The Hebrew formula Le-Dor va-Dor (from generation to generation)1 en­cap­su­la­tes the central theme of ge­ne­ra­tio­nal con­ti­nui­ty in Judaism. Adam’s des­cen­dant tree is the first genealogy of the Torah, and such trees are found throughout the Tanakh (Hebrew bible). In the essay “Seder Tanaim ve-Amoraim,” written in Arabic, Joseph ben Juda ibn Aknin (1150–1220) extended this preoccupation with generational continuity even to the teacher-disciple lineage of Talmudic scholars.2 This genealogical concept has even been applied to the field of mathematicians in this century; as of Dec. 27 2016, the Mathematics Genealogy Project lists 206'552 individuals in its academic genealogy.3

The goal of this chapter, by far much more modest than the previous ones, is to trace the lineage of the Stühlingen Jews between 1600 and 1743. As in the biblical lineages, this chapter too will have a major deficiency: women are mentioned infrequently in municipal, county, and court records, our major sources. Named women are even rarer; more commonly they appear as “daughter of ...,” “sister of ...,” or “wife of ...” However, we will make every effort to trace women whenever possible.

The little information available indicates a high degree of intermarriage among the established Jewish families in Stühlingen and the families in surrounding communities. This would also help to explain the high prevalence of such given names as Marum and Lehemann in the families, a result of name diffusion from both paternal and maternal lines. In essence, the Jews in Stühlingen were all related to each other in one way or another. This practice of endogamy too has biblical roots.4

To anchor the women in the family trees, we must first construct the male framework. Protection tax records and estate proceedings provide the richest source of genealogical information. Males, who appear frequently in such documents, may be placed confidently in the trees. Conversely, the linkage of individuals lacking protection and and mentioned only occasionally may only be surmised. Individuals with identical names in parallel branches of the same family represent special cases; such duplication frequently occurs because of familial and generational naming patterns. We can usually locate them in the trees, but it is more difficult to attribute specific events or properties to them, because their patronymic may only appear in the appropriate tax records, not in records of legal or commercial transactions. Often the alias name (kinnui) will help, but it is not always consistent (see chapter 2).

This investigation identifies 236 individuals – 190 men and 46 women. But this number represents only a fraction of the Jews living in Stühlingen between 1604 and 1743. If we take the number 20 as the average number of Jewish households during that period, based on tax records, and multiply it by 8, an estimate of the number of members in a typical, contemporary Jewish household,5 we arrive at 160 as rough estimate for the average number of Jewish inhabitants at any time. If we further estimate a life expectancy of 40 years, the estimated number of Jews having lived in Stühlingen over the 140 years will climb to at least 570. About half of those, or approximately 285, were male.

The investigation, therefore, has unearthed about two thirds of the males, but only 15% of the females. No child who died when younger than 16 years of age would have shown up in the records. Records of young women who married outside of Stühlingen without receiving a dowry worth mentioning would not have been kept, as also those of young men who left to study abroad. Since each head of household could keep only one married offspring in town, the rest had to leave (at least in theory). Conversely, servants, teachers, and community employees probably stayed in Stühlingen for only a limited time, thereby further increasing the potential number of distinct individuals. Thus, the 236 persons described represent only a sample of Stühlingen Jews, although a sample heavily biased towards settled men under protection.

We will first describe the four major families – Bikert, Weyl, Bloch, and Gugenheimb – followed by the two minor ones – Meyer and Bernheimb – and finally a few early families whose specific family name could not be attributed. Named individuals who could not be linked to specific families have been excluded. Jews from surrounding communities, many of whom had acquired the right to trade and pass through Stühlingen territories, will be discussed; and finally foreign Jews whose presence in Stühlingen was recorded are listed.

Bikert

"Isak of Stühlingen” (B1) is the first member of the Bikert family and the first documented Stühlingen Jew to be mentioned in local documents of 1584,6 although the family names “Bikert,” “Bickert,” “Bickhert,” “Biscardt,” “Pikardt,” or “Pickhert” do not occur until 1680 [R4763]. In Stühlingen records Isak is mentioned posthumously [R1442], but he also stars in a Purim satire in the early seventeenth century and the Heimatgeschichte.7 However, the family seems to have settled in the region earlier in the sixteenth century. We do not know where the Bikert family came from originally. Of Isak’s four sons, Mayer8 (B1.1) does not appear in Stühlingen documents proper; Manno (B1.4) appears twice [R1443], but he lived in Klingnau, Switzerland. Only Phol (B1.2) and Frohm (B1.3) have a documented presence in Stühlingen.

