Rabbi Zevi Ashkenazi and his Family in London

<plain_text><page sequence="1">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE GERMAN COMMUNITY IN LONDON. By Prof. Dr. DAVID KAUFMANN. "Say not the former days were better than these." Modern Jewish history confirms the truth of the preacher's counsel (Eccles. vii. 10). Though many saddening phenomena in latter-day Jewish communal life might easily tempt one to play the part of a laudator temporis peracti, &amp; careful scrutiny of history will induce a juster attitude towards the present. Almost entirely untouched by the duties and interests that stirred the peoples that surrounded them, forced, to some extent, into a vegetative condition, the Ghetto, nevertheless, amidst a history which seemed only to exist for others, possessed a historical life of its own, while the masses of the people were absorbed by the anxiety to earn their daily bread, and by the eager ambition to amass wealth. While high credit must be given to the Talmud for occupying and stimulat? ing the Jewish intellect, we must not overlook the immense superfluity of force in the Ghetto which called for exercise. Play has usually been regarded as an outlet for unused energies, satisfying the idler's instinctive longing for activity. Here, in the Ghetto, the superabundance of energies found its outlet in paying with everything which engaged the larger world outside in grim earnest. The Ghetto played at power, at politics, at high dignities. The lust for rule and authority, implanted in human nature, sought a field for exercise in the Judengasse. The Ghetto had also its tyrants. If there were no exciting political questions to stir men's minds, dis 102</page><page sequence="2">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZE AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 103 putes had to be created which wTould inflame the community and split it into parties. Now it was the Rabbi, now the Precentor, whose appointment or dismissal formed the shibboleth of the congregation. Especially did Capital attempt to assert within the community that authority which it did not dare to claim without, and sought in the Judengasse honours denied it in the market-place. Among a people outcast and without rights, there arose questions of authority and class interests as in a powerful State. Scholarship strove with wealth for supremacy; Rabbinical prerogative endeavoured to maintain its ground against the arbitrariness of the Parnassim ; local patriotism con? flicted with universal cosmopolitanism. Even though they were only storms in a teacup, the eddying drops were agitated no less wildly. These petty controversies as to the seat of petty authority had their dark shadows, no less than their more pretentious counterparts in. the big world outside. All the noisome brood of base passions?hypo? crisy, treachery, corruption, bribery, rose to the surface. Bloodless were the combats, yet many were the wounded and slain. In the light of the great events outside, the tumult within the Ghetto may have sounded like stage-thunder, and the blinding flashes of lightning have seemed stage-fire; but the human beings who were exposed to the pitiless storm felt its shocks as agonising realities. In regard to the main features of this sketch, the members of the Jewish community of London formed no exception to their co-religionists elsewhere. Though so recently formed, though the circumstances under which its new growth began were so uniquely favourable, the London Jewish com? munity, at its commencement, possessed the same physiognomy as its older and more normal sisters. The founders of the colony brought with them to their new home quarrelsome spirits, and seed that would, in time, produce a rich fungus crop. Especially was it the German Community which, in its development, long retained its Continental type. Gathered together on the hospitable shores of England from all parts of the compass, from communities with fixed traditions and a distinct ritual, counting among them scions of illustrious families and possessors of considerable fortunes, filled with a laudable ambition to win power and influence, the Anglo-Jewish com? munity had from its very inception, and in an exaggerated form, all the conditions of a faction-split communal life. Though the picture was</page><page sequence="3">104 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZL AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. variegated, still, in view of the origin of the individual figures, it was mainly a German city, Hamburg,1 which formed its background. The most active and best informed merchants, the most prosperous and push? ing in the new colony, were natives of this port. Hurled suddenly into the thick of the battle of life, they had neither the qualification nor the leisure for the personal cultivation of the learning they had received from their parents. But none of them would forego the privilege of making their homes a place for the study of the Torah. None of them would neglect to give their children an opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of it. Many a poor travelling scholar, many a wandering Talmudist, struggling helplessly far away from his birthplace, for bare necessaries, found all his wants richly provided for in the new Com? munity. Small as was the number of families in the new settlement, it supported five teachers and two writers of scrolls.2 The studies pur? sued were, of course, rabbinical. Peculiarly suitable for the office of teacher were Jochanan Holleschau, the pupil of the Moravian Chief Rabbi, B. Jehuda Loeb of Nicholsburg,3 son of the famous B. Menachem Mendel Krochmal. Jochanan Holleschau, who derives his surname from his Moravian birthplace, which was glorified by the halo of B. Sabbatai Cohen, was the son of B. Isaac ben Hillel.4 Another Moravian teacher in London was Joseph ben Menachem Menke of Leipnik,5 a town dis? tinguished in modern Jewish history by its eminent Babbis. From Poland came Simcha Bunem Levi from Pintschou, a tutor in the family of the respected and wealthy Joseph Levi,6 and Moses ben Judah from Posen.7 The fifth teacher was Judah ben Mordechai Cohen of Amsterdam.8 The scroll writer, Aron, formerly of Dublin, was, at this time, already advanced in years.9 He had acted in the same capacity to no less an authority than B. David ben Samuel Hale vi, the highly celebrated author of the T?re Zahab, when letters of divorce were to be written.10 Perhaps, he was among those who fled before Chmielnicky's murderous horde, and only found rest when he landed on the shores of England. One man only in the whole community was both rich and a scholar, Abraham of Hamburg, or Beb Aberle, as he was called for short. Able to hold his own with the affluent in wealth, with the scholars in erudition, in himself a living tradition of Hamburg,11 he assumed from the first, with firm hand and inflexible resolution, the</page><page sequence="4">RABBI ZUVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 105 role of leader among the German Jews of London. In a short time, he was not simply the Warden, but the tyrant of the