l , Rabbi of Nikolsburg and Chief Rabbi of Moravia. He built up one of the greatest Hebrew Libraries ever. When he became Rabbi of Prague in 1703, he was unable to bring his library with him, because of the oppressive censorship there of Hebrew books. After over a century in storage, the collection was sold in 1829 to the Bodleian Library in Oxford85. Thus, two rare copies86 of R.

Salman ben Mose Rafael. Zalman may be identical with Solomon Moses of 280 Walnut Tree Yard in the parish of St. Botolph’s Without-Aldgate, who appears in the census of 1695, see P. Arnold Arthur, “A List of Jews and their Households in London: Extracted from the Census Lists of 1695”, in Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England, part VI, London, 1962, p. 100. See also Dr. Leopold (Löb) Löwenstein (1843-1924), “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Fürth”, in Jahrbuch der Jüdisch Literarischen Gesellschaft, vol. 8, Frankfurt, 1910, p. 124.

83 It does not appear in the Otzar HaSefarim catalogue of Ben Jacob (Vilna, 1880), nor in Beth Ekked Sefarim of Friedberg (Antwerp, 1928 - Tel Aviv, 1951).

84 See above note 31. 85 Oxford is some 60 miles from London. Sir Thomas Bodley (1545-1613), founder of the

library, was himself a Hebrew scholar. The price paid, 9,000 Thaler, then £2,080, was, of course, ridiculously low for this priceless collection.



11

Refael’s Perek Shirah, one in Hebrew, the other with Judaeo-German translation, have been preserved for posterity.

The Royal “Resident” of Poland and the Bank of England Another London connection with Hebrew printing concerns the brothers Henry (Hirtz HaLevi) Lehmann of Vienna and Behrend (Yissachar HaLevi Bermann) Lehmann, Royal “Resident”87 of Poland, of Halberstadt, who are said to have journeyed to London in 1694 in connection with the establishment of the Bank of England. During their Channel crossing, it is told88, they encountered extremely choppy conditions and their boat almost capsized. After their narrow escape from drowning, the London Rabbi89, Yehudah Löb b. Efraim Asher Anshel, advised Behrend, as a thank-offering, to republish the Talmud and to found an institute of Torah study. The results were the 15 volumes of the Frankfurt-on-the-Oder Talmud edition90 (most of the 5,000 copies printed were distributed to scholars), and the Halberstadt Klaus, which served that 86 See Moritz Steinschneider (1816-1907), Catalogus librorum hebraeorum in bibliotheca

Bodleiana, Berlin, 1852, p. 500, #3288 & #3289; Arthur Ernest Cowley (1861-1931), A Concise Catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 1929, p. 578, Opp. 8° 786 & Opp. 8° 787. The National Library in Jerusalem also owns a copy of each, R 2 - 40 A 1237 & R 8 - 58 A 2467, the copy with Yiddish contains only the last 4 pages.

87 The German title “Resident” is difficult to translate into English and is often left as Resident. It means an official agent.

88 The source of the story is Dr. Benjamin Hirsch Auerbach (1808-1872), Geschichte der Israelitischen Gemeinde Halberstadt, Halberstadt, 1866, p. 57. The story is also quoted by Emil Lehmann (1829-1898), Der Polnische Resident Berend Lehmann, Dresden, 1885, p. 39; Dr. Heinrich Schnee (1871-1949), Die Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat, Berlin, 1953, vol. 2, p. 199; Roth, chap. 3. The story is a beautiful one. All four sources, however, seem unconvinced of its truth. In the introduction to the Frankfurt-on-the-Oder Talmud, there is not even the slightest hint about the English Channel incident. Roth himself writes in chap. 1, that Benjamin Levy was the only Jew on the list of original Subscribers to the Bank of England. See also J. A. Giuseppi, “Sephardi Jews and early years of the Bank of England”, in Transactions of The Jewish Historical Society of England, vol. 19, London, 1955/59, pp. 53-63; idem, “Early Jewish holders of Bank of England stock, 1694-1725”, in Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England, part VI, London, 1962, pp. 143-74.

89 Roth is purposely vague about the identity of the Rabbi in question. It appears that the Rabbi meant in the story is R. Yehudah Löb b. Efraim Asher Anshel Hamburger, the first Ashkenazi Rabbi in London, who left in 1700 to become Rabbi of Rotterdam. According to Roth, however, he was not yet in London in 1694 (see below note 107). When Auerbach’s work was written, no authoritative history of the London Community had yet been written. Auerbach is therefore unaware, in note 2, that the Ashkenazi community of London was founded in 1690. He therefore assumes that the story refers to the Sefardi Rabbi. The incumbent in 1694, however, was R. Solomon Ayllon; Haham David Nidu (Nieto) only arrived in London in 1702. “Faibisch” Hamburger became Rabbi in 1704, not 1730.

90 1697-1699.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


12

community for centuries.

The reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714) In 1699, the Sefardim had started construction of a new synagogue at Plough Yard, in Bevis Marks. The Esnoga, dedicated in 1701, is still in daily use91. Its location in the City of London, so close to all the financial institutions, makes it today a convenient place of prayer for many who work in the City. It is said that an oak beam in the roof of the building was presented by Queen Anne92.

The reign of Queen Anne saw a flourishing of the Sefardi community, but schism in the Ashkenazi group. In 1702, after Haham Shlomoh Yehudah b. Yaakov Ayllon93, a confirmed94 Sabbatean95, had left for Amsterdam, the community appointed the illustrious Haham David Nieto96. The ramifications of this appointment eventually brought the celebrated Chacham Tzvi97 on a

91 The synagogue survived two recent IRA bomb attacks nearby; the bombing of the Baltic

Exchange on 10th April 1992 and the Bishopsgate bombing on 24th April 1993. On each occasion, damage was caused, but has been repaired.

92 She had visited the old synagogue in 1681. During the construction of the synagogue, she was still Princess George of Denmark (she came to the throne in 1702). Her husband, Prince George of Denmark (1653-1708), who later became Lord High Admiral, evidently provided for the purpose the mast from a Royal Navy man-o’-war. See Roth, A history of the Jews in England, Oxford, 1941, p. 185, note 1; Elkan Adler, London, Philadelphia, 1930, p. 118. Although the roof was destroyed by fire in 1738, Queen Anne’s beam was unscathed and rebuilt into the new roof.

93 1664-1728. See Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 359, entry Ayllon, Solomon ben Jacob. The name Ayllon is derived from the town of Ayllón in Spain, which is some 84 miles north of Madrid.

94 To understand the extent of the Sabbatean Messianic fervour at the time in London, we can turn once again to Pepys, 19th February 1666, who tells us: “I have heard once or twice already, of a Jew in town, that in the name of the rest do offer to give any man £10 to be paid £100, if a certain person now at Smyrna be within these two years owned by all the Princes of the East, and particularly the grand Signor as the King of the world, in the same manner we do the King of England here, and that this man is the true Messiah. One named a friend of his that had received ten pieces in gold upon this score, and says that the Jew hath disposed of £1100 in this manner, which is very strange; and certainly this year of 1666 will be a year of great action; but what the consequences of it will be, God knows!”.

95 The name given to the followers of the false Messiah, Shabbetai Tzvi (1626-1676). (There is no standard English spelling for the word Sabbatean. All the following options can be used:- Sabbatean, Sabbatian, Sabbataean, Sabbatæan, Sabbetean, Shabbethaian, Shabbathaian, Sabbatarian. In this article, the spelling Sabbatean has been used).

96 1654-1728. The inscription on his tombstone lauds him as “Sublime theologian, profound sage, distinguished physician, famous astronomer, sweet poet, elegant preacher, subtle logician, ingenious physician, fluent rhetorician, pleasant author, expert in languages, learned in history”. In his familiar portrait, Nieto wears a periwig, highly fashionable in his day.

97 1656-1718.



13

historical visit to London. In 1704, some over zealous98 members accused the learned Rabbi of heresy. The dispute99 was brought before Chacham Tzvi100, who praised the Haham for his sound teaching. Haham Nieto receives additional support from a quite unexpected source. R. Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky101, known as The Steipler of Bnei Brak, in his Chayey Olam102, refers to Nieto’s work Matte Dan, the second Kuzari, as “the wonderful book” which strengthens faith.

Haham David Nieto

Mezzotint engraving by I. McArdell, after painting by David Estevens

The arrival of Chacham Tzvi’s response103 in London marked a joyous triumph for the Haham. There was such wild enthusiasm over the vindication of their leader, that the community had a flyer104 printed with the text of Chacham Tzvi’s letter in Hebrew and Spanish. This was, incidentally, the first ever 98 It is probable that the troublemakers were Sabbateans, supporters of the former Haham,

Ayllon. Chacham Tzvi may well have realized that this was the case. Roth, on the other hand, blames “the hyper-orthodox” (Anglo-Jewish Letters (1158-1917), London, 1938, p. 89, “The London Synagogue etc.”).

99 See Evelyne Oliel-Grausz, “A study in intercommunal relations in the Sephardi Diaspora: London and Amsterdam in the eighteenth century”, in Dutch Jews as perceived by themselves and by others: proceedings of the eighth international symposium on the history of the Jews in the Netherlands, Leiden, 2001, p. 4; Solomon B. Freehof, “David Nieto and Pantheism”, in A Treasury of Responsa, Philadelphia, 1963, pp. 176-181.

100 See Responsa Chacham Tzvi, chap. 18. 101 1899-1985. 102 Bnei Brak, 1957, beginning of part 2, p. 214. 103 Dated Friday 7th August 1705. 104 A copy is preserved in Oxford, at the Bodleian Library. The National Library in Jerusalem

has a photocopy of an original (shelf mark L 2463).

Rabbi Yosef Prager


14

Hebrew page to be printed for Jews105 in Britain. It was to be a discord in the Ashkenazi community, which brought about the printing of the first complete Hebrew book in England (more about this below).

First Ashkenazi Rabbi The first Rabbi of the Ashkenazim was R. Yehudah Löb106 b. Avraham Efraim Asher Anshel107 Hamburger Spatz108, who was, of course, a native of Hamburg109. He was married to Sarah Gittelen, daughter of R. Avraham Aberle of Worms, Rabbi of Amsterdam. His unpopularity is ascribed to his refusal to accept bribes110. In 1700, the lay leaders of the community, by trickery111, forced the elderly sage to resign. R. Yehudah was fortunate to receive an immediate appointment as Rabbi of Rotterdam112. Later, he moved to

105 For details of earlier Hebrew printing by Christians in England, see Yona Dureau, “Hebrew

printing and XVIth- XVIIth century England (1500-1700)”, in Parcours Judaïques, 6, Paris, 2000, pp. 73-88.

106 R. Yehudah Löb issued over a dozen approbations, including:- Menorath HaMaor, Amsterdam, 1700; Ein Yaakov, Berlin, 1708; Machzor, Machzor Mikol HaShanah, Paamon VeRimon, Pirkey Rabbi Eliezer, Reshith Chochmah, Sheviley Emunah, Shulchan Aruch, Toldoth Yitzchak, Zevach HaShelamim, all Amsterdam, 1708; Kothnoth Or, Berlin, 1709; Tzeenah Urenah, Amsterdam?, 1709; Eth Ketz, Amsterdam 1710.