Altogether we found twenty-two Bikert men over seven generations, and four wives and one daughter. Frohm lived in Ofteringen but was not under protection. His son Lehman (B1.3.1) was under protection in Schwerzen and died after 1676. Phol had two sons, Hirtzle (B1.2.1) and Isaac (B1.2.2); both brothers were successful businessmen. Hirtzel (or Hürtzli) was first mentioned in 1612 when he, together with others, was sentenced to pay a huge fine for some fighting between neighbours [R1463]. From 1618 on he was under protection but died in 1633, leaving behind a widow and two underage sons, Lehemann (B1.2.1.1) and Schmuli (B1.2.1.2).

Hürtzli’s widow carried on her husband’s business until 1636, relying on the assistance of her son Lehemann and an assistant named Seligman. But in 1636 she remarried a “Jacoff Nachfuhr” (successor) (Z7) and moved with him to Untereggingen. Hürtzli’s claims are mentioned until 1674 and managed by his sons. Hürtzli’s brother Isaaci ran his own business exclusively as a cattle dealer; after his brother’s death, he received protection in Stühlingen and died after 1645. Isaac did not seem to have had any descendants, although an entry from 1700 mentions a son Hirtzli in regard to an old debt of Isaac to Sir Hans Jerg Oschwaldt of Schaffhausen [R669].

A brief summary of the next four generations follows: Lehemann’s son Meir (B1.2.1.1.3) was married to the daughter of Menkhen Bloch senior (C2.1.2). Schmuli (B1.2.1.2) led an uneventful life under protection and died in his sixties. In 1691 his widow Berundi was accorded a series of claims in lieu of her dowry, because Schmuli’s estate contained insufficient cash [R967]. According to Halacha, a widow can only claim the dowry she brought into her marriage plus the amount pledged (mohar) in the marriage contract (ketubah) from her husband’s estate.

Schmuli had a son Abraham (B1.2.1.2.2), whose wife Model and daughter Judit were fined for conducting a verbal fight [R867]. Abraham’s son Isac (B1.2.1.2.2.1) was married to a ‘Sprinz’ [R2354]. By 1730 Meir's grandson Daniel (B1.2.1.1.3.1.1) was living in Wangen on Lake Constance [R2253]. Daniel’s brother Isac moved to Worblingen in 1743 [R3446]. Abraham’s grandson Hewen (B1.2.1.2.2.1.2) went to live in Lengnau [R3459]. Eventually, the name Bickert changed to Picard.

Weil

By far the largest clan in Stühlingen eventually answered to the family name Weil (Weyl, Weihl, Weyhl, Wiell, Wieller, Wyler).9 The first explicit mention of this name appeared in 1649 [R1771], but members of this family have been recorded as far back as 1610,10 when Leman (R1) together with Phal (B1.2), Marum (Z16), Phrom (B1.3), and Meyerle (C2.1) cosigned a document acknowledging a debt of 1000 guilders to Count Maximilian von Pappenheim. We found at least five distinct branches of the Weil clan. Within the scope of this investigation, these branches cannot be traced back to a single joint forebear, although naming patterns suggest that a common ancestor with the name Leman (Juda) or Marumb (Meir) lived in the vicinity many decades earlier, and many of his descendants eventually found their way to Stühlingen, Tiengen, Lengnau, Endingen, and Gailingen. According to tradition,11 the name Weil is derived from “Weil der Stadt,” a little town situated between Pforzheim and Stuttgart. Leman had a brother [R2696] Cost (R2). A Marum (Z16), a cosignatory of the early letter of debt to the count, died in 1612 [R1457]. Generic heirs were mentioned later but not specified. It is possible that this Marum was the father of Leman and Cost, but we have no explicit evidence to support such a claim.

Cost lived to a ripe old age. He was married [R3799] but apparently had no children; no heirs were ever mentioned. Leman had three sons: Jäggelin (R1.1), who was married to Schachmannn’s (G2) widow, Isac (R1.2), and Abraham (R1.3). Abraham’s daughter was married in Haigerloch [R4469], possibly to one Mayr Schnerff [R3712]. Isac moved to Lengnau and sold his house in Stühlingen [R4161]; Abraham had no sons. But Jäggelin had two sons: Lämble (R1.1.1) and Salomon (R1.1.2) married to Brunel [R867], daughter of Leib Gugenheimb (G1.4.1) [R2175].