community. Independence or opposition, far from being tolerated, was punished with persecution and active hostility. The first to feel his hand was the Rabbi, another native of Hamburg, R. Jehuda Loeb ben Ephraim Anschel,12 for whom R. Aberle, as a fellow-countryman, could, of course, not entertain any respect, though B. Jehuda, in the year 1705, when we meet him,13 was already an old man. Grievous mortifications embittered the persecuted Rabbi's life in a post which, in any case, was not an enviable one. As he could not be ousted by fair methods, a mean trick was played upon him. One morning, when the saintly old man was about to put over his head the tallis, the fringe of which he had, as always, examined, the rumour spread through the Synagogue that the Rabbi was wearing a tallis unfit for use, that he had neglected to examine the fringes, and was guilty of laxity in his observance of Jewish precepts. An unscrupulous hand had secretly cut a fringe above the first loop at the corner of the tallis. The guileless worshipper had not noticed this, as the number of the fringes was unimpaired. In vain did the humiliated Rabbi pronounce the ban on all who kept back any information they possessed concerning the blackguardly trick. One there was who could have cleared up the mystery, who was indeed suspected as the perpetrator, the Shammes of the congregation, Meir ben Mordochai ha Levi. But the beadle felt himself safe under the wing of R. Aberle, whose creature he was.14 B. Jehuda Loeb, the ground cut from under his feet, had to yield to the will of the Pacha of the community, and congratulated himself on his good fortune in obtaining, immediately after relinquishing his London office, the appointment of Babbi in Botterdam,15 as successor to his namesake, R. Jehuda Loeb ben Solomon. The Rabbi not only lost his post, but he also suffered the mortification of seeing his opponent installed in his place. Since the year 1705 two brothers had been settled in London, the sons of the wealthy and re? spected JSTaftali Herz Hamburger of Breslau. Their emigration was the consequence of their mercantile career and credit16 having been ruined by the decision of the Council of Breslau in 1697 to expel the Jews. One of these brothers, Uri Phoebus, who had been trained by his father in the close study of the Talmud, became the son-in-law of one of the</page><page sequence="5">106 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. most famous Rabbis of his time, B. Samuel ben Urischraga Phcebus, Rabbi of Schidlow, and later of F?rth,17 famous for his Commentary on Eben Ezer, and sometimes referred to by the title of his work as the Beth Samuel. TJri Phoebus thus became the nephew of R. Saul, the illustrious son of an illustrious father, B. Heschel of Krakau, a man whose extraordinary intellectual gifts made his name a household word throughout the whole of Jewry. Babbi Naftali Herz ben Moses, Uri's father, had emigrated from Hamburg to Breslau, bringing with him strong recommendations from the Court to the Count of Schaff - gotsche, and had gradually attained a high position in his new home.18 He not only showed his reverence for the study of the Torah by marrying his son to the Babbi of F?rth's daughter, but also by acting as a Maecenas to Jewish scholars. The first book issued from Sabbatai Bazzista's press at Dyhernfurth19?The Beth Samuel?was printed at his sole cost.20 In the Begister of the names of the Breslau Jews, compiled in the year 1697, he is styled Hartig Moses, the Hamburger. After this name appear those of Loebl Moses, his brother, and Simon Goschlar, his brother-in-law. When TJri Phcebus Hamburger wended his steps to London, he probably counted on the help of his numerous relatives in the capital. Two leaders of the German community were blood-relations; Meir Waag was his brother-in-law; David Prager, who had married his aunt's daughter, was his cousin.21 With Simson Moers, the second communal leader, he soon formed com? panionship.22 B. Aberle at first showed hostility to Uri as well as to his brother, who was called in London Moses Bressler; but common opposition to the Rabbi Jehuda Loebl ben Anschel served to unite them heart and soul.23 B. Uri Phcebus had already in Poland acted as head of a college.24 This, coupled with the additional fact that, as son-in-law of the Babbi of F?rth, grandson of B. Low ben B. Fischele, the former Babbi of Yienna and Cracow, and nephew of B. Saul,25 he expected to receive the homage paid to B. Heschel, possibly weakened B. Jehuda Loeb's position in London. At all events, Uri Phoebus Hamburger had taken a great part in the negotiations that led to B. Jehuda Loeb's departure. To satisfy the retiring Babbi, Uri had resolved not to accept a post in London for at least the next three years, even though the choice should fall on him.26 This resolution he had confirmed with</page><page sequence="6">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 107 an oath. But as he was the only man in the congregation who pos? sessed the requisite ability and leisure for a Rabbi's duties, he first acted as locum tenens, and then, despite all his promises and resolu? tions, accepted the office of Rabbi permanently. From a formidable opponent of Reb Aberle he became a docile and spiritless tool in the hand of this despot of the Jewish community, and unquestioningly executed all the commands issued by his master. In order to consolidate the community which had been split into two parties, consisting of R. Jehuda Loeb's champions and opponents, Reb Aberle, first of all, induced the ecclesiastical court to forbid, under the penalty of excommunication, all secessions from the community. The union of ten individuals to form a congregation, with a separate house of prayer, was forbidden.27 This measure was specially directed against a certain Jacob, who had incurred Reb Aberle's hatred.28 Jochanan Holleschau, the great Talmudist, had also been induced to sign the decision which Rabbi Uri Phoebus, at the instigation of Rabbi Aberle, had drawn up and promulgated. Jochanan Holleschau, how? ever, before giving his assent to the document, had expressed objec? tions to the wording of the act, and secured several alterations which somewhat mitigated its harshness. Reb Aberle was not only all-powerful in his own congregation ; he was also respected and influential among the Sephardim, whose affairs were not proceeding as peacefully and smoothly as one had a right to expect from the lofty aspirations and refined mode of life of that body. Even a man like David Meto, whose learning, piety, and religious zeal were undeniable, could not command the universal respect and rever? ence due to him. Was it really a genuine apprehension of Spinozism, or was it not rather the persecuting spirit that stirred the Sephardim ? A single sentence in a sermon, permeated and penetrated with rever? ence for God, a sentence which attacked the loose use of the word 4'Nature" when God was meant, was the signal for a crusade against this zealous advocate of Judaism, the stalwart champion of the oral law. Rabbi Aberle seems to have drawn the attention of R. Zevi Ashkenazi, of