107 Kaufmann, p. 122, note 12, points out that Lucien Wolf (1857-1930), “The Origin of the Hambro’ Synagogue”, in Jewish Chronicle, 18th November 1892, p. 7, confuses this R. Yehudah, with his namesake R. Yehudah HaKohen of Offen, uncle of Chacham Tzvi. (He also erroneously refers to him as Rabbi of the Hambro’ Synagogue, rather than of Duke’s Place). Roth follows suit in calling him “Cohen”. According to Roth, chap. 3, p. 31, note 6, he served in London no more than 4 years, between 1696 and 1700. An additional source of confusion is the involvement of R. Löb Charif b. Kalonymus Cohen of Amsterdam in the London divorce controversy. R. Löb Charif was indeed of priestly stock. (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 540, entry Amsterdam, gives the date of death of R. Löb Charif as 1705. This cannot be correct as the controversy took place in 1707).

108 See below note 116. 109 It appears that R. Yehudah Löb lived in Amsterdam before coming to London, as his son Eliezer

Levi Hamburger was born in Amsterdam around 1660, and married in Amsterdam in 1682. 110 Dr. David Hausdorff (1901-1990), Jizkor: Platenatlas van drie en een halve eeuw

geschiedenis van de joodse gemeente in Rotterdam van 1610 tot ±1960, Baarn, 1978, p. 37, “zijn onomkoopbaarheid”.

111 An anonymous hand had cut one of his Tzitzith, rendering his Tallith unfit. This may have been intended as a threat, as the dead are buried with an unfit Tallith.

112 Dr. Charles (Yaakov Kopel) Duschinsky (1878-1944), The Rabbinate of the Great Synagogue, London, from 1756-1842, London, 1921, p. 1, believes that R. Yehudah Löb left for Rotterdam in 1705. (The book first appeared in The Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 9, Philadelphia, 1918/9, p. 103ff, and further instalments). The 1705 date is clearly untrue, as he is signatory as Rabbi of Rotterdam on an approbation dated 1700 (see above note 106).



15

Amsterdam113, where he served twice114 as interim Rabbi115. R. Yehudah Löb died116 in Amsterdam in 1720117, at an extremely advanced age118.

R. Aharon b. Mosheh the scribe of Dublin Before the next Rabbi was appointed, the aged119 scribe, Aharon b. Mosheh of Novardok120, took up residence in London121 and performed rabbinic functions on an interim basis. He had previously served as Rabbi of Dublin122. Being from Novardok, he was friendly with Zalman London, his townsman123. Back in Poland, R. David HaLevi Segal (Baal HaTa”z) had entrusted to R. Aharon’s

113 Cnollen’s remark (p. 632), “anjetzo in gleicher Würde zu Rotterdam”, written in 1714, long

after R. Yehudah Löb had left Rotterdam for Amsterdam, is merely a translation of what R. Yochanan Holleschau had written in 1707.

114 This occurred once in 1708, when R. Saul of Cracow, having been elected, died on his way to Amsterdam; and again in 1709, when R. Aryeh Yehudah Löb Kalisch died. In 1714, when Chacham Tzvi, embattled with the parnassim, was unable to perform his functions, R. Yehudah Löb was once again called upon to officiate at a marriage. During these interregnums, he signs as “Bein Malka LeMalka” (interim Rabbi).

115 See Menachem Mann b. Shlomo HaLevi Amelander (d. 1767), Sheerith Yisrael, Fürth, 1767, chap. 34, p. 136a; Dutch ed., Seërith Jisrael, Amsterdam, 1855, p. 563; Hausdorff, ibid.

116 He died in Amsterdam on 23rd February 1720 (14th Adar 5480), and was buried in Muiderberg, near Amsterdam. Details of his tomb appear in the documentation of “Akevoth” (previously, The Genealogical Department of the Center for Research on Dutch Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Under the name “Leib Abraham Hamburg(er)”, we find the inscription: “The old Gaon Mohr”r Leib Hamburger, AB”D Rotterdam”. The information is based on Fisches Frank microfilm records of the “regel” (row) of important members of the community, at City Archive of Amsterdam, nr. 540. The additional patronymic Abraham occasionally occurs in his signature. See his approbation to Paamon VeRimon, Amsterdam, 1708. Sometimes, his signature also includes the surname Spatz.

117 The suggestion by Prof. Panikos Panayi, Germans in Britain since 1500, London, 1996, p. 43, that R. Yehudah Löb only left London for Rotterdam in 1731, is preposterous.

118 He was already old when he left London in 1700 (Kaufmann, p. 105). He lived another 20 years. 119 Roth, chap. 3, p. 32, note 7, believes that R. Aharon died as an old man some time after 1707.

A closer look at British Library MS. LON BL 652 (see below note 124), allows us to be more precise. The MS. is dated 5474 (1713/14). R. Aharon must therefore still have been alive and well in 1713.

120 See below note 124. 121 This is disputed by Moses Margoliouth (1820-1881), The history of the Jews in Great Britain,

London, 1851, vol. 2, p. 63, who believes that R. Aharon had merely visited London. Bernard Shillman, A short history of the Jews in Ireland, Dublin, 1945, p. 39, thinks that R. Aharon came to London just to assist in writing a divorce bill. So too, Leon Hühner, “The Jews of Ireland: An Historical Sketch”, in Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, vol. 5, London, 1902/5, p. 234. None are right. R. Aharon was actually resident in London.

122 He was still in Dublin in 1703. See Bernard Shillman, A short history of the Jews in Ireland, Dublin, 1945, pp. 38-39.

123 See their depositions in Urim VeTumim, London, 1706.


16

capable hand, the writing of divorce bills. R. Duke’s Place, right next to the synagogue. Some examples of his fine calligraphy124 still survive, as well as some of his correspondence

Letter addressed to Aharon the Scribe, LondonBritish Library MS. Harley 7013Image by courtesy of the British Library

124 Three Almemor Siddurim on Vellum containing a selection of prayers, mainly those recited

from the Bimah, still exist:- 1. MS. LON BL 652 (Harley 5713), see George Margoliouth (1853

Hebrew and Samaritan manuscripts in the British MuseumMicrofilmed Hebrew Manuscripts JNUL, F 58920). The MS., from the Harleian collection of Robert Harley (1661-1724), 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, was written foWanley (1672-1726), Harley’s Librarian. The Hebrew dedication refers to Harley asTreasury” (sic). Harley served as Lord Treasurer from 30(Margoliouth understands the colophon to mean that Aharon came frincorrect reading; the colophon meant to indicate that his father Mosheh originated from Wilna, whilst Aharon himself was born and lived in Novardok, his mother

2. MS. Cambridge - University Library Dd. 8.34 (SCR 449), seemanuscripts at Cambridge University Library: a description and1997, pp. 265-266 (Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts JNUL, F 15921).

3. MS. Cambridge - Trinity College R 8 1 (Institute of MicrofilmeJNUL, F 12593).

125 They also come from the Harleian collection, see Margoliouth, (Harley 7013; Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts JNUL, F 6078). R. Aharon seems to have been a Marriage broker (1703, sent to R. Aharon in Dublin. The letter concerns a potential bride who was reluctant to travel to Ireland without receiving certain assurances from her groomtranslated in Roth, Anglo-Jewish Letters (Marriage”. The correspondence is dealt with in detail by Dr. Jacob Maitlis (1900“London Yiddish Letters of the Early Eighteenth Centuryvol. 6, London, 1955, pp. 153-165, 237half in imperfect English, as follows,Shoemakeroo near Al Gat, at London” Row near Aldgate, at London). Maitlis (p. 153) believes this collection contains letters which went astray and were never delivered.

Rabbi Yosef Prager

capable hand, the writing of divorce bills. R. Aharon lived in Shoemaker’s Row, s Place, right next to the synagogue. Some examples of his fine

, as well as some of his correspondence125.

Letter addressed to Aharon the Scribe, London

British Library MS. Harley 7013 Image by courtesy of the British Library

on Vellum containing a selection of prayers, mainly those recited

1. MS. LON BL 652 (Harley 5713), see George Margoliouth (1853-1924), Catalogue of the brew and Samaritan manuscripts in the British Museum, London, 1899, p. 269 (Institute of

Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts JNUL, F 58920). The MS., from the Harleian collection of 1724), 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, was written for Humfrey

s Librarian. The Hebrew dedication refers to Harley as “My Lord ). Harley served as Lord Treasurer from 30th May 1711 until 30th July 1714.

(Margoliouth understands the colophon to mean that Aharon came from Wilna. This is an incorrect reading; the colophon meant to indicate that his father Mosheh originated from Wilna, whilst Aharon himself was born and lived in Novardok, his mother’s hometown).

University Library Dd. 8.34 (SCR 449), see Stefan C. Reif, Hebrew manuscripts at Cambridge University Library: a description and introduction, Cambridge,

266 (Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts JNUL, F 15921). Trinity College R 8 1 (Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts

They also come from the Harleian collection, see Margoliouth, ibid, pp. 398-399, #1049 (Harley 7013; Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts JNUL, F 6078). R. Aharon seems to have been a Marriage broker (shadchan). Shillman (p. 38) refers to a letter dated 1703, sent to R. Aharon in Dublin. The letter concerns a potential bride who was reluctant to travel to Ireland without receiving certain assurances from her groom-to-be. The letter is

ish Letters (1158-1917), London, 1938, p. 87, “An Irish . The correspondence is dealt with in detail by Dr. Jacob Maitlis (1900-1982),

London Yiddish Letters of the Early Eighteenth Century”, in The Journal of Jewish Studies, 165, 237-252. The letter illustrated is addressed, half in Dutch,

half in imperfect English, as follows, “desen brief te bestellen aan Aharon Moosis livth (deliver to Aharon Moses who liveth in Shoemaker’s

near Aldgate, at London). Maitlis (p. 153) believes this collection contains letters which


Dedication, Prayer for Queen Anne and ColophonBritish Library MS. Harley 5713Image by courtesy of the British Library

R. Uri Phoebus b. Let us return for a moment to Dyhernfurth (Bass126 had printed, in his brand newon Even HaEzer, by R. Shemuel b. Uri ShragFürth and Szydłów128. A glance in the preface shows us that the printing costs 126 R. Shabbetai b. Yosef Meshorer Bass (or Bassista), 1641

Chachamim, Amsterdam, 1680 (the most popular su127 In the colophon on p. 160b, Bass writes,

commentary of R. David HaLevi Segal (line, and was printed next.

128 His first position was in Lemberg (see Salomon Buber (18271895, no. 539). It is generally presumed that R. Shemuel served first in Szydłów, then in Fürth. A glance at the title page of the second edition of that he was elected to Szydłów after being in Fürth. Dr. Leopold (Löb) Löwenstein,Geschichte der Juden in Fürth”, in Jahrbuch der Jüdisch Literarischen GesellschaftFrankfurt, 1908, p. 169, is of the opinion that after 4 years (1691back again to Szydłów. Binyamin Shlomoh Hamburger, Bnei Brak, 5770, vol. 1, p. 228, proves that R. Shemuel came to Szydłów only after leaving Fürth, since Szydłów is not even mentioned in the Dyhernfurth edition. Löwenstein, speculates that the dispute between the Model and Fränkel families idecision to leave. Hamburger, ibid, p. 237, disproves this theory. The dispute took place ten years after R. Shemuel’s departure. The true reason was indeed connected with the Model

s Ashkenazi Community


17

Dedication, Prayer for Queen Anne and Colophon

British Library MS. Harley 5713 urtesy of the British Library

R. Uri Phoebus b. Naftali Herz Let us return for a moment to Dyhernfurth (above note 37), where R. Shabbetai

had printed, in his brand new127 printing press, the work Beth Shemuel , by R. Shemuel b. Uri Shraga Phoebus of Wodzisław, Rabbi of

. A glance in the preface shows us that the printing costs

R. Shabbetai b. Yosef Meshorer Bass (or Bassista), 1641-1718, author of Sifthey , Amsterdam, 1680 (the most popular super-commentary on Rashi).