Lemble or Lämble Weil’s identity is somewhat confusing and had been difficult to unravel. In fact, there were two of them: Asher (Lemble) ben Jacob Weyl (R1.1.1) and Ascher (Lemle) ben Meir Weyl (F1.2). A critical record [R265] shows that the former died around 1671, and the latter, whose origins stemmed from Tiengen, took the former’s place by paying the death tax and marrying Scheinel Gugenheimb [R867], a daughter of Seligmann (G1.2.1) [R4412]. In his later years, Ascher (Lemle) is listed in the tax records only as “Lemble alt” (Lemble the old). Starting as a relatively low-volume general merchant, Lemle, now referred to as “Lemble,” specialized in general goods such as cloth, ribbons, and hardware around 1690.

Lemble had two sons and a daughter. His first son, Meir (R1.1.1.1), was under protection from 1706 to 1717 when he moved away without a trace. Neither business transactions nor misdemeanours are recorded. The other son, Schmuly (R1.1.1.2), conducted general business more or less successfully. He accumulated debt [R2277] and in 1731 was planning a move to Wangen on Lake Constance, because he could not pay his protection tax in Stühlingen [R2287]. Schmuly’s sister was married to Faistel Gugenheimb (G1.4.1.1). Faistel had partially supported Lemble during the latter’s dotage and had been promised Lemble’s house. But Scheinel, Lemble’s widow, instead gave the house to her son Schmuly, which caused Faistel to take legal action [R2288].

Salomon Weil (R1.1.2) was under protection from 1691 to 1738. His daughter was married to Jonas Gugenheimb in Randegg [R2280], probably a son of Jopperle. Salomon traded occasionally in real estate but may have largely been a moneylender. In 1734 he and his son Jonas (R1.1.2.1) tried to purchase “the barn in the Jew’s lane” for the relatively enormous sum of 250 fl. [R2395]. Jonas, married to the daughter of Boroch of Oberendingen (G1.2.1.1) [R806], was under protection and ran a low-level business between 1712 and 1743 when he moved away, possibly to Endingen.

A second, more interesting branch of the Weil clan began with Marum (S1), later to be designated “Tochtermännlin” (son-in-law), who came to Stühlingen in 1631 [R2066] (he reminisced in 1656 about having come to this area twenty-five years earlier). His relationship to other members of the extended Weil clan is not documented, but his given name Marum suggests a family relationship. He married the orphaned daughter of the late Sannel Bloch (C1) around 1636 or 1637 [R1742]. The designation “Tochtermännlin” illustrates another difficulty arising from our methodology. The moniker “Marum Tochtermännlin” was originally translated mistakenly as “the son-in-law of Marum,” when it should have been interpreted as “Marum the son-in-law”; this misinterpretation was only discovered at a later stage of the analysis. Sannel had died in 1629 [R1654], and his widow carried on his business [R2578] with the occasional assistance of family members [R2671], employees [R3076], and eventually of her son-in-law [R1742] (that is, Marum). By 1640 Sannel’s widow had largely ceased business. It appears that Marum essentially had taken over. Marum was under protection from 1634 until his death in 1662. He was a successful businessman, engaging in the full spectrum of Jewish trade, although he only ranked fourteenth in overall business activity. Sannel seemed to have had other children [R605], but they left no further traces.

Marum Tochtermännlin would have coincided with the “famous Maharam Weil of Stühlingen” chronologically, but he had nothing to do with the construction of the synagogue. He did not appear to have been learned enough to aid the courts in resolving complex family law issues and did not serve in a prominent role for the Jewish community. He had two sons, Schmulin (S1.1) and Sandel (S1.2), but no Naftali Hirsch, Eisik, or Elieser Lipmann.12 He did, in fact, have a grandson, the rich Marum Weil (S1.2.1), Sandel’s son. But this grandson could not have been born in 1687, for he is mentioned already in 1683 [R1110]. It is possible, however, that Marum Dicker (the fat one) Weyl (W.1.3), was born in 1687; but he was the son of Samuel Weyl (W1) of Donaueschingen. Marum Tochtermännlin died in 1662, so he must have been alive in 1661, old enough to be the one who was fined for beating Calmeli (G1.2.2)[R3855]. But according to Kaufmann, who quotes Kayserling, the famous Jewish bibliophile who had died 1659 in Stühlingen, and whose impoverished widow had to sell his valuable book collection, was supposedly the famous Maharam Weil.13 Obviously, Marum Tochtermännlin would not have fit the bill. These comments may seem a bit too caustic, but such an attribution argues against the existence of a Stühlingen Maharam Weyl matching Netanel Weyl’s grandfather as he is described in the biography of Karlsruhe’s chief rabbi.14

Marum’s son Schmulin barely left a mark. Schmulin and Sandel had a business disagreement that had to be settled in front of the rabbi [R4829]. But Sandel was extremely successful: he ranked seventh overall in terms of business activity and was Parnas [R962] [R892], (foreman of the community). The count sent him on missions to Hohenems, Vaduz [R892], Basel, and Dornach [R145] to negotiate financial settlements related to the Dutch War. Sandel died in 1721 [R1149].