Ofen, to the matter. The latter was the phenomenally gifted son-in-law of R. Solomon Mirels,29 the Rabbi of Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbeck. In spite of his youth, he already had achieved a European reputation, and had been elected associate Klaus-rabbin of</page><page sequence="7">108 RABBT ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. Altona.30 Reb Aberle may also have undertaken to persuade Rabbi Zevi to act as umpire in the dispute. At all events, we hear of a letter from Ashkenazi to Reb Aberle, dated September 28, 1704, in which the writer asks for documents from both parties written in Hebrew, but not in the Sephardic characters.31 Rabbi Zevi Ashkenazi, equally at home in philosophy and Talmudic dialectics, at once saw that the occasion called for a spirited defence of a colleague who had been unjustifiably humiliated. It was a day of joyous triumph for David Nieto when there arrived in London Rabbi Ashkenazi's decision,32 dated Friday, August 7, 1705, and countersigned by the Assessors of the Ecclesiastical Court in Altona, Rabbi Solomon ben Nathan and Arje ben Simcha of Wilna. The firm and frank attitude Ashkenazi adopted in placing himself by the side of the persecuted Nieto, aroused the wildest enthusiasm in the London Sephardic Congregation.33 The decision, printed in the original Hebrew and accompanied by a Spanish translation on the fly-leaf, passed from hand to hand. Then the Portuguese Congregation, it is said, was seized with a desire to appoint this excellent Rabbi as its spiritual chief. It was proposed to give him a salary of &lt;?500 per annum, and, guarantee him a yearly perquisite of a similar amount if he would accept office.34 The grandson of Rabbi Ephraim Cohen, the High-Priest of Ofen, as he was called, the son of Rabbi Jacob of Wilna, of the Sack family, that numbered so many martyrs for the faith,35 who had spent his youth among the Sephardim in Turkish Yeshibahs, only received, as Klausner of Altona, a salary of 60 reichsthalers a year. Yet he would not allow himself to renounce his ritual and belie his surname Ashkenazi by seceding to the Sephardic camp. Rabbi Aberle, who had called attention to this great man, who, though living in obscurity, was universally recognised as the Master of Altona, soon had the opportunity of personally proving Ashkenazi's unselfishness and single-minded devotion to the cause of truth and justice. Scarcely a year had passed since the reception of Rabbi Zevi's response, when a quarrel broke out in the London German community. In this, Rabbi Zevi took part against Rabbi Aberle, or rather against that gentleman's protege* and tool, R. Uri Phcebus Hamburger, and</page><page sequence="8">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 109 exhibited the same bravery and the same stubborn adhesion to justice which he had shown in his former decision. On August 27 (5th of Ellul), 1706, Rabbi Uri Phoebus privately divorced Ascher Ensel Cohen from his first wife.36 The utmost secrecy was imperative, as Ensel, a ruined man, burdened by a heavy load of debt which he could not discharge, and withal an incorrigible gambler,37 intended to escape his creditors by sailing quietly for the West Indies -?the Eldorado of all such bankrupts. But to provide against mis? chances, he gave his wife, whom he left behind, a conditional divorce, which would only take effect if he did not return in a reasonable time. The relatives endeavoured to keep the affair as quiet as possible. No one was selected as functionary or witness who could not be trusted to preserve secrecy. Hence B. Aaron, the Sofer of Dublin, who had become grey in his work, was not asked to write the bill of divorce, because his son-in-law had been ruined by Ensel in card-playing, and the old man might not feel inclined to permit the rogue to escape.38 After long consultations and deliberations, it was decided to employ Jacob ben David de Silva, the Sephardic Scribe, who also knew German thoroughly.39 The discretion of the witnesses, two reliable Talmudic students, Isaac ben Joel and Menachem ben Isaac ha Cohen,40 was above suspicion. If no untoward accident happened, the divorce could be granted, with the observance of all the special forms prescribed where the husband is a Cohen (descendant of Aaron the High Priest). Scarcely had the news of this divorce leaked out, when its legality was fiercely denounced from a most unexpected quarter. The pro? ceedings, it was said, could not possibly have been regular: the divorce could have no validity. The whole business was a fraud, a palpable swindle, a piece of foolery.41 The utterer of these violent tirades was no trained Talmudist, but a plain business man, Mardochai Hamburger, who deemed it a fitting opportunity for gratifying the animosity he felt towards the interloper, Uri Phoebus, and still more towards the Rabbi's patron, Beb Aberle. It was a public expression of want of confidence in the new Babbi, who had dared secretly, and on his own authority, without the advice or assistance of coadjutors, to execute that which Mardochai had heard was one of the most delicate and difficult of Rabbinic functions. He knew that in Hamburg an expert scribe like Elkanah 42 sometimes had to copy a bill of divorce as often</page><page sequence="9">110 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. as ten times before the extremely severe exigencies of the law on this subject were satisfied. How, then, could the Portuguese scribe have succeeded the very first time ? He felt sure that an illegality had been committed, and freely communicated his suspicions to any one who cared to listen. His express desire was that his strictures should come as soon as possible to the ears of R. TJri Phcebus. Joseph Levi's private teacher, Simcha Bunem, had also unguardedly let fall an in? correct and senseless condemnation of the validity of the bill of divorce. Mrs. Ensel, who could not help hearing of all these attacks, at last really believed that she had been the victim of an intrigue, and was utterly inconsolable.43 Yery soon nothing else was discussed in the com? munity but the doubtful divorce. For R. Uri Phcebus the controversy was more than a personal matter. The insolent strictures of unauthorised critics affected not only his own honour but also the unimpeachability of the most sacred insti? tution in Judaism, the institution of marriage. Since the days of R. Jacob ben Meir (Rabbenu Tarn) the rule had come into general force that any one who raised objections against the validity of a divorce after it had been duly pronounced should be placed under the ban of perpetual and irremovable excommunication. R. Uri Phcebus asked some of his con? gregants to warn this turbulent agitator of the danger he was incur? ring. He even proposed personally to pay Mardochai a visit in his own house,44 in order to point out to him the terrible consequences that he was bringing down upon his head. But Mardochai's zeal was not to be subdued. Jochanan Holleschau, his children's teacher, who had undertaken the task of communicating the warning to him, signally failed in his purpose. Mardochai answered