In the colophon on p. 160b, Bass writes, “ ו"ר שמואל נר"כמוהר... דחק ונכנס ראשון ”. The commentary of R. David HaLevi Segal (Baal HaTa”z) named Divrey David had to wait on

His first position was in Lemberg (see Salomon Buber (1827-1906), Anshey Shem, Cracow, ). It is generally presumed that R. Shemuel served first in Szydłów, then in

Fürth. A glance at the title page of the second edition of Beth Shemuel, Fürth, 1694, shows that he was elected to Szydłów after being in Fürth. Dr. Leopold (Löb) Löwenstein, “Zur

Jahrbuch der Jüdisch Literarischen Gesellschaft, vol. 6, Frankfurt, 1908, p. 169, is of the opinion that after 4 years (1691-1694) in Fürth, he went back again to Szydłów. Binyamin Shlomoh Hamburger, HaYeshivah HaRamah BeFürth, Bnei Brak, 5770, vol. 1, p. 228, proves that R. Shemuel came to Szydłów only after leaving Fürth, since Szydłów is not even mentioned in the Dyhernfurth edition. Löwenstein, ibid, speculates that the dispute between the Model and Fränkel families in Fürth precipitated the

, p. 237, disproves this theory. The dispute took place ten s departure. The true reason was indeed connected with the Model

Rabbi Yosef Prager


18

had been defrayed by R. Shemuel’s wealthy mechutan, R. Naftali Hirtz b. Mosheh (Hartig Moses) Hamburger, now living in Breslau129. Hamburger had married130 off his older son, Uri Phoebus, to R. Shemuel’s daughter131. In 1697 the Council of Breslau imposed restrictions on the Jews, prompting Moses, the younger son, to move to London, where his cousin Benjamin Levy132 (the cemetery benefactor) had so prospered. Soon, the older brother followed him. R. Uri Phoebus had served as head of a Yeshivah in Poland before coming to England. He was to become the first133 and longest serving British Chief Rabbi.

In 1704, Uri Phoebus Hamburger134 (also known as Breslauer) was appointed as Rabbi. In English, he was known as Aaron135 Hart136. He was to serve for over half a century until his death in 1756137. R. Uri Phoebus had

family, but in fact concerned the controversial marriage of Mordechai (Marx) Model Ellingen, which R. Shemuel had evidently sanctioned. See also Chanoch Ersohn’s biography of Reb Herschel, “Kuntres Acharon”, in Chanukath HaTorah, Pietrkov, 1900, p. 112, no. 9; David HaLachmi, Chachmey Yisrael, Tel Aviv, 1957, pp. 99-100.

129 See Dr. Markus (Mordechai) Brann (1849-1920), “Geschichte und Annalen der Dyhernfurther Druckerei”, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, Year 40 (N.F. 4), heft 11, Breslau, 1896, p. 520, note 7. Dyhernfurth (Brzeg Dolny) is about 20 miles NW of Breslau (Wrocław). See also Löwenstein, ibid, pp. 168-169.

130 Brann (ibid) seems to have been unaware of the precise nature of Hamburger’s relationship to R. Shemuel.

131 Her name is not known. Her gravestone in Alderney Road is no longer legible. 132 In 1704, Benjamin Levy left in his will £12 a year for three years to “my cousin, Rabbi

Fivish” (i.e. Uri Phoebus). Being a cousin to one brother, he was presumably a cousin of Moses too. Additionally, Moses and Benjamin were married to sisters. This marriage, however, may have taken place after Moses came to London.

133 In fact, he was not the first Rabbi, but later generations, ignoring the previous incumbents, regarded him as the first Chief Rabbi.

134 1670-1756. When his portrait was painted in 1751, he was over 80. His hand holds a divorce bill; he is leaning on a copy of his father-in-law’s Beth Shemuel. More about him, see Löwenstein, ibid, p. 170, note 1; Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 5, p. 242, entry Hart, Aaron; Encyclopaedia Judaica (German), Berlin, 1928-1934, vol. 7, cols. 1009-1010, entry Hart, Aaron.

135 In Hebrew sources, the name Aharon never appears. Perhaps Uri, although a biblical name (see Exodus 31:2), sounded unfamiliar to the English public, and Aharon was considered an appropriate name for the “High Priest” of the Jews, especially as his brother was Moses. Adler, p. 278, however, finds it understandable that the name Uri would be anglicised into Aaron. In a plaque erected by the United Synagogue in 1939 at Alderney Road Cemetery, his Hebrew name appears as “Aron ben Naftali, Av Beth Din”. This is a deplorable example of the tendency to lend more credence to non-Jewish sources than to Jewish ones.

136 Hart, an old English word for deer, is the English form for Hartig or Hirtz, the name of his father. In Yiddish, by convention, the Middle High German “Hirz” goes with Naftali, corresponding to the Hebrew Ayyal/ah (based on Genesis 29:21), whilst the more modern form, “Hirsch”, goes with Tzvi. Both are rendered in English as Hart.

137 The assertion by Moses Margoliouth (1820-1881), The history of the Jews in Great Britain,



19

many influential relatives in London. As well as his brother, Moses Hart138, who had become a wealthy merchant, and of course his cousin Benjamin Levy, one of his sisters, Tzipporah, was married to Meir Wagg139, another sister, Margoshes, to Lazarus Simon140, whilst his cousin was married to David Prager141. There was also a half-brother named Solomon Hart142.

R. Uri Phoebus Hamburger (Aaron Hart)

Mezzotint engraving by James McArdell, after painting by Bartholomew Dandridge, 1751

London, 1851, vol. 2, p. 75, that R. Uriah Phaïbhush (sic) was replaced as Rabbi by his son, is quite unfounded. In fact, his successor, Hart Lion, was the son of his cousin Aryeh Löb Löwenstamm (see family tree). As far as his son, Abraham, is concerned, he predeceased R. Uri. According to Susser, p. 26, grave AF10 at Alderney Road includes the words “[? illegible] the Gaon Shemuel, author of Beth Shemuel”. This would seem to be the grave of Rabbi Hart’s son; the [? illegible], then, should be filled with the word “grandson”, not “son”, as given by Susser. The date on this stone is 4th Iyyar 5511 (10th May 1751), five years before his father’s death.

138 1675-1756. According to the plaque at Alderney Road, he died in 1757. He was extremely successful as Government agent, and built himself a country home, first at Isleworth on the Thames, near Twickenham, and later at Richmond. In 1722, Moses contributed £2,000 to the original building of the Great Synagogue, having bought up several properties adjoining the old prayer-room. The synagogue was long after called “Moses Hart’s Shool”. In 1787, his daughter, Judith Levy (1706-1803, she had married her cousin Elias, son of Benjamin Levy), contributed £4,000 towards a major enlargement and rebuilding of the synagogue.

139 The Waage family had two representatives in London, Moses and Meir. The family derived its name from the sign of their house in Frankfurt-on-Main, the Goldene Waage (Golden Scales), head office of the firm Isaak Benedict zur Waage, which dealt in English and Dutch cloths, wholesale calico, grey cotton cloth and plush. In England, they anglicised their name to Wagg.

140 Elazar (or Eliezer) b. Shimon was himself a cousin of R. Uri; his father Simon Lazarus of Goslar (Uri’s uncle) had come to London from Breslau with his nephew, Moses Hart.

141 Wagg and Prager are referred to by Cnollen, p. 632, as Tuvey HaIr (Optimates = Best Men of the Town).

142 Died 1768.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


20

Times for Shabbath The early Ashkenazi Rabbis may have been erudite sages, but, it seems, Astronomy was not their strong point143, and calculation of the times for the beginning and termination of Shabbath, was for them a taxing burden. On the other hand, the Sefardi Haham, David Nieto, was a world authority on the subject, having himself composed a learned treatise144 on the Jewish calendar. As a result, it was agreed at a very early stage, that this calculation be left to the Sefardi Haham. A ritual developed whereby every Friday, between Minchah and Arbit, the Beadle of the Sefardi synagogue would march from Bevis Marks to Duke’s Place, with an appropriate escort, where he would receive solemn greetings from his Tudesco colleague; and, on the threshold of the synagogue, he would pompously present the compliments of the Gentlemen of the Mahamad and inform the sister community of the time for commencement of the following Sabbath. This custom survived for centuries145, long after printed calendars had become available, and continued into the twentieth146 century.

Reb Aberle London Mosheh Avraham Aberle London147 son of Nathan148 Norden Hamburg, Parnas of Hamburg, was the autocrat of the London Ashkenazim. The community contained a few scholars and several tycoons, but there was only one man, Reb Aberle, who fell into both149 categories. Together with his partner Sampson Mears150, his business interests were wide and varied; their ships went as far

143 Cf. introduction to Levushim by R. Mordechai b. Avraham Yaffe (1530-1612), who refused

to take up the rabbinical position offered to him in Posen, before travelling to Venice, Italy, to study Astronomy!

144 Paschologia, Cologne, 1702. The book is in Italian. 145 See for example, Laws of the New Synagogue, London, 1824, p. 2: “The commencing of

Shabbat on Friday evenings, also Mincha and Maariv on all week days; the time for abstaining from Chametz on Erev Pesach, likewise the hour for commencing the fast on Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av; shall be regulated according to the time appointed by the Rav HaGaon Ab”d Nr”u (May God guard and save him) of the Kehilla Kedosha Sefardim”.

146 Today, the London Beth Din publishes Sabbath commencement times for the Ashkenazi Community.

147 Also known as Abraham London, Abraham Hamburg, Aberle Norden or Reb Aberlein. 148 Roth, chap. 3, p. 29, gives the father’s name as Moses Nathan. From the grave inscription

(see below note 160), however, it is clear that Aberle himself, not his father, had the extra name Mosheh.

149 Although Reb Aberle was indeed learned, Dr. Max Grunwald (1871-1953), Hamburgs deutsche Juden bis zur Auflösung der drei Gemeinden, Hamburg, 1904, p. 283, no. 3138, goes a little too far when stating that he was Chief Rabbi of London! (His grandson, David Tevele Schiff, however, did attain that position in 1765, 20 years after Reb Aberle’s death).

150 Kaufmann, p. 106, calls him Moers, noting that Cnollen after Schudt gives Mersch. The


afield as the West Indies. His main enterprise, however, was the gem trade. He had amassed a great fortune. Reb Aberle, as he was usually cto Esther b. Yitzchak Polack151. He was on friendly termsTzvi, whom he had known as Klausthe Sefardim to submit the Nieto dispute to Chacham only harsh words for Reb Aberle. He wasRabbinic ordination to make himself a nuisanceinflexible resolution”, “tyrant of the communityscholarship”153 (Schudt); “Intolerant Elderthe Hambro’ secession155. This criticism is perhapswere probably good. It should also be stated that he and his descendants played a key role in Anglo Jewry for well over two centuries. Chief Rabbis David Tevele156 Schiff157, Nathan Marcus AdlerAdler159, are all numbered among the offspring of Reb Aberle.

The Family Tree of R. Aberle London

family came from Amsterdam and Meijers is probably the correct spelling, Mears being an Anglicisation. The Hebrew spelling is ש

151 He died in Hamburg in 1713. 152 He later asked Chacham Tzvi to serve on the

was sued by his brother-in-law Eliyah Polack for a massive sum. Chacham Tzvi found for the defendant but in vain, the majority found for the plaintiff and Reb Aberle was reduced to poverty.