Not much is to be reported on Sandel’s son Salomon (S1.2.2). He was under protection continuously from 1700 to 1743 and engaged in commerce. His textile venture has been reported above (see chap. 8 p. 77). In contrast, his brother Marum (S1.2.1) followed in his father’s footsteps. He too was a successful businessman, served the community as Parnas [R2436], and was frequently called upon to settle conflicts in the community [R3061]. Marum’s purchase and renovation of the former tavern “zur Krone” has been mentioned above (see chap. 9 p. 82). In 1743 Marum, together with his son Salomon (S1.2.1.1), moved to Gailingen [R1224].

Besides the two sons, Sandel also had a daughter married to a Joseph Gugenheimb. For thirty-seven years he was referred to in the protection tax register as “Joseph, Sandel’s son-in-law.” He did not appear to be engaged in any business. In 1739 Joseph was released from protection because of his poverty [R1144] and moved to live with a son living in the Breisgau [R188] area. Joseph’s origin is unclear. A 1700 entry mentions a Sir (Herr) Joseph Guggenheim from Vienna who had to pay a 1 fl. fine “according to Jewish custom” [R4464]. It seems likely that this gentleman was the son-in-law of the Vienna court banker Samuel Oppenheimer,15 who together with his entourage had been evicted from Vienna in 1700. This Joseph, supposedly born in Lengnau, was the grandfather-in-law of the philosopher Moses Mendelssohn and the great-great-grandfather of the composer Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. It is plausible that he should have sought refuge in a little country town; but since that Josef Guggenheim died in Frankfurt around 1735, he could not have been Sandel’s son-in-law. The fact that Sandel’s two sons and his son-in-law all appear under protection with Sandel’s name suggest that he yielded a considerable influence with the court.

“Isac, Jew at Schwerzen” (U1) was the patriarch of the third Weil clan in 1657 [R2086]. He and his descendants dealt mainly with cattle and horses. By 1673 he was paying for protection in Endermettingen [R4294] and is mentioned for the last time in 1681 [R58]. He had three sons: Judele (U1.1), Veit (U1.2), and Marum (U1.3). Judele (U1.1) was under protection from 1677 until 1710, first in Endermettingen like his father [R4406] and from 1686 on in Untereggingen [R1409]. In 1684 he was involved in his brother Veit’s (U1.2) cattle rustling [R1356] and was fined. Judele in turn had three sons: Mayer (U1.1.1), Joseph (U1.1.2), and Schmule (U1.1.3). These three men are likely the source for the Gailingen legend that Jews from Untereggingen eventually moved there.16 Veit was never under protection in Stüh­lin­gen. He lived a tentative existence in Hofwiese [R4742], Ofteringen [R1311], and apparently Donaueschingen [R1356]. He was frequently fined, sued, and involved in physical altercations [R4744]. After stealing horses, Veit was finally evicted from Stühlingen and moved to Lengnau.

The fourth branch of the Weil clan began with Model (F1.1) in 1673 [R4365], when he first came under protection in Stühlingen. He married the daughter of Marum, son of Jekhuff (G1.3) [R4913]. Model was a native of Tiengen, the son of yet another Marum Weyl:

Marum Weyl protected Jew here [Tiengen] has died in Zurzach, where he had escaped because of the war during past Lent. His widow took her dowry and then some out of the estate, and the rest was inherited by the children and grandchildren out of two marriages, namely Koschelin’s children, a third, Jonele in Ofteringen, Model in Stühlingen, Lampöetli in Stühlingen, Schmule and Ephraim in Tiengen. They offered their sister in Metz 100 taler, arguing that the property was small.17

Model was only moderately successful as a businessman, but he was respected by his peers and served as Parnas in 1691 [R962]. He seemed to be sought after to represent other Jews [R4921] in complex business deals; but he also seemed involved in just about any brawl that occurred [R4736]. Model had three sons: Jonas (F1.1.1), Mausche (F1.1.3), married to Elckel, daughter of Aberham (Z12) [R691], and Jacob (F1.1.2). Jonas was under protection from 1699 to 1716 when he moved away without a forwarding address [R544]. He must have been married with his own household. Only one cattle transaction and one claim are listed for him. Mausche was partially under protection during the same period. He was jailed in 1703 for being behind in paying his taxes [R3717], and he too left Stühlingen for an unknown destination by 1717 [R542]. Jacob is mentioned only four times. In 1703 he was fined for beating his brother Mausche’s (Moyses) wife with a key [R3725]. In 1704 he moved away after a fight with Sandel’s son Marum (S1.2.1) [R3753].