him roughly, and as much as told him to leave the house.45 When the Babbi suggested that the opinions which Hamburger had expressed before witnesses should be adjudicated in his presence before an ecclesiastical court, Mardochai replied that the Sephardic Rabbinate seemed to him the only authority competent to the task. Yet, when invited to attend, he failed to put in an appearance.46 The examination of the witnesses therefore took place in his absence, eight days later, on Tuesday, September 3rd, before B. Uri Phcebus, B. David Nieto, and the Dayan R. David Perez, and Mardochai's chance of retreat was cut off.47 When things had become serious, Mardochai Hamburger turned</page><page sequence="10">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. III for help to Jochanan Holleschau, whom he took home to live with him. He needed the learned Talmudist's services as his advocate, and to conduct his Hebrew correspondence; Jochanan began now to play a double game. To obtain a copy of the witnesses' depositions, he cajoled R. Uri Phoebus into the belief that Mardochai had been brought to a sense of his offence and was willing to submit for thirty days to the lesser ban. Touched by these marks of repentance, R. Uri Phoebus met Mardochai half-way, and promised him the honour of being pub? licly called up to the reading of the Law on the approaching New Year and Day of Atonement. When Jochanan had gained possession of the depositions he immediately set about obtaining support and counsel for his patron, who was threatened with imminent excom? munication. His first step was to write a letter to Mardochai's brother in Hamburg, the learned and wealthy R. Hendle.48 The really dangerous opponent whose mill Mardochai's stupidity had helped to turn, Reb Aberle, had hitherto kept aloof from the con? troversy, as he was absent from London, the scene of the campaign. His correspondents, of course, promptly informed him of the issue. When Jochanan Holleschau had become the agitators' avowed adviser, R. Aberle immediately sent the Rabbi an order forbidding him to inter? fere in the affair. Soon after he returned to London, and R. Uri's gentleness and sweetness disappeared.49 Mardochai Hamburger and his household experienced the full rigours of the excommunication in their terrible mediaeval form. Every one fled from him as from the plague; wherever he appeared the people dispersed. In the synagogue and in the street contact with him was avoided. His house became desolate. He was even denied the privilege of bestowing charity, for the poor were forbidden to visit his house. This social boycott might have resulted in his financial ruin, if the Sephardic congregation had not befriended him. The affair was the talk of the town. It was discussed on the Stock Exchange. The holidays were approaching. In vain Mardochai offered ,?500 as a guarantee that he would submit to the decision of the Rabbinic authorities. On the advice of R. David Nie to, Rabbi Uri Phoebus had consulted the learned and capable Rabbi of Amsterdam, R. Loeb Charif,50 who advised that Mardochai should be called up in the Synagogue on the Festival, as he had been promised,51 but nothing else should be done. All Mardochai's efforts were vain. The Festivals</page><page sequence="11">112 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. passed in sorrow and humiliation. The Feast of Tabernacles arrived. There was only one citron for the entire congregation, the harvest of that year having been a bad one. Mardochai and his family were not permitted to use this congregational citron.52 To fill the cup of his grief and shame, his daughter, born at this time, was not given a name in the synagogue, a privilege not refused to the veriest outcast. His wife visited the House of God for this purpose. Deeply mortified, her face stained with tears, wounded to the heart, she had to return home disappointed.53 The victim of this persecution never dreamt that he would one day suffer such dreadful treatment. Mardochai Hamburger, through his birth, family connections, position, and meritorious life, was one of the most respected members of the German community in London. Whoever had heard of R. Moses ben R. Loeb, one of the most eminent of the founders of the Altona community,54 must have respected the son for his father's sake. A rare combination of learning and riches, piety and nobility of character, gave the name of R. Moses ben Loeb currency far beyond the boundaries of the three congregations, in fact throughout Germany. In his youth he had sat at the feet of R. Heschel, the mightiest of the Talmudic teachers of his time. In his manhood he had retained his warm appreciation and profound admiration for all who cultivated and mastered Talmudic lore, counting it the greatest fortune of his life to be able to do something for R. Zevi Ashkenazi, in whom he recognised a star of the first magni? tude, and in whose domestic affairs he gladly played the part of a minor providence. Valuing birth above wealth, he had married his son Mardochai to Fradche, the daughter of the most respected couple in Hamburg, Chaim and Gl?ckel von Hameln.55 Their favourite son, who proved Gl?ckel's support and consolation after her husband's early death, Mardochai Hameln,56 had settled in London with his brother in-law, Mardochai Hamburger, where their undertakings had been crowned with success, both soon becoming important members of the new community. A tragic fate had overtaken a family which had not anticipated so deep a humiliation. Trained from their youth upward in the piety their fathers had practised before them, and training their children in the same way, taking the foremost part in all charitable and religious</page><page sequence="12">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 113 works, and jealously guarding as their brightest jewel their noble name and untarnished family honour, they had been thrust out from the community, their children dishonoured and refused a name, their home shunned and desolate. The shame put upon Gl?ckel Hameln's daughter might have broken the heart of the most hardened reprobate. The anguish the family suffered could not possibly increase in intensity; the measure of the indignities heaped upon them was pressed down and ran over. Whilst Eeb Aberle in London rubbed his hands with glee at the gratification of his revenge, a sword was placed in Mar? dochai Hamburger's hands, and was already hanging over Aberle's head. Mardochai's entreaty that his brother should lay his case before Rabbi Zevi Ashkenazi and plead his cause had not been addressed to deaf ears. That such terrible indignities should have been heaped upon a son of Reb Moses ben Loeb aroused the indignation of the Klausner of Altona, whose disposition was at all times somewhat choleric. On Tuesday, the 14th of September (6th Tishri) 1706, he sent a decision which fell like a thunderbolt on the heads of the excommunicators. He who never interfered in a dispute unless he was approached by both parties, responded in this case without a moment's hesitation to the cry of the oppressed for help, and gave his verdict at their solicitations. He