153 “Seine Gelährigkeit mißbrauche”, Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten154 Paul Lindsay, The Synagogues of London155 See below. 156 Tevele, the Judaeo-German nickname for David, is etymologically similar to the English

“Dave”, both having dropped the final pronounced as a hard “D”, becomes a “

157 Died 1791. 158 1803-1890. 159 1839-1911. The family tree given by Adler, p. 285, is inaccurate. The version in Roth, p.

138, is the correct one.



21

afield as the West Indies. His main enterprise, however, was the gem trade. He had amassed a great fortune. Reb Aberle, as he was usually called, was married

. He was on friendly terms152 with Chacham Klaus Rabbi in Altona. It was he who had advised

the Sefardim to submit the Nieto dispute to Chacham Tzvi. Most historians have only harsh words for Reb Aberle. He was “restless and overbearing”, “used his

ion to make himself a nuisance” (Roth); “firm hand and tyrant of the community” (Kaufmann); “abused his

Intolerant Elder” (Lindsay154); and all blame him for This criticism is perhaps too severe, for his motives

be stated that he and his descendants played in Anglo Jewry for well over two centuries. Chief Rabbis David

, Nathan Marcus Adler158 and Hermann Naftali Nathan all numbered among the offspring of Reb Aberle.

The Family Tree of R. Aberle London

family came from Amsterdam and Meijers is probably the correct spelling, Mears being an ש"מער .

He later asked Chacham Tzvi to serve on the Beth Din appointed to adjudicate when Reb Aberle law Eliyah Polack for a massive sum. Chacham Tzvi found for the

ound for the plaintiff and Reb Aberle was reduced to poverty. Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten, vol. 4, 1st continuation, p. 135.

The Synagogues of London, London, 1993, p. 43.

ickname for David, is etymologically similar to the English “D”; except that in the German version, the first “D”, “T”. The “le” at the end is a diminutive form.

1911. The family tree given by Adler, p. 285, is inaccurate. The version in Roth, p.


22

Reb Aberle eventually retired to Hamburg, where he died at a ripe old age on 11th February 1745. He is buried at Königstraßefrom the tomb of R. Yaakov Emden

Tombstone of R. Aberle London in Altona

There is a further point which should be made about Reb Aberle. Marcus Moses(see below) had a business associate named Abraham Norden, together with whom he travelled several times to the CAbraham was none other than our Reb Aberle. Evidently, there was considerable bitterness when their businesses parted ways. They became bitter rivals. This would certainly explain Aberle’s vindictive attitude towardcontroversy discussed later. Roth in his the possibility of identifying Aberle and Norden as one and the same, yet he

160 The grave no. is 1734. The inscription reads

אדר ראשון 'ל נפטר ונקבר בכתר שם טוב גדול טה"ק תנצב"ה לפ"תק . Documentation of the grave is available to the public electronically from

the Steinheim Institut. The tombstone is today badly damaged; however a wartime photograph taken by the Nazi RIGND (Reichstill exists. See Gaby Zürn, “Die Fotografische Dokumentation von Grabinschriften auf dem Jüdischen Friedhof Königstraße/Altona (1942Freimark, Alice Jankowski and Ina S. Lorenz, Integration, Verfolgung und Vernichtung

Rabbi Yosef Prager

Reb Aberle eventually retired to Hamburg, where he died at a ripe old age on February 1745. He is buried at Königstraße cemetery in Altona160, not far

.

Tombstone of R. Aberle London in Altona

There is a further point which should be made about Reb Aberle. Marcus Moses

had a business associate named Abraham Norden, together with whom he travelled several times to the Continent on business. It seems that this Abraham was none other than our Reb Aberle. Evidently, there was considerable bitterness when their businesses parted ways. They became bitter rivals. This

s vindictive attitude towards Marcus in the Get . Roth in his Great Synagogue was clearly aware of

the possibility of identifying Aberle and Norden as one and the same, yet he

The grave no. is 1734. The inscription reads ר משה אברהם "ג כמהורינ הנדיב המפורסם המופל"פל נפטר ונקבר בכתר שם טוב גדול ט"ר נתן זצ"ג כמהוריאברלי לונדן בן המנוח הרבני המופל

. Documentation of the grave is available to the public electronically from the Steinheim Institut. The tombstone is today badly damaged; however a wartime photograph taken by the Nazi RIGND (Reichistitut für Geschiche des neuen Deutschlands)

Die Fotografische Dokumentation von Grabinschriften auf dem Jüdischen Friedhof Königstraße/Altona (1942-1944) und ihr historischer Kontext”, in Peter

Ina S. Lorenz, Juden in Deutschland: Emanzipation, Integration, Verfolgung und Vernichtung, Hamburg, 1991, pp. 116-129.



23

chose not to do so. In chapter 4161, he mentions an incident where Marcus Moses, Abraham Nathan and Sampson Mears (R. Aberle’s partner), all from Hamburg, having tried to form a Beth HaMidrash for study in London, modelled after Hamburg’s Klaus162, were prevented by court order163 from erecting “a Schoole or Colledge for ye education … in the Jewish Law”164. Again, Nathan is not identified with Reb Aberle. Later on in life, however, Roth seems to have had second thoughts. In Encyclopedia Judaica165, in an entry about Reb Aberle, he writes, “In 1704 Nathan was prevented … from erecting a separate synagogue with a yeshiva attached”, clearly identifying Abraham Nathan as Aberle.

The resolution to obtain a court injunction against the establishment of a Study house was most regrettable. In the end it proved totally ineffective in preventing secessions from the synagogue, as will soon be seen, and did nothing to bolster the dignity of his brother, R. Uri Phoebus. It accomplished only one result, to stifle the voice of Torah study in England. Eventually166, such a Beth HaMidrash was set up and continued to function [with the Beth Din on the same premises], until bombed in September 1940, whilst the Beth Din was in session!

Rift in the Ashkenazi Community, 1706 On 25th August 1706 (5th Ellul 1706), Asher Anshel Cohen secretly divorced his wife. He had fallen heavily into debt and intended to sail for the West Indies before the creditors could lay hand on him. The Rabbi, Uri Phoebus Hart, ensured that word of the divorce not leak out. It has been suggested167 that the

161 Page 35ff. 162 The three tried to convert Nathan’s house in St. Mary Axe for the purpose. 163 Moses Hart, fearful for the dignity of his brother, the Rabbi, and the integrity of the community,

had petitioned the Court of Aldermen of the City of London on Tuesday, 20th March 1704. 164 The Judgement was dated Thursday, 22nd March 1704. Subsequently, all members of the

synagogue were obliged to sign an undertaking forbidding any secession; additionally, the three bound themselves to forfeit £500 each – half to Her Majesty the Queen, half to the poor – on contravention of this commitment.

165 Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 12, col. 848-849, entry Nathan, Abraham (d. 1745). The entry in question is from Roth’s own pen.

166 The date of opening is not known, it is first mentioned in 1782. The Beth HaMedrash (as it is always incorrectly pronounced) was first in Booker’s Gardens (later named Sussex Place), but moved through four different locations. See Philip Ornstein, Historical Sketch of the Beth Hamedrash, London, 1905; Peter Renton, The lost synagogues of London, London, 2000, pp. 58-62. The Jewish Chronicle, 8th September 1876, writes: “Every evening without exeption might be seen between afternoon and evening prayers a crowd of scholars… Dr. Hirschell in their midst, pursuing a study of the Talmud”. “Dr. Hirschell” refers to R. Solomon Hirschell (1761-1842), not really a Doctor, who was Chief Rabbi from 1802-1842. He was Chacham Tzvi’s great grandson.

167 Prof. Natalie Zemon Davis, “Religion and Capitalism Once Again? Jewish Merchant Culture

Rabbi Yosef Prager


24

divorce was, in fact, a bankruptcy strategy, to protect Cohen’s assets by bestowing them on his wife, but it is far more likely that the Rabbi’s concern, with Cohen undertaking such a perilous sea voyage, was that were he to go lost at sea, his wife would be unable to remarry. The document had been penned by the Sefardi scribe Jacob da Silva, rather than by the aged and experienced Aharon of Dublin, for Aharon’s son-in-law had a grudge against Asher Anshel and it was feared that the Irish clerk wanted to see Cohen thrown into the debtor’s jail. The fact that Asher was a Cohen made the conditional divorce more complicated168. R. Hart, though, felt fully competent to ensure the validity of the proceedings.

No sooner had Cohen set sail, than the divorce became the talk of the town. It so happened that Glückel of Hameln169, the famous diarist, had a daughter named Freudche living in London. She had married Mordechai170 (or Marcus) son of Moses Libusch171 of Hamburg, a successful gem dealer. He was known in English as Marcus Moses or Marcus Hamburger. It seems he already entertained animosity towards the new Rabbi, but this was for him the last straw. In synagogue one evening he fiercely denounced the legality of the Get. He remembered that in his hometown, the expert scribe Elkanah172 sometimes had to rewrite a divorce as many as ten times before getting it perfect, how could the Portuguese scribe have possibly got it right the very first time? He was prepared to bet five guineas that the document was invalid (he later asserted that he would even wager his diamond ring on it).

in the Seventeenth Century”, in Sherry B. Ortner, The Fate of “Culture”, Berkeley, 1999, p. 72, reprinted from Representations, Berkeley, 1997, no. 59.

168 See Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, Rema 145:9; Seder HaGet, 118 and 129. 169 1646-1724. 170 1660-1735. 171 Alternatively Löbesch, Löbusch or Lebusch. Moses Libusch (d. 1700), was the founder of

the Chacham Tzvi Klaus in Altona. See Emden, MS, p. 19; Chanoch Ersohn’s biography of Reb Herschel, “Kuntres Acharon”, in Chanukath HaTorah, Pietrkov, 1900, p. 115, no. 23; Dr. Max Grunwald (1871-1953), Hamburgs deutsche Juden bis zur Auflösung der drei Gemeinden, Hamburg, 1904, p. 76; Dr. Edouard Duckesz Hy”d (1868-1944), Chachmey AH”U , Hamburg, 1908, German section (Zur Geschichte und Genealogie der ersten Familien der hochdeutschen Israeliten-Gemeinden in Hamburg-Altona), p. 5; Dr. Alfred Feilchenfeld, Denkwürdigkeiten der Glückel von Hameln, Berlin, 1913, p. 346, note 72.

172 Elkanah b. Pessach the scribe, died 18th October 1712, buried at Königstraße, Altona, grave no. 1493.



25

Bas-relief from the grave of Elkanah, scribe of Hamburg

R. Hart was not present in shul at the time, but as soon as he heard about Marcus Moses’ tirade, he was furious. Not only was it an affront to his personal honour, but it was an infringement on the Cherem of Rabbeinu Tam173. The Rabbi issued a warning to Marcus, but his enthusiasm could not be subdued. To cut a long story short, R. Uri Phoebus imposed on Marcus Moses the most severe form of Nidduy174. He was totally ostracized by the entire community (with the exception of some Sefardim). He was not permitted to make the blessing over the communal Ethrog on Sukkoth, and when Freudche gave birth to a baby girl, he was not allowed to name the child in synagogue.

In his deepest anguish, Marcus turned to his brother Henle175 in Altona, requesting that he plead over the unjust treatment he had received, before Altona’s Klaus Rabbi, Chacham Tzvi Ashkenazi, whose decision, dated 24th September 1706 (6th Tishrey 5647), was dispatched to London post-haste. Due to unfavourable gales176, the arrival of the letter from Chacham Tzvi was delayed until the intermediate days of Sukkoth. R. Uri Phoebus was thunderstruck. The Gaon of Altona, whose decision was supported by the

173 c.1100-c.1171. 174 Excommunication or ban. 175 Elchanan Henle b. Mosheh b. Lebusch (d. 9th April 1720), grave no. 1359, at Königstraße,

Altona. Other brothers buried at Königstraße are Izek b. Mosheh b. Lebusch (d. 26th October 1727), grave no. 1359; Yehudah Löb b. Mosheh Löbesch (d. 9th November 1740), grave no. 1936. Their sister Brendel Kleve b. Mosheh b. Lebusch (d. 7th May 1739) is also buried there, grave no. 1879.