The fifth and most complex branch of the Weil clan are the “Donaueschinger Weyls.” Their explicit history in the Stühlingen records begins in 1683, when Efrem and “two Samuehl Weihls” had to pay a 10 fl. passage fee for moving their households – a total of nineteen souls and twenty heads of cattle – from Tiengen to Donaueschingen [R1310]. All but two Jewish families had been evicted from Tiengen that summer [R1329]. Donaueschingen letters of protection had existed since 1662.18

The Tiengen Weils, namely the two brothers Samuel (W1) (another Samuel with byname Schmuli) (V1) and Effermen (W2) (a fourth Mayer) (V3), received protection in Donaueschingen [R7] and traded from there. Samuel and Effermen also traded in the Stühlingen region under a letter of passage (Geleitbrief) [R664]. Both Samuel and Schmuli Weyl acted as Parnasim in Donaueschingen during the first decade of the eighteenth century, but the two did not get along well with each other.19 Schmuli died in 1709 [R7]. Samuel had established a close working relationship with and acted as court Jew for Prince Egon Anton of Fürstenberg,20 regent for the underage orphan Count Joseph Wilhelm Ernst of Fürstenberg. In 1709 or 1710, Samuel was granted the tobacco and iron monopoly for six years [R12, R13].

Samuel had two or three sons: Marumb (Marum, W1.3), known later with the byname Dicker (the fat), Leheman (W1.1), and possibly Simon (W1.2). Originally they lived together in the Schellenberg house [R7], which they sold in 1720 [R16]. Simon was the father of the unfortunate daughter Vögele, whose betrothal to the rogue Mauschi (C2.1.2.1.1.2) had gone so spectacularly awry in 1732. From about 1720 on, Marum also received protection [R6] in Stühlingen and quickly became prominent [R3492]. By 1729 Leheman was baptized and remained in Donaueschingen [R4570]. Samuel Weyl is mentioned for the last time in 1730 [R19]; in that same year Marum bought a more substantial house [R4970] on the better, northeast side of Stühlingen. At the time of the eviction, Marum was ill and received an extension [R1218], and by 1744 he had moved to Lengnau. His grave does not appear in the Endingen-Lengnau cemetery book.

Marum had five sons and a daughter Ella [R2187]. His son Moysis (W1.3.1) was under protection in Stühlingen from 1733 to 1743. He seemed to have worked in partnership with his father. It is not clear where he moved to in 1743. Lehemann (W1.3.2), Marum’s second son, was named after his uncle. He too worked closely with his father, and in 1743 moved to Lengnau [R1196]. He died in 1788 and is buried in the old Endingen/Lengnau Cemetery in grave nineteen, row nineteen.21 We know little of Salomon (W1.3.3), and his subsequent whereabouts have not been reported.  The same is true for the youngest son, Samuel (W1.3.5). The fourth son Isac (W1.3.4) cared for his father during his illness [R1218]. Although it is likely that he followed his father to Lengnau, no record could be found.

Ephrem’s (W2) two sons Moyses (W.2.1) and Jacob (W2.2) disappeared by 1710. Mayer (W3) had three sons: Borach (W3.1), Getsch (W3.2), and Jacob. Mayer died in 1709, and Borach moved away [R7]. Jacob was under pro­tec­tion in Do­nau­eschin­gen until 1710. He was last mentioned in 1726 [R803]. Getsch remained under protection until 1740 [R23] and then disappeared from the scene. Four other Weyl family members are mentioned too infrequently to specify details: Herzl (X1), Chaim (X2), Abraham (X3), and David (X4).

Bloch

Next to appear in Stühlingen lands were members of the the Bloch clan, with the brothers Sannel (C1) and Jäggle (Jeggle, C2), and subsequently Jeggle’s son Meyerle; however, the family name Bloch is not mentioned until 1692 [R1032]. Meyerle appears as one of the 1610 lenders to Count Maximilian and from then on is mentioned regularly. Sannel and Jeggle are mentioned from 1614 on, including on the 1615 letter of protection.