saw the pressing necessity that existed for immediately checking a terrible abuse. Unfavourable gales delayed the letter, which arrived in London during the middle days of the Feast of Tabernacles?early enough to bring a ray of comfort into the sad hearts of Mardochai and his family.57 Reb Jehudah Loeb, the Rabbi of Rotterdam?the scholar whom Jochanan Holleschau had induced to give an opinion on Mardochai Hamburger's case?had also, like R. Zevi, released Hamburger from the ban,58 to which he thought Rabbenu Tarn's decision did not properly apply. Reb Aberle had made a little mistake. His friend Reb Zevi Ashkenazi absolutely ignored him and his resolutions. What mattered it to R. Zevi that R. Uri Phoebus was a blood-relation of his son-in-law, R. Ar je Loeb ben R. Saul ? He only saw that a terrible wrong had been inflicted on one of the best and most blameless of families, whose honour had been wounded, and whose members had been punished far beyond their deserts. Under the aegis of Rabbenu Tarn's authority, a perverse and unjust use had been made of the terrible weapon of excommunica VOL. III. H</page><page sequence="13">114 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. tion in its severest and most rigorous form. Even Rabbi Loeb Charif of Amsterdam, whom R. Uri Phoebus had chosen to adjudicate in the matter, had disapproved of the excommunication, and suggested the substitution of a milder penalty. But hatred and injustice had gone too far to draw back. What had happened could not be recalled, and the persecutors thought they owed it to themselves to persist in their excommunication. In spite of the weighty opinions of two authorities, either of whom was strong enough to quash R. Uri's judgment, the latter and R. Aberle obstinately maintained that the excommunication could not be taken off. They even took the extreme step of entering a minute in the congregational books?certainly, it must be admitted, against the protest of the more reasonable members?that Mardochai Hamburger's remains should be refused proper burial, or, as the curse laden expression has it, "that he was to lie in an ass's grave."59 No wonder that evil tongues hinted that R. Uri Phcebus had been induced to adopt these rigorous measures by a bribe from R. Aberle of several thousand Rhenish florins.60 It was in vain that the witnesses in whose presence Mardochai had uttered his thoughtless denunciations were examined again, that an attempt was made to give the proceedings the appearance of impartiality by including among the assessors Abraham Rovigo of Jerusalem,61 a God-fearing and learned disciple of R. Moses Sacut, who was at that time in London;62 in vain that they endeavoured to make the proceedings as solemn and as imposing as possible, in order to overawe the witnesses to speak the exact truth. It was now no longer possible to conceal the fact that a spirit of revenge had prompted the persecution. The solemn verdict in Mar? dochai's favour of the most notable leaders of Israel could not be stifled. The decisions of Altona, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam surrounded him and his household like a triple shield. They had tried to excommuni? cate him. Now he would show them that he was powerful enough to found and maintain a congregation. He opened a synagogue in his house, and furnished it with scrolls of the Law and all appurtenances. R. Jochanan Holleschau, formerly his teacher, became the first Rabbi of the new congregation. He did not feel debarred from accepting this office by his having, two years before, also added his signature to the order against secessions from the congregation. Mardochai Ham? burger spent besides 800 reichsthalers on the purchase of an*enclosed</page><page sequence="14">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 115 ground for a cemetery. This completed the separation from the Jewish community.63 R. Uri Phoebus tried to justify himself in a pamphlet with the ambitious title Urim we-Tummim. This was his first literary pro? duction, although it must not be forgotten that he had previously the purpose to edit the Commentary of his father-in-law's Beth Samuel on the Jore Deah.u R. Jochanan Holleschau immediately replied in an essay mockingly styled Maase Bab: The True Story of a Rabbit Both works appeared in the year 1707. R. Uri's pamphlet is written in a jejune and heavy style, and being the first production of the London Hebrew printing press, is disfigured by several printer's errors. R. Jochanan's essay, easy to read, bristling with points that went home, was printed by Immanuel Athias in Amsterdam. Later on, the Evangelical deacon, Adam Andreas Cnollen, of F?rth, near Nuremberg, culled the most noteworthy details in R. Jochanan's book, and in his unsophisticated reports of New Things and Old, anno 114, fourth series, vol. i. p. 617, brought the matter to the notice of the Christian reading world. Johann Jacob Schudt, the co-rector of the Gymnasium in Frankfort-am-Main, afterwards incorporated the deacon's account in his J?dische Merckw?rdigkeiten, part 4, pp. 1-35, as an illustration of the overbearing character of the English Jews, who had no scruples in deciding among themselves legal matters of far-reaching importance, as if they were their own masters, and did not live under the government of a Christian country. The German community had in the meanwhile gradually quieted down. The two antagonists, however, were not fated to end their days in unbroken peace. Fresh strokes of evil fortune were in store for them. Mardochai Hamburger, as well as R. Aberle, both became well acquainted with adversity. For a time Mardochai, who still remained at enmity with the congregation, maintained a high level of prosperity, and in his happiness the humiliation of his excommunication seemed to have passed away like a bad dream. But before five years had elapsed there was a change in his circumstances. His domestic needs had in? creased. He had nine children, and a tenth was expected, when pecu? niary troubles forced the hitherto successful merchant to leave London and emigrate to the West Indies.66 He never anticipated that one day he too would be visited with the fate of Ensel Cohen, the man who</page><page sequence="15">116 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. had played so great a part in his life. Fradche, Gliickel Hameln's daughter, remained behind, as she was daily expecting her confine? ment, owing to the state of her health, practically a widow, though her husband was still living. B. Aberle's life was also not unclouded. He experienced in his own career the instability of human fortunes. In one point only all were agreed?in admiration for R. Zevi Ashkenazi, who had played so decisive a part in the quarrel. Not only was the Sephardi congregation proud of him; the German sister com? munity also reverenced him. His part in the dispute added lustre to his name and memory. When in 1710 he attained the prominent position of Chief Rabbi of the German congregation in Amsterdam, and again when he exerted his full authority against Nehemyah Chajun, the secret adherent of Sabbatai Zevi, he was supported