176 The same gales had delayed the shipment of Ethrogim, ordered by the Ashkenazi community. The Sefardim had received theirs from Italy, and generously gave one spare Ethrog to the Tudescos.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


26

Rabbis of Amsterdam177 and Rotterdam178, had ruled against the London Rabbi and released Marcus Hamburger from the ban.

Even the convening of a special tribunal headed by R. Avraham b. Refael Rovigo179 of Jerusalem, then visiting London as emissary from the Holy Land, was unable to restore the peace to the fractionalized Ashkenazi community. The ruling of R. Ashkenazi put the wind in Marcus’ sails. He opened a new synagogue in his own home, and appointed his house-Rabbi, the Moravian R. Yochanan b. Yitzchak of Holleschau180, as Rabbi of the new community. He furnished the shul with Torah scrolls, and spent a further 800 Reichsthalers on the purchase of a cemetery in Hoxton181 for the new community. The congregation became known as the Hambro’182 Synagogue, and adhered more precisely183 to the Hamburg rite. The rift was irreversible.

177 R. Mosheh Yehudah b. Kalonymus Cohen, usually known as R. Löb Charif. Cnollen (p. 637),

erroneously gives the date of R. Löb Charif’s responsum as 27th Tishrey 5469 (instead of 5467). 178 R. Yehudah Löb b. Efraim Asher Anshel, mentioned above, whose post in London had been

usurped by R. Uri Phoebus. 179 1630-1714. Rovigo was an Italian Kabbalist who had settled in Jerusalem in 1701. From

material which came to light in the twentieth century, there is now incontestable evidence that Rovigo was a Sabbatean. This was not known, however, to his contemporaries, who held him in the highest esteem. It is interesting to compare what Roth, chap. 4, p. 42, wrote of Rovigo in 1940, “the saintly Rabbi Abraham Rovigo of Jerusalem, a famous mystic and a father of the Jewish settlement in the Holy Land”, with his entry in Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 14, col. 355, entry Rovigo, Abraham ben Michael (c.1650-1713), of which Roth was editor-in-chief, which describes him as “Kabbalist and Shabbathean”.

180 Holešov in Moravia. The town had been the home of R. Shabbetai b. Meir HaKohen (1621-1662), author of Sifthey Kohen, known as Sha”ch. R. Shabbetai had died very young. It is therefore unlikely that R. Yochanan of London remembered him (unlike the aged scribe Aharon who knew R. David HaLevi Baal HaTa”z). R. Yochanan was a student of R. Yehudah Aryeh Löb b. Menachem Mendel Krochmal, Rabbi of Nikolsburg from 1672-84, who published his father’s Tzemach Tzedek, Amsterdam, 1674. Thousands visit Holešov annually to pray at the grave of R. Shabbetai, the Sha”ch.

181 The lease was for 150 years. In 1760, Henry Isaac renewed the lease, extending it for a further 110 years. Sadly, the 260 years expired in 1967, and all the remains were transferred to West Ham Cemetery. In December 1929, Dayan Mendelssohn of the United Synagogue recorded the Epitaphs still visible. Today, no remaining stones, which were moved to West Ham, are legible.

182 There is no connection with the Hambros bank or the Hambro family who never maintained any connection with the Jewish community. Some suggest the name Hambro’ comes from Marcus Hamburger, others suggest from the Hamburg minhag, yet others see a reflection of the “Hamburg crowd” who belonged to the congregation (see Peter Renton, The lost synagogues of London, London, 2000, p. 39).

183 Under the influence of congregants from Amsterdam, Frankfurt and South Germany, the Great synagogue had introduced a few elements of the German rite. For example, Av Harachamim is recited only on “Schwarz Schabbes”, the Sabbaths before Shavuoth and before the 9th of Av.



27

Marcus Moses lost much business as a result of being boycotted. He resolved to travel to Fort St. George184, India185, where he regained his fortune186. The protracted absence from Marcus’ home of the father figure exacted, however, a heavy toll from the family. The oldest son, Moses Marcus187, was lost to the Jewish religion.

On the return188 of Marcus Moses in 1721, he proceeded to build a new synagogue189 in his garden in Magpie Alley, Fenchurch Street. In 1725, the

184 Fort St. George later became known as Madras, and is today known as Chennai. Madras had

then a small Sefardi community, see Walter Joseph Fischel, “The Jewish Merchant-Colony in Madras (Fort St. George) during the 17th and 18th Centuries: A Contribution to the Economic and Social History of the Jews in India”, in Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 3, parts 1-2, Leiden, 1960, pp. 78-107, 175-195.

185 Kaufmann, p. 115, erroneously gives the West Indies as Hamburger’s destination. Emden, MS, p. 77, clearly states East Indies (meaning India). Marcus Moses eventually died in India in 1735, and was probably buried at the old Mint Street Sefardi cemetery in Madras, destroyed when a school was built there in 1983. (Some tombstones were moved to the “Jewish corner” in the Lloyd’s Road cemetery, some gravestones had been moved to the Central Park of Madras in 1934, together with the gate of the cemetery on which is written Beit HaHaim in Hebrew letters). Marcus’ Madras business was continued after his death by his son Levy (probably named after Marcus’ grandfather Libusch). For more details of his business activities in India, see Ronald James d’Arcy Hart, “The family of Mordecai Hamburger and their association with Madras”, in Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England, part III, London, 1937, pp. 57-76.

186 Prof. David B. Ruderman, Connecting the Covenants, Philadelphia, 2007, p. 21, however, states that Marcus Moses eventually died in poverty in 1735.

187 Moses Marcus converted to Christianity in 1723. The following year he published a book, The principal motives and circumstances that induced Moses Marcus to leave the Jewish, and embrace the Christian faith: with a short account of his sufferings thereupon, London, 1724. Glückel of Hameln, his grandmother, was too embarrassed and too heartbroken to tell her readers of this development. She died, perhaps of grief, in Metz in 1724. Moses expressed regret for his actions in a letter to his parents, preserved at the British Library (Bishop White Kennett [1660-1728] collections, vol. 54, Lansdowne MSS. 988, folio 374). It appears in Roth, Anglo-Jewish Letters (1158-1917), London, 1938, p. 97-98, “Moses Marcus changes his mind”. There is no evidence, however, that he left Christianity. See also Prof. Natalie Zemon Davis, Women on the Margins: three seventeenth-century lives, Cambridge, Mass., 1995, p. 62 and p. 258, note 222; Prof. David B. Ruderman, ibid, chap. 2, “Moses Marcus’s conversion to Christianity”, pp. 20-38.

188 It was news of Marcus’ good fortune which precipitated the visit of R. Yaakov Emden, son of Chacham Tzvi, to London in 1721. See Kaufmann, p. 118ff.

189 It is reported to have been a copy of the Hamburg Ashkenazi Synagogue known as “Hamburg Schul” in the Neustadt of Hamburg, in Neuer Steinweg at the rear of houses nos. 72-75, built in 1654 and used until 1859. For more information about this ancient house of worship in Hamburg, see Moses M. Haarbleicher (1797-1869), Zwei Epochen aus der Geschichte der Deutsch-Israelitischen Gemeinde in Hamburg, Hamburg, 1867, p. 34; Joseph Heckscher, “Ein Israelitischer Friedhof am neuen Steinweg. Auch eine Säkularerinnerung”,

Rabbi Yosef Prager


28

foundation stone190 was laid by Wolf Prager191. It became known as “Wolf Prager’s Shul”. The shul was rebuilt in 1808. In 1841, Fenchurch Street railway station, the City’s first, was built adjacent to the synagogue. In 1893, as the City changed from a residential to a strictly business area, the shul was demolished; Fenchurch Street Buildings192 now stand on the site. A new Hambro’ shul was built in the East End, which stood until 1936, when the synagogue re-amalgamated with the Great Synagogue after 230 years.

Hambro’ Synagogue – Wolf Prager’s Shul

It was this division in the Ashkenazi community which brought about the printing of the first Hebrew book in England. Each of the Rabbis issued a defence of his position. R. Uri Phoebus published his Urim VeTumim in London

in Mittheilungen des Vereins für Hamburgische Geschichte, vol. 11, heft 3, no. 6, p. 410; Irmgard Stein, Jüdische Baudenkmäler in Hamburg, Hamburg, 1984, p. 60.

190 The stone was found by the architect Delissa Joseph FRIBA (1858-1927) during the demolition in 1893. The full text is given by Kaufmann, p. 125. It is dated 3rd Sivan 5485 (15th May 1725), in the reign of George I.

191 He was also known as Benjamin Isaac or Zeev Wolf b. Isaac Margulies (see his obituary in Gentlemen’s Magazine, vol. 20, p. 139, 28th March 1750, “Mr. Benjamin Isaac, Jew merchant worth £80,000, of extensive charity”). Despite the name Prager, Wolf was not actually from Prague but from Mladá Boleslav (Jungbunzlau), some 39 miles NE of Prague. Traditionally, he was believed to be Marcus’ son-in-law. This seems to be untrue; rather, he was mechutan of Marcus, his daughter Judith having married Marcus’ son Hyam (named after Grandfather Chayim Hameln, d. 1689). See Ronald James d’Arcy Hart, “The family of Mordecai Hamburger and their association with Madras”, in Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England, part III, London, 1937, p. 64.

192 The architect refused to begin demolition of the synagogue until a photograph had been taken, the one rare picture of the synagogue which survives.


in 1706193, the only Hebrew book printed during the reign of Queen Anne. Yochanan of Holleschau respondedAmsterdam in 1707.

Urim VeTumim Maaseh Rav

Word of the dispute was broadcast to the gentile world bMathematician, Adam Andreas Cnollen 193 Roth, after closely examining both works, gives the following information.

was produced in Cheshvan 5467 (the end of 1706; Kaufmann lacks eon p. 115, 1707 as the date for both works). Holleschauboth posterior to Urim VeTumim, which they mention. The first has no place of printing, likely to be from Amsterdam although possibly from LondChodesh Ellul 5467 (August 1707), gives Amsterdam as its place of production. The second edition bears the title Teshuvath HaGeonimmatter. The polemics against Uri Phoebus are left toreviewed this second edition of HolleschauMoses Margoliouth (1820-1881), The history of the Jews in Great Britainvol. 2, p. 62, footnote, complains thatauthor was obliged to transcribe the whole from the only copy that is to be found in the Jewish library in London”. Today, Maaseh RavNational Library in Jerusalem.

194 In the introduction to the new Machon YerushalayimChacham Tzvi’s grandson and Chief Rabbi of London, Jerusalem, 2002, p. 14, the roles are inadvertently reversed, as if Holleschau had issued the divorce and Aaron Hart in his Urim VeTumim! Also, it appears that Chacham Tzvi came in person twice to London, to settle the disputes in the Sefardi and Ashkenazi communities. This is untrue. The matters were resolved by letter.

195 1674-1714. About Cnollen (Latin CnollHeresy: Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies43; Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 4, Leipzig, 1876, entry Cnollen, Adam Andreas.