There is some documentary evidence from the little town of Aach that Jeggle and his family had originally come from Hanau, near Frankfurt, to Aach. They brought a large claim against the noble Sir Hans Werner von Raitenau, who was known for his lavish life style. A careful analysis of that matter is beyond the scope of this treatise; but as a consequence of the lengthy legal wrangling, Jeggle and his son Meyerle were evicted from Aach and moved to Stühlingen. The documents suggest that they were related to Isak of Stühlingen, whom they had earlier given shelter in Aach on his escape from Conrad von Pappenheim.

Sannel died in 1629 [R1654], leaving behind his widow and an underage daughter, who was later to marry Marum Weil (Tochtermändle, S1). Jeggle had two sons: Meyerle (C2.1), who was also on the first protection letter, and Eli (C2.2). Eli, like most other members of the Bloch family, dealt mainly in cattle and horses. He was under protection between 1618 and 1635 and no longer appeared thereafter. Meyerle had four sons and two daughters: Kehlen, who was married first to Schachmann (G2) and after his death to Jäggelin Weyl (R1.1) [R1949], and another whose name is unknown, but who became the mother-in-law of Leib Gugenheimb (G1.4.1) [R1400]. Meyerle’s sons were Menckhe (C2.1.2), another Eli (C2.1.1), Feisel (C2.1.3), and Jäggle (C2.1.4). Eli was under protection from 1638 to 1645. He must have moved away, for in 1652 Menckhe testified in court, on behalf of his father Meyerle, that he had to write to his brother Eli, who had made the entries in their father’s business book [R1907]. Feisel was married but had died by 1656, leaving behind a widow. It is possible that he also had children, for in 1672 heirs were mentioned [R4272].

Menckhe conducted many real-estate transactions. He had two sons and three daughters. The oldest daughter married Salomon Bernheimb (A1) around 1677 [R4400]. Sara married in 1684 [R1358]. Beyhle, the youngest, found a husband in Alsace [R3661]. Menckhe’s oldest son, Mayer (C2.1.2.1), was named after his grandfather. His younger brother, Moysi (C2.1.2.2), was under protection from about 1684 to 1717; he was married to Kayla Gugenheimb [R804], probably a daughter of Marumb (G1.3) [R4443], and had a married daughter in Dornach [R804]. By 1726 he had died, and his widow sold her house to a nephew.

Mayer was under protection from 1696 to 1737. He had one son Menke (C2.1.2.1.1), whose alienation and conversion was discussed in chapter 9 above. Menke in turn had three sons: Meyer krumm (bent), (C2.1.2.1.1.1), Moyses (C2.1.2.1.1.2) of the aborted betrothal, and Abraham (C2.1.2.1.1.3), who was caught more or less innocently in this same affair. Things settled down for Abraham, and in 1743 he moved with his children to Endingen, where he had inherited the apartments of father and grandfather. By 1747 Abraham had died, and his children sold the property [R3455].

Old Meyerle’s fourth son, Jäggle (C2.1.4), was under protection from 1658 to 1710. In later years, he was exempt from having to pay the tax because of his age [R4472]. A son David (C2.1.4.1) was under protection from 1687 to 1716. David’s son Meyer (C2.1.4.1.1) is mentioned only once in Eberfingen [R4501].

That leaves us with Rebben Salmele (C2.1.4.2) [R5]. He clearly is addressed as a rabbi and carries the family name Bloch. He was generally exempt from having to pay protection tax. Salmele, the diminutive form of his first name Salomon [R4517], suggests that he was known in Stühlingen already as a child, but there is no explicit mention of his father. Given his chronological position and the order in which he was named in lists [R1441], Jäggle (C2.1.4) is most likely his father. Of Salmele’s five sons, Isak (C2.1.4.2.1) [R2314], Meyer (C2.1.4.2.2), [R2907] and Mannes (C2.1.4.2.5)22 are documented in the records; the paternity for sons Marx (C2.1.4.2.3) and Jakob (C2.1.4.2.4) is inferred from indirect evidence. One potential source for the difficulty in tracing Salmele’s family ties lies in his position as rabbi, whereby he is mentioned infrequently and appears rarely in protection lists, having no protection slot to pass on to an offspring.