by the consciousness of enjoying universal respect. Both congregations of London?the Ger? man and the Portuguese?longed to see this marvellously gifted and exemplary teacher. The pleasure he had long denied himself of paying a visit to London was forced on him by a change of fortune. He had become weary of the hopeless struggle against deception and intrigue in Amsterdam, and had firmly resolved to break up his home and enter on a new sphere of activity. With a family numbering about twenty souls he left the town which scarcely four years previously he had entered with such high expectations. But before finally quitting the north he resolved to gratify the longing of his London friends. He therefore left his family in Emden, and started on his visit to the capital of England. The news of his resolution was received with the greatest delight.67 It was decided to give him a reception worthy of his fame. The wealthiest members of the Sephardic and German congre? gations went out in boats to meet him, and escorted him with honour into the city. It fell to the lot of Joseph Levi, whose resident tutor was Simcha Bunem of Pintschow, to enjoy the coveted happiness of acting as host to the revered guest, about whose person the multitude pressed to catch a glance of his sparkling eyes or a stray word of his wise conversation. "Has your Messiah come?" asked the Gentiles, who were not accustomed to the display on the part of their Jewish fellow-citizens of such extreme reverence for a human being. They would not let him depart without at least possessing his portrait. As he had pious scruples about sitting to an artist, they resorted to</page><page sequence="16">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 117 strategy to gain their end.68 The painter sat in an adjoining room, where he executed the portrait without the Rabbi's knowledge. Nevertheless, it was a speaking likeness. The multiplied copies sold like wildfire. They were sold on the Stock Exchange, and every house had on its walls the presentment of the revered chief. When B. Jacob Emden, in later years, was suddenly confronted with the portrait, he started back as if he had seen his late father alive.69 R. Zevi Ashkenazi, while in London, remained true to his principles of never accepting a gift. He was content with the enjoyment of what one might term academical honours. No one could boast of having made a gift to R. Zevi, although many were eager for the honour. He was convinced that he ought not to deviate one finger's breadth from his rule, although he was in such dire straits that he had to sell his silver plate in order to defray the costs of moving to far-distant Poland.70 One exception he made, in favour of the Sephardic congre? gation, whose honourable gift of ??500, offered to him in the most delicate way, was accepted. Of the two men in the German com? munity with whom he had previously been brought into contact, he only met one on his visit in the winter of 1714. Mardochai Ham? burger was not fortunate enough personally to express his gratitude to his saviour on English soil. A voluntary exile from home, wife, and child, he was at that time wrestling with fate in the West Indies. R. Aberle's riches and fame were on the point of waning. A lawsuit with a brother-in-law in Hamburg, probably called Ephraim,71 was soon to involve him in financial ruin, and even reduce him to poverty. A year had passed since R. Zevi Ashkenazi, after bidding farewell to London and R. Aberle, had settled in a village near Opatow, in Poland, after that town had been consumed by fire, when one day a messenger suddenly arrived summoning him to Hamburg. The litigation between the two brothers-in-law was to be decided before an ecclesiastical court. R. Aberle, whose fortune was trembling in the balance, recognised only one advocate, R. Zevi Ashkenazi, the model of justice and quintessence of legal erudition. The suitor's last hope depended on the help of this scholar, whose indomitable sense of justice he had had occasion to learn. He promised him 700 ducats for travelling expenses and board and lodging in Hamburg, if he would only come speedily to his assistance. R. Zevi came and pleaded. But able and invariably successful as he</page><page sequence="17">118 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. had always proved, his efforts on this occasion were doomed to failure. The court had been enlarged from three to five members. The dis? cussions were protracted. E. Zevi was in the minority. His client lost his suit. But before leaving Hamburg, he expressed to B. Aberle his indomitable assurance that some day the errors of the judges would be redressed, and the Divine blessing would make his losses good.72 Beb Zevi Ashkenazi was not permitted to see the fulfilment of his benediction. When he died, on May 3, 1718, after having worked three months, but with signal success, in the Babbinate of Lemberg, he could scarcely have heard of the turn of the wheel of fortune in distant London which had again placed Babbi Aberle in the ranks of the prosperous. Wherever news was received of the too early death of this light of Israel, loud lamentations rent the air. In the city of London the grief occasioned by the irreparable loss settled into a permanent, enduring sorrow. As at the demise of one of their own body, the Sephardim decked their synagogue in Bevis Marks in black, put up a catafalque, before which David Nieto, who survived his friend ten years, and died January 10, 1728, most probably recited the Hashkaba.73 B. Aberle, when he heard the news, took a vow that he would contribute to the support of the departed Babbi's orphans 100 ducats, which were to be paid by one of his sons in Hamburg.74 The announcement of this promise had, at any rate, one result. Ashkenazi's son, afterwards known as B. Jacob Emden, left the Ghetto in Ungarish-Brod, in Moravia, and started on a journey which was unexpectedly to bring him to London. In the summer of the year 1721 Jacob Emden, weighed down with anxiety about the support of his brothers and sisters, disappointed in the hope he had entertained of rescuing part of his late father's property, weary of his journeyings in Germany, began the return home. He then received the news from London that Mardochai Hamburger had, after ten years' absence, returned from the East Indies a wealthy nabob, whose jewels formed the daily topic of the English press.75 Amongst his gems there was a diamond whose equal in size and beauty had never yet before been seen in Europe. Gl?ckel von Hameln's dull old age in Metz was brightened by this marvellous change in her daughter Fradche's fortune, which had rescued her and her ten children from dire need and grief, and restored them</page><page sequence="18">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 119 to happiness and affluence. For the son of Ashkenazi this news meant a journey to London. Among the posthumous papers of R. Zevi Ashkenazi, whose wealthy friends had vied with each other in the management of his estates, was found a bill for 1000 reichsthalers given by Mardochai Hamburger's two brothers. When Ashkenazi was last in