29

e only Hebrew book printed during the reign of Queen Anne. R. Yochanan of Holleschau responded194 with his Maaseh Rav, printed in

Maaseh Rav Teshuvath HaGeonim

Word of the dispute was broadcast to the gentile world by the Hebraist and Mathematician, Adam Andreas Cnollen195, who reviewed Holleschau’s book in

Roth, after closely examining both works, gives the following information. Urim VeTumim 5467 (the end of 1706; Kaufmann lacks exactness when he gives,

on p. 115, 1707 as the date for both works). Holleschau’s work appeared in two editions, , which they mention. The first has no place of printing,

likely to be from Amsterdam although possibly from London. The second, dated Rosh 5467 (August 1707), gives Amsterdam as its place of production. The second

Teshuvath HaGeonim, ostensibly dealing with a different subject matter. The polemics against Uri Phoebus are left to the second half of the work. (Cnollen reviewed this second edition of Holleschau’s work). Both works are very rare. The apostate

The history of the Jews in Great Britain, London, 1851, vol. 2, p. 62, footnote, complains that the work is so extremely rare and scarce that “the author was obliged to transcribe the whole from the only copy that is to be found in the

Maaseh Rav is available in digital format from the

Machon Yerushalayim edition of Tzava Rav, by Hart Lion, s grandson and Chief Rabbi of London, Jerusalem, 2002, p. 14, the roles are

inadvertently reversed, as if Holleschau had issued the divorce and Aaron Hart attacked him ! Also, it appears that Chacham Tzvi came in person twice to London,

to settle the disputes in the Sefardi and Ashkenazi communities. This is untrue. The matters

1714. About Cnollen (Latin Cnollenius), see Prof. Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies, New York, 1990, p. 300, note

, 4, Leipzig, 1876, entry Cnollen, Adam Andreas.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


30

a theological journal196. The story attained further publicity from Frankfurt historian Schudt197, who quotes Cnollen.

Provision of supervised milk in London Even in areas where R. Yochanan of Holleschau is unable to attack his nemesis, Aaron Hart, in his Maaseh Rav, he will still direct his invective against Reb Aberle. An example is the issue of kosher milk to which Holleschau devotes several pages198 of his book. He complains that London Jews were reprehensibly lax about compliance with the law in the Shulchan Aruch199 about milk supervision.

Holleschau relates that on his travels, he had once stayed four months in the small East Frisian200 town of Leer201. There, nobody was scrupulous about avoiding gentiles’ milk, and when Holleschau abstained therefrom, and refused to join them, they remonstrated with him that it was a long established custom in the community and he had no right to behave otherwise. Eventually he persuaded the local Rabbi, who reluctantly agreed to preach them about the prohibition, and they were finally convinced to accept the ban on non supervised milk.

He then takes issue with R. Chizkiyah da Silva author of Pri Chadash202, who permits203 non supervised milk. R. da Silva writes that when in Amsterdam204, he saw that most are lenient. On the contrary, claims Holleschau, I too was in Amsterdam, in the circles in which I moved the vast majority

196 Unschuldige Nachrichten von alten und neuen theologischen Sachen. (Cnollen’s review

covers 39 pages, the original book has only 36!). Kaufmann’s translator, p. 115, trying to be helpful, paraphrases the name of the journal into English as “New things and Old”. This renders it very difficult to track down. Hence, Prof. David B. Ruderman in his Connecting the Covenants, Philadelphia, 2007, p. 114, note 4, admits that he was unable to locate the periodical. To make things more difficult, Schudt erroneously gives the year as 1614.

197 Johann Jacob Schudt (1664-1722), Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten, Frankfurt, 1718, vol. 4, 1st continuation, pp. 135-137.

198 Teshuvath HaGeonim, second edition only, p. 16ff. 199 Yoreh Deah, section 115. 200 East Frisia or Eastern Friesland is called Ostfriesland in German. Cnollen (p. 651) confused

the Hebrew transliteration of “Fresian” with “Prussian”. (Admittedly, East Frisia was annexed by Prussia in 1744, but that was long after Cnollen’s death).

201 Leer, a town in the district of Leer, Lower Saxony, is 18 miles SE of Emden and close to the Dutch border.

202 Yoreh Deah, section 115, small para. 6, “HaKelal” . 203 See G. W. Busse, “The Herem of Rabenu Tam in Queen Anne’s London”, in Transactions of

the Jewish Historical Society of England, vol. 21, London, 1962/7, p. 139. 204 R. Chizkiyah da Silva was in Amsterdam in 1692 to print his Pri Chadash.



31

refrain, only a few partake for health205 reasons, so too in Hamburg. In England, where donkey milk is available206, there is all the more reason to abstain. In London, there was a gentile vendor who sold his milk in the community, whilst another, who delivered kosher milk to the door207, was snubbed. He ascribes the laxity to the fact that the wealthy members of the congregation owned country208 homes209, in areas where kosher milk and bread were unavailable.

He admits that R. Aaron Hart was particular about this issue and ensured the kosher milk-supply, but, claims Holleschau, this was only done to spite210 the former Rabbi. His reproach is directed against Reb Aberle, who for years, saw the prohibition flouted, yet remained silent. He was so respected, that had he protested, his words would undoubtedly have been heeded. He even joined others in drinking at coffee houses, and although he drank no milk, he was not worried about the use of forbidden cups. Whilst on the subject of Reb Aberle and coffee houses, he raises an incident which took place on the Fast of Esther 1707, at a business gathering in a coffee house. R. Aberle broke the fast publicly, claiming ill-health, although there were private boxes available. Holleschau refused to believe the excuse, “Aberle is as fit as a fiddle”211.

Chacham Tzvi Visits London The Gaon of Altona, Chacham Tzvi, who had now successfully adjudicated disputes in both London communities, the German and the Portuguese, enjoyed tremendous respect and admiration in both these bodies. On the death of his father-in-law, R. Meshulam Zalman Mirels212, in 1706, he had been appointed Chief Rabbi of the famous triple communities, Altona, Hamburg and Wandsbeck. There was, however, a rival candidate for the post, R. Mosheh b. Mordechai Süsskind Rothenburg213, son-in-law of the wealthy Yisrael b. Mosheh

205 He cites in German “Zerrung” which means a pulled muscle. Here, however, the meaning is

more likely ulcers. 206 Although admittedly it is very expensive. 207 Halachically, one who chooses the forbidden where the permissible is available, is classed as

a more serious offender (שביק היתירא ואכל איסורא). 208 Roth, chap. 4, p. 45, jests that “Holleschau apparently thought that there was a place called

‘Country’, where the wealthy members of the congregation went whenever they could”. 209 He also complains bitterly that frequently they leave the City only a short time before

Sabbath. It should, however, be clarified, that many country homes were very close to the City, in places such as Hampstead and Highgate.

210 This claim seems particularly difficult to believe. .based on Psalms 73:4 and Shabbath 31b ,”והוא בריא כאולם“ 211212 His gravestone is number 3266 in Königstraße cemetery in Altona. 213 1665-1712.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


32

Fürst214, president of the three communities. At first, it was agreed that the two Rabbis serve alternately, but strife between the two soon caused Chacham Tzvi to resign the coveted post. In 1709, he returned to the Klaus in Altona.

In 1710, he received a letter of appointment to the chief rabbinate of the Ashkenazi congregation of Amsterdam, a position which carried a high salary. It has been mentioned earlier, that the former London Haham Shlomoh Ayllon had become Sefardi Chief Rabbi in Amsterdam. It did not take long until the two Rabbis, one a notorious Sabbatean, the other, a fearless adversary of Sabbatean heresy, came onto a collision course. This was triggered by the arrival in 1713 of the heretic Nechemyah Hayyun215, whom R. Ashkenazi immediately placed under the ban. Chacham Tzvi was in turn placed under Nidduy by the Portuguese community, and was temporarily placed under house arrest in his own home by the Amsterdam municipal authorities, who had been influenced against him by Ayllon. The entire matter was brought before the magistracy, with the aim of having R. Ashkenazi deposed and banned from Amsterdam. Chacham Tzvi forestalled the magisterial action by resigning his office and fleeing, in the beginning of 1714, from Amsterdam, perhaps secretly, with the aid of his friend Solomon Levi Norden de Lima.

After leaving his wife and children at Emden216, he proceeded to London at the invitation of the Sefardic congregation of that city. He probably sailed directly from Emden to London. Perhaps the ship had docked temporarily at Southend or Sheerness, so that word could be sent on to London of its imminent arrival. This was London’s finest hour since Avraham ibn Ezra217 had visited218 in 1158219. As R. Ashkenazi’s ship sailed down the Thames, all the notables of

214 Died 1710. R. Akiva Eger (1761-1837) was a great great grandson of Yisrael Fürst. 215 Nechemyah Chiyya b. Mosheh Hayyun (c.1650-c.1730) was born in Sarajevo, Bosnia. He

died in exile in North Africa. 216 Yaakov, the oldest child, who was then 16 years old, was later to become Rabbi of Emden

between 1728 and 1733. He subsequently became known as R. Yaakov Emden. His mother, Sarah Ashkenazi née Mirels (1670-1719), had a large number of children (the figure of about twenty souls given by Kaufmann, p. 116, seems to be an exaggeration). When he came to London in 1721, after his father’s death, R. Yaakov was 24 years old.

217 1093-1167. See Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 6, p. 522, entry Ibn Ezra, Abraham ben Meïr Aben Ezra.

218 It is widely believed that Ibn Ezra’s comment to Exodus 10:22 refers to a London fog he personally experienced during his visit. Needless to say, at the time of the visit of Ibn Ezra, who was from Spain, there were no Sefardim in England. The Jews of Angevin England, who had come from France with the Norman Conquest, followed the French rite. Although the French rite no longer exists, some vestiges of it can be found in the Polish rite.

219 Some believe that Ibn Ezra died in Britain, but not in London. See Yisrael Levin, Yalkut Avraham Ibn Ezra, New York/Tel Aviv, 1985, pp. 15-16.



33

both London communities, German and Portuguese, came out in boats to welcome the sage into London220. He was escorted with honour into the City. On seeing the extreme reverence bestowed upon the Jewish sage, the gentile folk of London asked whether the Jewish Messiah had arrived.

The honour of hosting the great scholar fell upon the wealthy Hamburg gem-merchant Joseph Levy221, who resided at Ingram’s Court, Fenchurch Street. It was here that a curious episode took place. The faithful of London clamoured for a portrait of the holy sage to hang in their homes, but his religious scruples precluded him from agreeing to sit for an artist. Accordingly, whilst R. Tzvi sat engrossed in Torah study in the Levy family parlour, a painter222 was placed in an adjoining room, whence he executed an admirable likeness, without the Rabbi’s knowledge. Copies were later made and sold for a high price at the London Stock Exchange! When R. Yaakov Emden, in later years, was confronted with the portrait, he was astounded at the amazing likeness, as if he had seen his father alive223.

At some stage224, the Sefardi community had offered the post of Haham225 to

220 It does not appear that he docked in the Port of London itself, as R. Emden tells us that many

walked a long distance to greet him. The Port of London is only minutes from the synagogue. Perhaps they dropped anchor at Greenwich (5 miles from Duke’s Place). This might explain the reference in Emden, MS, p. 36, to coming out “in Royal ships”, which may have been vessels of the Royal Naval Hospital for Sailors.

221 He was Gabbai of the Duke’s Place Synagogue from 1708 to 1710. He died 4th October 1721, and his obituary appeared in The Weekly Journal, or British Gazetteer, London, 14th October 1721: “On Friday-night (two days after he was cut for the stone) died Mr. Joseph Levy, a rich Jewish merchant, who supplied Prince Eugene with £30,000 when he was here in the late Queen Anne’s time”. See Matthias Levy, “Jews in the English Press”, in Jewish Chronicle, 19th August 1904, p. 20. For more about Joseph Levy, see John J. McCusker, “New York City and the Bristol Packet: a chapter in early eighteenth century postal history”, in Essays in the economic history of the Atlantic world, London, 1997, p. 187; reprinted from Postal History Journal, 13, Bayside, July 1968, pp. 15-24.