Gugenheimb

By far the largest Jewish family in Stühlingen, the least risk aversive, and the most rambunctious were the Gugenheimbs. The origin of the Gugenheimb family is also uncertain. The earliest Gugenheimbs were not among the signatories of the 1610 debt certificate, but Jerkuffen (Jacob, G1) appears on the 1615 letter of protection. It has been argued23 that Jekhuffen was Jacob Gugenheim, son of the Josef Gugenheim of Frankfurt described in Ele Toldot.24 Josef probably died during the Fettmilch uprising.25

According to Ele Toldot, Jacob married a Merga from Alsace in 1609, and according to the Frankfurt Jews’ list, Jacob and his wife were still listed as residents in 1619. Such information would probably exclude him as a resident of Stühlingen during that period. However, Ettlinger himself questions the validity of the 1619 Jews’ list26 that was reconstructed after the Fettmilch uprising. Josef’s father is listed as “Teacher Kiwe,” the famous rabbi Akiva Frankfurter. Ettlinger seems to base this paternity only on the fact that Akiva had lived in the house “zur Flasche” (bottle) until­ 1560, when he moved to the house “zur Traube” (grape), and Jacob lived in the house “zur Flasche” at the time of his death in 1614. No other evidence for the relationship has been cited. John Berkovitch has suggested that the family name Gugenheim derives from the place name Jugenheim in Hesse via palatalization of the palatal approximant “j” to “g.”27 In fact, a Joseph, son of Abraham of Jugenheim, came from Bingen to attend the 1600 and 1603 synods of German rabbis and signed the decrees.28 But Joseph was no scholar; he demanded that the decrees be translated for him before signing, since he did not understand Hebrew.29 Jacob/Jekhuff Gugenheim/Gugenheimb could have come from Frankfurt to Stühlingen between 1610 and 1615 along the old trade route southward from Frankfurt;30 but plausibility is not evidence.

Jekhuff (G1) was first mentioned in 1613 [R3240], although at that time and until 1614 he was simply called “Jacob Jew of Stühlingen.” A relative named Schachmann (C2), possibly a brother-in-law, appeared on the scene nine years later [R1549]. We infer their relationship from Schachmann’s estate proceedings [R1949], although Schachmann had already died without issue in 1649 [R1784]. Overall he ranked eighth in terms of commercial activity, while Jekhuff ranked fourth. Schachmann’s wife Kehlen was the daughter of Meyerle (C2.1), and when Schachmann died, she married Jäggele Weyl (R1.1).

Jekhuff, apparently, was married to old Marum’s (Z16) daughter [R1480]. Jekhuff had four sons and two daughters; one daughter was married to Lemblin of Tiengen [R2024], the other to Judele of Oftringen (O1.1) [R1860]. The sons were Josephle (G1.1), Schmul (G1.2), Marumb (G1.3), and Jonas (G1.4). Josephle was married to Marla; he was never under protection in Stühlingen but by 1637 seems to have moved to Lengnau. He was killed in 1656, possibly during the unrest associated with the first Villmergen war, and his widow moved temporarily back to Stühlingen [R2060]. It is likely that he had children, but they are not recorded in Stühlingen documents [R4266]. However, by 1665 a “Joseph Jew of Lenglau” [R4051] is mentioned among the heirs of Jekhuff.  

Schmul or Schmol, as he was variably called, is also difficult to delineate. We know that he was Jekhuff’s son [R2537], but he never appeared on any protection list. During the height of the Thirty Years’ War, Schmol had escaped to Hallau in Switzerland [R4069]. His wife’s name was possibly Bessle [R1862]. By 1637 he had died, but his estate continued to be mentioned until 1667 [R4142].

Marumb and Jonas, on the other hand, had a clearly documented and protected presence in Stühlingen, and both were very successful merchants. Marumb was married twice, first to a daughter of Jögglin (probably R1.1)[R1846], then to Mergam, daughter of Marx Hönlin from Oettingen in Bavaria, who also went by the name Süesskündt – a liaison that would prove costly for Marumb. Marumb had guaranteed a loan of 680 fl. from Hans Conradt Braun, a merchant in Schaffhausen, to Marx Hönlin for merchandise the latter had obtained. When Marx Hönlin was unable to cover the loan, Marumb was left hanging [R3946]. Jekhuff’s son Marumb died around 1686 [R1395], and his widow Mergam lived in great poverty until about 1700 [R4454].