Hamburg, he had made up his accounts with Hendle, with whom he was on par? ticularly friendly terms, and they had computed the debt at 1000 thalers.76 The brothers, poor and unable to pay, had let Ashkenazi's son, when he came to claim his inheritance, go away empty-handed. A miracle had now happened. The deceased Rabbi's blessing seemed here also to have been efficacious. There seemed no doubt that Mar? dochai Hamburger, who was so deeply indebted to Ashkenazi, would feel himself called upon to take upon himself his brother's debt as a debt of honour. With a cup of wine in his hand, B?r Hamburger, Mardochai's brother-in-law, told in the Ghetto of Frankfort-am-Main Ashkenazi's despairing son the good news which sent him forthwith to London. Mardochai Hamburger's hospitality revived the broken-down Jacob on his arrival in London, suffering from fever and the effects of a severe passage. Fradche Hamburger and her children could not do enough to show their good-will towards, and hearty appreciation of, the son of the Babbi whose memory would ever live in their hearts. But the object which had brought Jacob to London was not fulfilled. Mar? dochai acknowledged that the signatures were his brothers', but he remained unshaken in his resolution not to honour the bill, on the ground that if he were to do so, all his amassed fortune would not suffice to satisfy the claims of fictitious creditors who would endeavour to get what was not due to them. Jacob was equally unsuccessful with R. Aberle. His fortune had sprung up rapidly, and as rapidly had it disappeared. His eldest son, who assisted his father in his jewellery trade, dissipated his father's wealth in a business journey to Paris. A terrier with short hair was the single trophy which he brought with him from his Paris gaieties and conquests.77 The solemn promise of 100 ducats was never more heard of. The winter of 1721 and 1722 B. Jacob had to pass in London in failing health and disappointed in spirit, but he was not</page><page sequence="19">120 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZL AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. to depart from England without having made one friend. His father's friend, Shelomo Zalman Norden,78 the scholarly great-grandson of the Rabbi of Metz, R. Jona Teomim Frankel (Ashkenazi's coadjutor in the publication of R. David Halewi's T?re Sahab on the Choshen Mishpat), had two sons in London, Lob and Reuben,79 who, later on, became fabu? lously wealthy. It was the time when the West Indian diamond trade flourished. Portuguese sailors brought from Brazil the stones which were quietly and unobtrusively placed upon the market in competition with the precious gems imported from the East Indies. Lob and Reuben had for many years enjoyed the sailors' confidence, and thus had in a comparatively short time amassed great wealth. Of the two brothers, Lob, the student, had become exceedingly intimate with R. Jacob while he was in London, and they remained fast friends. Lob became later on Jacob's patron and benefactor. During his tenure of the Rabbinate in Emden, Norden used to send him regularly sums of money for distribution among the poor of the town.80 R. Jacob found in him a friend on whom he could confidently lean. R. Jacob's inde? pendent attitude in later years was due in a large measure to the means with which his friend furnished him. Lob Norden, who followed his father's footsteps in his religious observances, was so solicitous about his friend's orthodoxy, that after R. Jacob had left London, he sent him, on June 9, 1772, a letter in which he asked him if he really had committed the sin of drinking black coffee in a Gentile house.81 R. Jacob has preserved in his second part of his Talmudic Responses, Nos. 142 and 143, these letters, which link him with the memory of his visit to London. This is the same R. Lob Norden whose will, dated April 22, 1749, is still extant,82 and to whose zeal as a collector many manu? scripts in the library of the London Beth Hamidrash testify.83 But B. Jacob Emden's relations with L?b Norden were to become closer and more vital. In the middle of July 1765, Emden, con? stantly occupied in his controversy with B. Jonathan Eibeschutz, which continued after the death of that Babbi on September 16, 1764, had the unexpected joy of seeing his son, Meshuliam Salman, who had been named after his grandfather, R. Meshuliam Salman Mirelz, the Rabbi of the three communities, called to the Rabbinate of the Ham? burger, or, as they then called it, the Hambro' Synagogue.84</page><page sequence="20">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 121 R. Meshullam Salman had hitherto been compelled to be satisfied with a small post in Podhaice, in Poland, whence he sent accounts of the remarkable doings of the followers of " Sabbatai" and their Christian patrons in Podolien 85 to his father, who from Altona waged war on heresy, and laboured to avert the serious danger which threat? ened Judaism.86 In vain did the German community, who were about to rebuild the synagogue in Duke's Place, try their utmost to dissuade R. Solomon from accepting the invitation. Their efforts were neutral? ised by the encouragement of the equally strong number of adherents who worked hard to secure the services for the Hambro' Synagogue of R. Zevi Ashkenazi's grandson and R. Jacob Emden's son. It was all the more requisite for that synagogue to have at its head a man of standing and renown, since the German community in Duke's Place had in 1765 elected R. David Tewele Schiff, of Frankfort, whose name would be a tower of strength to any congregation.87 R. Meshullam Salman's ministrations turned his enemies into friends. His father in Altona was of great assistance to him, as his rabbinic decisions were always accepted. In 1766 Meshullam dragged his father into the dispute with Jacob Kimhi, who had ventured to condemn utterly the London practice of Shechita.88 In 1769 R. Meshullam Salman found himself embroiled in quarrels over a divorce granted by R. Israel Lipsh?tz of Cleve to the wife of Isaac Neuburg, of Mannheim,89 who was going to England, and was thought to be non compos mentis. It seems that R. Meshullam had had a call to the German Synagogue of Duke's Place before R. David Tewele Schiff, but that this invitation was immediately withdrawn, with the result that he was at once elected Rabbi of the Hambro' Synagogue. At all events, the title which follows his signature points to his having discharged full Rabbinical functions, or at least to his having had the offer of a full Rabbinate, which only circumstances prevented him from accepting.90 Thus the appearance of R. Zevi Ashkenazi among the German Jews of London was of such lasting influence that the grandson reaped where the grandfather had sown. He himself could not be induced to attach himself to the English metropolis; his son merely passed some time in London, and his visit was apparently wasted. It was, however, ordained that the grandson should cement the connections his parents had established, revive their memory, and,</page><page sequence="21">122 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. by his beneficent work, win the admiration of friend and foe, and entwine himself with the history of the German community of London, and specially of the Hambro' Synagogue. NOTES. 