222 The identity of the artist is unknown. The original portrait was left by Abraham Joseph of Plymouth (a great great grandson of Reb Aberle London) to his son-in-law Leon Solomon. The portrait can be seen at the Jewish Museum, London (cat. JM 908), but it is not known whether this is the original, or one of the copies, spoken of by R. Yaakov Emden. This portrait, having once belonged to Chief Rabbi Solomon Hirschell, great grandson of Chacham Tzvi, was donated to the Jewish Museum by the family of the Rev. Raphael Harris in 1932.

223 Emden, MS, p. 37; Responsa Sheelath Yaavetz, Altona, 1739, chap. 170. 224 It is unclear when this offer was made. Once Haham Nieto had been appointed in 1702, it

seems ludicrous that the post be offered to someone else; before the Nieto incident, R. Ashkenazi was hardly known to the London Sefardim. Perhaps at some stage, R. Nieto considered leaving London, and advised his Mahamad to offer the job to Chacham Tzvi. See Dr. Akiba Predmesky, Rabbi Zevi Ashkenazi, New York, 1946, p. 114, note 2.

225 A similar offer had been made by the Sefardi community of Leghorn (Livorno), Italy. It seems

Rabbi Yosef Prager


34

R. Ashkenazi. Chacham Tzvi was amply qualified to fill this position, he would have had no difficulty preaching in Ladino226, nor did he lack familiarity with Sefardi custom, as he had studied in Sefardi Yeshivoth in his youth. Nevertheless, as a proud Ashkenazi227, he turned down the offer, out of concern that his children may forsake Ashkenazi tradition.

Portrait of Chacham Tzvi – London 1714 Image by courtesy of the Jewish Museum, London

One cannot help but lament the wasted opportunity. Chacham Tzvi had lost his job in Amsterdam. Had the London Ashkenazim offered to appoint him as Rosh Yeshivah of their community, and to support a substantial group of disciples, young Talmud students from all over Europe would have streamed to England to hear his discourses, which were of a crystal clear, non-Pilpulistic style, just as they had done when he headed the Klaus in Altona. London could have become a center of Torah228 learning. Instead, for two centuries, London was doomed to becoming a city of Talmudic ignorance229 and very lax standards of religious

hard to believe that the community would consider a Tudesco for such a prestigious position. 226 It is reported that Chacham Tzvi was fluent, as well as in Hebrew and Yiddish, in German,

Spanish, Ladino, Italian and Arabic. 227 He was a member of the ancient Zack family, one of the oldest Ashkenazi families. 228 It should be noted that one of London’s most successful Yeshivoth today is headed by a direct

descendant of Chacham Tzvi. 229 Holleschau bemoans the lack of Talmud study in his Maaseh Rav. The theme is repeated by

subsequent Rabbis of London, especially Hart Lion, who left London for this very reason. He is said to have been asked on his departure for Halberstadt, “What about the many gifts you received in London from the Ovrim VeShavim (wayfarers)?”. “In London”, quipped back the



35

observance230. As it was, after a stay of six months, Chacham Tzvi headed for Poland231. He

was soon appointed Rabbi of Lemberg, where he died232 shortly afterwards at the age of 61. When news of his death reached London, loud lamentations rent the air. The Sefardim erected a black catafalque at Bevis Marks, decked the synagogue in black, and the entire congregation sat on the earth, an extraordinary expression of mourning233. Through his descendants, Chacham Tzvi maintained a connection with London for over a century. Two of his grandchildren234, R. Meshulam Solomon Emden235, son of R. Yaakov Emden, and Hart Lion236, son of his daughter Miriam of Amsterdam, as well as a great grandson Solomon Hirschell237, served as Rabbis in London.

Rabbi, “I have seen only Ovrim (transgressors), never Shavim (penitents)”. See Chief Rabbi Dr. Herman Adler, “A Survey of Anglo-Jewish History”, in Transactions of The Jewish Historical Society of England, vol. 3, London, 1896/8, p. 15. For other witticisms of Hart Lion in the same vein, see Adler, p. 282.

230 Cf. Walter Manfred Schwab, “Some Aspects of the Relationship between the German and the Anglo-Jewish Communities”, in Leo Baeck Institute, Year Book II, London, 1957, pp. 166-176, who uses the phrase (p. 167): “notoriously lacking for many generations in a broad basis of piety and learning”.

231 The oft told story that on his way to Poland, he spent a Sabbath as guest of banker Mayer Amschel Rothschild in Frankfurt, who prevailed on him to accept a large sum of money, desperately needed then by Chacham Tzvi, and that Rothschild only succeeding in convincing the sage after he declared his purse ownerless (hefker), and that the Rabbi blessed him with untold riches, is a baseless fabrication. The journey to Poland took place in 1715, Chacham Tzvi died in 1718, and Mayer Amschel Rothschild was only born in 1744! The story is to be found in the introduction to Tzava Rav by Hart Lion, Chacham Tzvi’s grandson and Chief Rabbi of London, Piotrków, 1908, p. 17 (the introduction, however, was written by Tzvi Michelson (1863-1942), a descendant, who quotes R. Pinchas Horowitz of Brodshin [Bohorodchany, Ukraine]).

232 Chacham Tzvi died Rosh Chodesh Iyyar 5478 (1718). He was buried in the Jewish cemetery of Lviv, Ukraine, dating from the 14th century, which was destroyed by the Nazis during the 1940s. It occupied the site of the present Krakiwsky Market. The text of his grave inscription can be found in Salomon Buber (1827-1906), Anshey Shem, Cracow, 1895, no. 476, p. 190; Gavriel Suchostaw, Matzeveth Kodesh, Lemberg, 1868, no. 68 (the two versions differ). See also R. Yaakov Emden, Yetziv Pithgam, Altona, 1740; Avraham Chayim Wagenaar, Toledoth Yaavetz, Amsterdam, 1868.

233 Reported in Emden, MS, p. 37. 234 Derek Taylor’s remark in British Chief Rabbis 1664-2006, London, 2007, p. 106, that “six of

his descendants became Chief Rabbis of Britain”, is an exaggeration. 235 Died 1794. His gravestone is number 0017 in Königstraße cemetery in Altona. 236 1721-1800. See Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p. 39, entry Levin, Hirschel ben Aryeh Löb

(called also Hirschel Löbel and Hart Lion). 237 A portrait of Solomon Hirschell by Frederick Benjamin Barlin (active 1802-1807), can be

seen at the National Portrait Gallery, London.


36

The Family Tree of Chacham Tzvi

Rabbi Yosef Prager

The Family Tree of Chacham Tzvi



37

R. Solomon Hirschell

Engraving by Holl, after painting by Slater

R. Mosheh ibn Yaakov Chagiz R. Mosheh Chagiz238, another zealous foe of the Sabbateans, was expelled from Amsterdam together with Chacham Tzvi. He too, came to London239. R. Mosheh was brother-in-law240 of the famous R. Hezekiah b. David da Silva, author of Pri Chadash. During the years 1714-1715, R. Mosheh published three works in London241:- Shever Poshim, London242, 1714; his father’s commentary on the

238 1671-1750. Author of Lekket HaKemach on Shulchan Aruch, and many other works. He was

a grandson of R. Mosheh b. Yehonathan Galante (1621-1689), known as Magen, author of Zevach HaShelamim and Korban Chagigah.

239 See Y. Golan, “Lelo Mora, Lelo Maso Panim”, in Yated Neeman, Shabbath Kodesh Supplement, no. 62, Bnei Brak, 29th Tammuz 5768, 1st August 2008, pp. 20-23.

240 They were both married to daughters of Refael Mordecai Malachi. 241 It is not known how long R. Mosheh stayed in London. His next work, Lekket HaKemach

with Panim Chadashoth on Even HaEzer, was printed in Hamburg in 1719. Although the chronogram, based on Judges 6:24, appears to show 5471 (1711), further scrutiny inside the book reveals that the true date is 5479. Benjacob, p. 270, no. 406, suggests two editions, 1711 and 1715, but there is no evidence for this.

242 Some editions give London as the place of printing, whilst others give Amsterdam. One suggestion for this anomaly is that the book, which is highly critical of Hayyun and Ayllon, was banned by the Amsterdam community. See Menachem Friedman, Teudoth Chadashoth al Parashath HaPulmus beInyan Chayyun, reprinted from Eretz Yisrael, vol. 10, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 237-239. A more likely explanation is that the printing was started in Amsterdam and completed in London, see Prof. Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies, New York, 1990, p. 145. Roth, in his “HaDefus HaIvri BeLondon”, in Kiryath Sefer, Year 14, Jerusalem, 1937, pp. 99-100, and in “The

Rabbi Yosef Prager


38

Azharoth of Ibn Gabirol, Pethil Techeleth, London, 1714; and R. Yosef Ergas’243 polemic work, Tochachath Megullah and Hatzad Nachash, London, 1715244.

Shever Poshim – Amsterdam and London title pages, 1714

No doubt, Chacham Tzvi and R. Mosheh Chagiz received full cooperation from Haham Nieto in their struggle against Sabbatean heresy. Nieto published his own polemic work Esh Dath – Fuego Legal245 in the same year, 1715, probably at the same press, that of Thomas Ilive (c.1664-1724)246.

R. Aharon Mirels, brother-in-law of Chacham Tzvi R. Aharon b. Meshulam Zalman Mirels247, Chacham Tzvi’s brother-in-law248,

origins of Hebrew typography in England”, reprinted from Journal of Jewish Bibliography, vol. 1, no. 1, New York, October 1938, pp. 1-8, omits this book.

243 See Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 5, p. 201, entry Ergas, Joseph ben Immanuel. 244 Roth, ibid, p. 4, note 3, expresses surprise that such a work be printed in London where there was

hardly any market for such books. He surmises that a relative of the author, living in London, may have paid for the printing. Roth may have been unaware that R. Chagiz was in London at the time.

245 Es dat, ò, Fuego legal: compuesto en idioma hebraico y traduzido en romance, por David Nieto. Londres: Impresso por Tho. Ilive, 5475.

246 For more about Ilive the printer, see Karl Tilman Winkler, Handwerk und Markt: Druckerhandwerk, Vertriebswesen und Tagesschrifttum in London 1695-1750, Stuttgart, 1993, p. 683; Roth, “HaDefus HaIvri BeLondon”, ibid, p. 98. Probably, the English authorities did not yet allow a Jewish owned press to function.

247 Dr. Leopold (Löb) Löwenstein, “Stammbaum der Familie Mirels-Heller-Fränkel”, in Blätter für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur, Year 4, Mainz, 1903, issue 4, p. 53, note 21, is unwilling to



39

seems to have been a Rabbi in London. No record of his activity here is traceable249, but he may have been Rabbi of the Hambro’ Synagogue250 early in the eighteenth century. Aharon’s son, born in London, was thus known as Hirsch Aharon London251. He was Rabbi of Schwerin252 and Wreschen253, and author of Mispar Tzevaam254 in two parts – Pinnoth Tzevaav and Eretz Tzevi255.

Another Ashkenazi scholar in 18th century London256 was R. Shemariah Zalman, son of the Leipnik257 Rabbi, Yaakov Avraham, author of Avney Shoham258, who joined Abraham Mocatta’s259 Yeshivah for six months in

believe that Aharon Mirels of London was a son of R. Zalman Mirels (“scheint unrichtig zu sein”). His hesitation is probably based on the fact that Aharon Mirels was so much younger than Zalman Mirels. Despite Dr. Löwenstein’s reservations, it is beyond doubt that Aharon Mirels was indeed a son of R. Zalman Mirels, for approbations to his son’s work, issued by close relatives, such as Saul Amsterdam (1717-1790), clearly state this. He was probably one of the youngest children, probably younger than his own nephews, Chacham Tzvi’s children.

248 His older sister Sarah née Mirels was Chacham Tzvi’s wife. 249 Charles Duschinsky (1878-1944), The Rabbinate of the Great Synagogue, London: from

1756-1842, London, 1921, p. 289; Roth, chap. 10, p. 130, note 4. 250 It is, however, strange that his nephew R. Yaakov Emden neglects to mention this fact. R.

Yaakov Emden’s own son, Meshulam Solomon (named after Zalman Mirels), also served as Rabbi in the Hambro’ Synagogue, from 1765.

251 1760-1814. See Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p. 608, entry Mirels, Zebi Hirsch ben Aharon; Rodgero Prümers, Das Jahr 1793: Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der Organisation Südpreussens, Posen, 1895, p. 16, note 3; Löwenstein, ibid, p. 53; Dr. Louis Lewin (1868-1941), “Deutsche Einwanderungen in Polnische Ghetti”, in Jahrbuch der Jüdisch Literarischen Gesellschaft, vol. 5, Frankfurt, 1907, p. 105; idem, “Die jüdischen Studenten an der Universität Frankfurt an der Oder”, in Jahrbuch der Jüdisch Literarischen Gesellschaft, vol. 15, Frankfurt, 1923, p. 74; Duschinsky, ibid.

252 Jewish Encyclopedia, ibid, gives the order as Wreschen first, then Schwerin; Roth, chap. 10, p. 130, note 4, however, gives the dates as Schwerin (1777-90), Wreschen (1792-1814); Löwenstein, ibid, on the basis of a family tree written by Hirsch London’s grandson, seems to agree with the sequence given by Roth. Schwerin is about 67 miles East of Hamburg.

253 Today Września in Poland, some 27 miles ESE of Posen (Poznań). 254 Berlin, 1789. 255 Hirsch Aharon London issued the following approbations:- Or Chadash, Frankfurt/Oder, 1776;

Amudey HaShamayim, Berlin, 1777; Yesod Olam, Berlin, 1777; Har HaCarmel, Frankfurt/Oder, 1782; Shelichuth Eliyahu, Frankfurt/Oder, 1786; Mishley Asaf, Berlin, 1789; Shelosh Esreh Yesodey Torah, Hamburg, 1792; Likutey Avraham, Prague, 1793; Tehillim, Berlin, 1794.

256 Roth, chap. 5, p. 47, note 1. 257 Today Lipník nad Bečvou in the Czech Republic, 17 miles North of Holleschau (Holešov).

Thousands visit Leipnik annually to pray at the grave of R. Baruch b. David Teomim-Fränkel (1760-1828), author of Baruch Taam, in the Leipnik cemetery, which had been totally destroyed by the communist regime, but was restored by the sage’s descendants.

258 Printed together with his father’s Nachalath Yaakov, Amsterdam, 1724. 259 Abraham Haim Mocatta (c.1670-c.1751), a wealthy, respected member of the Sefardi

community, supported his own Yeshivah in London. Moccata’s great great grandson, Sir Moses

Rabbi Yosef Prager


40

1720/1. He was a disciple of R. David Oppenheim. His book contains, on the last page260, an approbation signed by 3 Rabbis261 of the Yeshivah.

Memorbücher Like every other Ashkenazi community, the London synagogues maintained Memorbücher262 (referred to in English as Commemoration Books). It seems that in England, these books record mainly those who made major contributions to the synagogue. Of special interest, however, is the list of deceased Rabbis, solemnly read out from the Memorbuch during the Yizkor prayer of the Polish rite. The oldest surviving Memorbuch is that of the Hambro’ Synagogue, written in 1758 by Shemuel of Hotzenplotz263. It lists several Rabbis264 who do not appear in the Memorbücher of the Great Synagogue.

Since the mid-20th century, an edited265 version of these lists has been printed in the Sukkoth volume of the Machzor Avodath Ohel Moed266, page 252.

Montefiore (1784-1885), also accepted Ashkenazi students to his Yeshivah in Ramsgate.

260 Although later reprints omit the original approbations, the London approbation, being on the last page, was forgotten, and remained in place.

261 They are Yitzhak de Mendes, Joseph Mashiach and Isaac de Wallis. The approbation is dated 10th Sivan 5481 (5th June 1721).

262 Prof. Cecil Roth, Archives of the United Synagogue: report and catalogue, London, 1930, pp. 46-62, lists 6 such books. Three are from the Great Synagogue dated 1762, 1806 and 1808, one from the Hambro’ dated 1758, and two from the New Synagogue dated 1829 and 1860. Some of these books were recently located at the Jewish Museum in London, where they had been temporarily mislaid. (The National Library in Jerusalem also holds microfilm copies, numbered F 4820 and F 4811). In addition, many provincial communities including Birmingham, Chatham, Exeter, Plymouth and Portsmouth, had Memorbücher.

263 Hotzenplotz was a Moravian enclave in Silesia, today Osoblaha in Moravia, Czech Republic, 50 miles NW of Ostrava, on the Polish border. Evidently, Roth (ibid, p. 53) was unfamiliar with this place, as he renders Hotzplatz (?).

264 They include Nathan b. Yehudah, Naftali b. Yitzchak HaKohen, Mordechai b. Naftali, Akiva b. Michael (?), Samuel b. Yitzchak etc., whose identities are unknown, as well as Yisrael Meshulam b. Yaakov, who is of course, Meshulam Solomon son of R. Yaakov Emden. Conspicuous by their absence are R. Yochanan of Holleschau and Marcus Moses himself, original founder of the synagogue. The book also contains an inset on parchment with a prayer for the recovery of the King (probably George III) from sickness.

265 The list, entitled “Names of past Chief Rabbis”, was edited by Chief Rabbi Dr. Joseph Herman (Yosef Tzvi) Hertz (1872-1946). The list begins with R. Uri b. Naftali. It seems to have been fashionable in England to trim double or triple names to single ones, hence Uri without Shraga or Phoebus. Thankfully, he is not referred to here in Hebrew as Aharon! See also Prof. Cecil Roth, “The Memorial Service: A Commentary and a Suggestion”, in Jewish Chronicle Supplement, no. 127, London, July 1931, pp. i-ii. One of Roth’s innovative suggestions was to add the name of Haham David Nieto! It was not taken up.

266 Known in English as “Service of the Synagogue” or the Routledge Machzor, London, 1st ed. 1909. The list of Rabbis does not appear in the early editions.



41

This list was for use in all synagogues267 of the Commonwealth under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbi. It is most regrettable that the first two Rabbis, R. Yehudah Löb b. Efraim Asher Anshel who died in Holland and Aharon the scribe of Dublin, are missing from this list. In the case of the former, it was his enemies in London, no doubt, who ensured that he was never memorialized in London. Fortunately, the Rotterdam268 community is more appreciative, and mentions R. Yehudah Löb twice269 annually. In the case of the latter, Aharon of Dublin, who appears in the Memorbücher of all the synagogues (including the provincial ones), his name was evidently deleted by Dr. Hertz on the grounds that a mere scribe, who served only as interim Rabbi, pious as he may have been, has no place among Chief Rabbis.

Title Page of the Hambro’ Synagogue Memorbuch

Image by courtesy of the London Beth Din

267 Practically speaking, the ceremony of reading out the names of past Chief Rabbis is today

only observed in a few of the most tradition-oriented English synagogues. 268 Information kindly supplied by Mr. Ruben Vis, former chazzan of Rotterdam, currently

secretary-general of the Nederlands-Israëlitisch Kerkgenootschap – Organisation of Jewish Communities in the Netherlands, Amsterdam.

269 Rotterdam, although reciting Yizkor on the festivals as in the Polish rite, also follows the German rite in reading the memorial for martyrs and departed Rabbis twice annually, on the Sabbaths before Shevuoth and 9th of Av. The Rotterdam custom is unique amongst Dutch communities. The ancient Memorbuch (known as “Memorjizkor” ) of Rotterdam was lost on 14th May 1940, when the two main synagogues were bombed. A copy, however, had been previously made by Mr. Michal Shaul Hausdorff (father of Dr. David Hausdorff mentioned above note 110), which survived the Holocaust.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


42

Page from the Chatham Memorbuch – the heading reads:

“ Ï˘ ˙ÂÓ˘� ˙¯ÎÊ‰ÊÈ ÌÏÂÚ ¯ÎÊÏ „�‡ÏÈ‚�Ú ı¯‡· ¯˘‡ ÌÈ˘Â„˜‰ ÌÈ�·¯‰"Ò ” Image by courtesy of the Chatham Hebrew Congregation

Old R. Aharon, however, is not totally forgotten. The ancient community of Portsmouth270 is proud possessor of a very old Memorbuch. The original is today kept under lock and key, but the memorial for rabbis is read out each 270 Information kindly provided by Rabbi David Katanka, Rabbi of Portsmouth & Southsea

Hebrew Congregation.



43

festival from a copy. There, the Dublin scribe is referred to as “one who fixed times for study and devoted his soul and spirit to the service of his Creator, and whose soul departed in purity and holiness”271.

Aharon the scribe of Dublin is remembered in the Portsmouth Memorbuch

Image by courtesy of Rabbi Shlomoh Katanka

to be continued…

* * *

Bibliography

Adler Dr. Herman Marcus Adler (1839-1911), “The Chief Rabbis of England”,

in Papers read at the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition, Royal Albert

Hall, London 1887, London, 1888, pp. 253-288.

Cnollen Adam Andreas Cnollen (1674-1714), Unschuldige Nachrichten von

alten und neuen theologischen Sachen, Büchern, Uhrkunden,

Controversien, Veränderungen, Anmerckungen, Vorschläge u.d.g.,

Leipzig, 1714, fourth section, vol. 1, pp. 617-655, Neues I.

Jewish Encyclopedia The Jewish Encyclopedia, vols. 1-12, New York, 1901-1906.

Kaufmann Prof. David Kaufmann (1852-1899), “Rabbi Zevi Ashkenazi and his

271 The Chatham Memorbuch, too, refers to him as “the Holy”. Adler, p. 277-278, however,

identifies the Aharon of the Memorbücher as Aharon Hirsch Mosessohn, Rabbi of Berlin from 1763-1772, author of Minchath Aharon on the Sefer Aruch of Shabbetai Cohen, Berlin, 1767. This is highly unlikely, to say the least.

Rabbi Yosef Prager


44

family in London”, in Transactions of The Jewish Historical Society of

England, vol. 3, London, 1896/8, pp. 102-125.

Emden, MS R. Yaakov Emden (1697-1776), Megilath Sefer, ed. David Cahana,

Warsaw, 1896.

Roth Prof. Cecil Roth (1899-1970), The Great Synagogue, London 1690-

1940, London, 1950.

Susser Bernard Susser, Alderney Road Jewish Cemetery, London E1, 1697-

1853: Anglo-Jewry’s Oldest Ashkenazi Cemetery, London, 1997.

Documents

Rabbi Yosef Prager - Pelorous Years of London - You and US.pdfRabbi Yosef Prager Modiin Illit The Early Years of London’s Ashkenazi Community The so-called “Minhag Anglia” 1,