1 mnDn JrUft HD lanJI Jochanan Holleschau reports in his m METO ( = M. R.) after D*31KJn n31t?n (Amsterdam, 1707), f. 16a. 2 f. 9c. DnBID W dh?i^ d^^d h^Dn dhe^?1 Dn?lD vh JK31 3 75ic?. f. 9c. Cp. Kaufmann's Die letzte Vertreibung der Juden aus Wien, p. 79, n. 2. 4 M. R., folio 17d. 5 In R. Uri Phcebus Hamburger's D^DITV. DniK (= U. w. T.), p. 13. 6 Ibid. p. 11. 7 Ibid. 8 i&amp;icZ. p. 13. 9 ibid. p. 13. ibid pnK mn w?n; p. 28, d*d* idb&gt;i ;p? ?in *d 10 iwd. p. 28. tat nm fen p&amp;un ?os1? nn^*^ 11 u. w. t., P. i6d D^ruon fe jtpi lii fe ti nnon ppn fei3? rvn ?im n^np1? D*3"B&gt;n nWpnn fei D^HH fei R. Uri Phcebus (M. R, p. 2) calls him w ^fen? ttiino j^vpn Toan sfeiDn wian 12 Lucien Wolf, in the Jewish Chronicle, 1892, November 18, p. 7, makes him out to have been an uncle of the Chacham Zebi, obviously a confusion with R. Jehuda b. Ephraim Cohen of Ofen, who emigrated to Jerusalem. See Kauf? mann's Die letzte Erst?rmung Ofens, p. 37 n. 2. On his efficiency in Rotterdam and Amsterdam, see Amelander's TTHX?^&gt; chap, xxxiv. On his predecessor of the same name, see Borstel in Nederlandsch-Israelietisch JaarboeTcje, 1863 : 'h nDfe&gt; tito p mirp 13 m. r., f. i6d. D"iw nt fen snn nan xd^ 14 M. R., f. 6ca\ U. w. T., p. 9. ? m. r., f. 175. pp*? iKiM td feproi n?m ib rrn n'apm ifei mjbi w iftid. f. 6a. w Q&gt;. Ch. N. Dembitzer's *B1* rr&gt;fe, I. 815 and II. 585. 18 According to the Register of 1697 in Breslau, Archive NNN 466, which my friend Dr. M. Brann has examined for me. 19 See M. Brann in Monatschrift, 40, 520. 20 In the preface to the ^K1E?&gt; JV2 J nn to pvpni p*on tfhxn 'oninri? &gt;vm jmsKi triam fem niKsinn to tnam ? ? . nmnDn p*n ^naa</page><page sequence="22">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 123 21 M. r., f. 6a. 22 Cnollen, after Schudt, J?dische Merckw?rdigJceiten, IV. 1. 135, writes r. Schimschon Mersch. 23 M. R., f. 6a. 24 u. w. t., p. 3. wrhm d ^nn^d omna nr&gt;k t?jdt twisa *ok tui 25 Qi. Ch. N. Dembitzer's *B1* rPTO. I. 81a. U. w. t., p. 24, mentions r. Phoe? bus b. r. Saul without calling him uncle : 1T\Y) mPJJ 1ED HUP ^ TOHMI fo DDTiaEn )i*on pni? n*D p&amp;un Tonn *d*? nn run pn ^vu ^s&amp;a n&gt;n pyn w Hieraus? mn-n pm wpw n Warn Kptop ppi nn? bfap Timo 26 Lucien Wolf has misunderstood the passage m. r. f. 6a. and speaks of a three years' trial engagement of r. Uri Phoebus. 27 m. r., f. 17a. Lucien Wolf's statement (j. C. supra) that Marcus Moses had been officially forbidden, on the 22nd of Mart 1704, to erect a new synagogue, must be a printer's error. 28 m. r., f. 6a. mt6o? wnm rwn porn ooy ~pn prow ironp runi Sdd p|A?n awn i'nS. rrvtMi no*pa pm mm ^ m A pm win n? 29 Kaufmann, Die Zetete Vertreibung, p. 213. 30 Kaufman, Die letzte Erst?rmung Ofens, p. 23 ?egg. ? u. w. t., p. 20. p?^ non pbthd rnj&gt; 32 D2n nfe&gt;, No. 18. Q&gt;. Dembitzer, supra, I. 956. 33 These signatures are omitted in the printed text of the D2n ft UP, No. 18. 34 Jacob Emden, "idd n?3D, ed. David Kohn, Warsaw, 1897, p. 35. For DnnK p"&gt;^ p^dn read rinn? HIKE) ?&gt;e&gt;n Rabbi Hirsch received, in 1758, as Chief Rabbi of the German community in London, a salary of ?250 per annum. See Picciotto, Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History, p. 136. 35 Ibid. p. 3. Cp. Zunz Gesammelte Schriften, III. 280, &amp;c. 36 U. w. T., p. 2. 37 Ibid. p. 1. 8 Ibid. 39 Ibid. p. 8. 40 Ibid. p. 3. Cp. the characteristics, M. R., p..96c. 41 U, w. T. tWBI ^dq P. 10, tWB b6? 42 7&amp;te?. p. 9, last line. In R. Zevi Ashkenazi's text, p. 15, the name is 43 i?irf. p. 6 and 7. M. R., f. 8c. 44 Ibid. p. 3. 4&gt; Ibid. p. 9. 4? /?id. p. 7. 47 Ibid. p. 8. 48 M. R., f. 66.</page><page sequence="23">124 RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND HIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 49 M. R., f. 66. 50 Ibid. f. Id. On R. Loeb Charif cp. Dembitzer, as above, f. 976. 51 M. R., f. 6c. 52 Ibid. f. 86. 53 Ibid. f. 176. According to Emden's account, 1bd H^D, p. 78, Mardochai's children were expelled from the school. 54 nDD rhlft, pp. 19, 20,128. Even R. Uri Phcebus, M. R., p. 3, thought of his family, mnB^? ti3d1? nfpVrb |*k R. Jochanan Holleschau expressly declares, f, 17c, d^idi fDDTl?Dn hh if? nifty ni3K hid? Wim mini Aaiov 55 The Memoir es of Gl?cket von Hameln, edit. D. Kaufmann, pp. 267, 270. In the index read Moses b. Loeb in Hamburg. 56 ibid. p. 192. u.w. t., p. 2. id^i mbb&gt; nrvn nnnon wio dji ^dkh ^mo -inn pvpn. q?. also p. 3. 57 M. R., f. 6c, 86. 58 76id. f. 10c. Lucien Wolf (supra) states that R. Jehuda Loeb came per? sonally to London. In the effort to prevent the excommunication of R. Jacob b. Meir being recognised universally, R. Jehuda Loeb ventured, f. 11c, to say? W3T? nai^ anp wn'wb -poo iTp. imni p na^a nw nitoni 59 M. R., f. 6d, 86, 15?i. 60 76td. f. 6c. 61 Cp. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, X. 336. 62 u. w. t., Preface, wn arras "nniD TDnn *r6?n toipttn p?an nmn d^itd, pp. 7, 20. 63 M. R., f. 17c. Lucien Wolf makes out their God's acre to have been in Hoxton. 64 U. w. T., Preface, adfinem. fcOVlrV? *3pifV Ht im nnlH TIDm D^nj *&gt;V) ^ by hi rin rh? ^bd 65 M. R., f. 6d infra. 66 1bd nfe?, pp. 77 se??. 67 i6id. p. 35 et seqq. 68 M p. 37. Cp. Wagenaar, JTn^in, p. 4, 53, n. 68. 69 1dd n^D, p. 37. 70 Ibid. p. 36. 71 Ibid. p. 40. 72 Ibid. pp. 42, 50. 73 Ibid. pp. 37, 47. 74 Ibid. p. 72. 75 76iW. p. 77 et seqq. 76 Ibid. p. 74. 77 /6ic?. p. 74 et seqq. 78 Cp. Dembitzer, supra, I. 736. 79 "IDD nfeD, p. 94 et seqq. 80 76wZ. pp. 146-148.</page><page sequence="24">RABBI ZEVI ASHKENAZI AND IIIS FAMILY IN LONDON. 125 81 Cp. on this prohibition, Leopold Low in Ben Chananja, I. 485 f. seqq. Cp. also Kaufmann's R. Samson Wertheimer, p. 51, n. 1. R. Jochanan Holleschau, M. R. f. 6d, speaks of the universal practice in London of visiting coffee-houses. 8J Ed. by J. Abrahams in the Jewish Quarterly Review, IV. 341 et seqq. 83 Neubauer's Catalogue of Manuscripts in the London Beth Hamidrash, pp. 22, 26. 04 "idd rhyO, p. 209 et seqq. 85 Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, X. 429. 86 Wagenaar, jbjP HH^n, 33, 63?, 278. 87 H. Adler, Papers read at the Anglo-Jewish Exhibition, p. 284/. 88 See the Responses against Kimchi's apiP mW in f2V&gt; rV&gt;W, II. 89 See "iS^n 286, 786. Cp. Horowitz, Frankfurter Rabbinen, III. 67 et seqq., and J. Lubetzki's DNia *pia (Paris, 1897), adfinem. 90 rOHDm |na^ pp3 6&gt;. on this signature Dembitzer, supra, I. 94. INSCRIPTION ON FOUNDATION -STONE OF H AMBRO* SYNAGOGUE. nrn ponn ^a db6 jva nua^ uwari m jVBna raiip vaim Tonn m?n w ia p-D a rn* *n?i na^a aiD ^a dwd ayo ?npfeS anS ja ^?11 a?r \opn pzh Vir DD^a prw runon * * * * This inscription is copied, by kind permission of Mr. Delissa Joseph, from a rubbing made by him on 21st July 1893. The foundation-stone was found by Mr. Joseph while he was excavating for new commercial buildings in Church Row, Fenchurch Street. The size of the stone was 44 by 24 inches.</page><page sequence="25"></page></plain_text>