Marumb had four sons and two daughters: one daughter married to Model Weyl (T1) [R4913]; the other, Kehla, married to Moysi (or Mausche) Bloch (C2.1.2.1)[R4443]. The sons were Fromele (G1.3.1), probably from Marumb’s first marriage; and Jonas (G1.3.2), Jossel (G1.3.3), and Jekoph (G1.3.4), the three from the second marriage. Fromele was under protection from 1672 to 1712. Fromele did not appear to have children. Jonas was first under protection in Unterlauchringen, then Ofteringen and Horheim. Jossel was under protection in Stühlingen from 1687 to 1718, when he ran away leaving behind a debt of 493 fl. [R2915]. Jossel had two sons,  Mausche (G1.3.3.1), who was under protection in 1714 and 1715 and left no further traces, and Siessel (G1.3.1.2), who moved to Hürben in Bavaria.31

Jekoph was married to Vögelin, a daughter of Calmelin (G1.2.2) [R1295]. Such marriages between cousins did not necessarily bring familial bliss. In 1702 a big fight erupted between Vögele and her niece Bessle, daughter of Calmelin’s son Jäcoff (G1.2.2.2). Bessle pelted her aunt with raw tripe, and Vögele retaliated by calling her niece a “French whore.” The two Jacobs entered the fray and started beating each other bloody. Both families were fined 4 pounds each [R3715]. But Bessle also got her come-uppance for coarse behaviour. Judi Schulklopfer beat her up for calling him a mambser (bastard) [R715]. Jekoph was under protection from 1683 to 1715 and then disappeared. None of Marumb’s four sons seems to have been very successful in business; they all were beset by debts.

Jonas’ (G1.4) branch was probably the most stable of Jekhuff’s descendants. Jonas was under protection from 1652 to 1687. His son Leib (G1.4.1) was married to a granddaughter of Meyerle Bloch (C2.1) [R1400] and was under protection in Stühlingen from 1674 to 1733, the year he died [R3581]. Leib was a very successful merchant, ranking fifth among all the Stühlingen Jews. He was well respected and was elected treasurer, together with Sandel and Model Weyl in 1691 [R962], despite his propensity for dealing in stolen goods [R54]. In 1692 he was appointed guardian for the underage children of prematurely deceased Schmuli (G1.2.2.1) in a bitter inheritance battle [R1009].

Leib had two daughters, the wife of Jopperle Guggenheim in Randegg [R750] and the wife of Salomon Weyl, Marumb’s son (S1.2.1.1). His sons were Feistel (G1.4.1.1) and Jonah (G1.4.1.2). Leib was extremely well off and in 1728, five years before his death, he declared bequests for his children and grandchildren [R2175]:

Feistel, married to the daughter of Lemble Weyl (R1.1.1), was under protection from 1700 to 1743, and his son Meyer (G1.4.1.1.1) from 1730 to 1743. Meyer had married Schönle, daughter of Lang Jossel (G1.2.1.4.1) early in 1729. The marriage began under a dark cloud and quickly appeared to be on the brink of divorce. Shortly after the wedding, the couple began to argue about control over the dowry that Schönle brought into the marriage [R2204]. From the Halachic point of view, this is a complex topic. The dowry is considered a wife’s tzon barzel (iron flock). In other words, the husband takes possession of the dowry and may benefit from its revenue, but he is responsible for any loss incurred in the dowry’s value.32 Between the lines, the father-in-law lang Jossel appeared unwilling to relinquish control over the assets, a situation that would grate most new husbands. After a great deal of discussions with and counselling by Jonas Gugenheimb (G1.4.1.2), Marum Dicker (W1.3), and Menke Bernheimb (A1.1), the issue was resolved amiably, and the marriage was saved.

Feistel sold two houses in the town, the first in 1743 [R3563], the second, presumably his son’s, in 1745 [R3448]. Both father and son moved to Hechingen. Leib’s second son, Jonas, named after his grandfather, was married to Sara, daughter of Marum Weyl, Sandel’s son [R784]. They were unable to have children of their own but took a niece into their home [R2958]. Jonas was under protection in Stühlingen between 1716 and 1743. He moved to Randegg and from there sold two houses in Stühlingen in 1749 [R3461] and 1755 [R3468] respectively.

Schmul (G1.2) had two sons whose unique names, Seligmann (G1.2.1) and Calmeli (Kalonymos, G1.2.2), stand out from the crowd. By the time they had reached manhood in 1651 and 1655 respectively, their father Schmul was dead [R1862]. Both ranked among the ten most active Jewish merchants in Stühlingen. The two brothers engaged in many joint ventures, but at times they did not shy away from attacking each other physically. Calmeli was fined for dragging his brother around by his hair without good reason [R4830]. Seligmann  was under protection from 1651 to 1687 [R4443], but only two years later he was dead [R901]. Seligmann had a daughter Scheinel, married to Lemble Weyl (R1.1.1), and four sons: Boroch (G1.2.1.1), Jäcklin (G1.2.1.2), Daniel (G1.2.1.3), and Schmuli (G1.2.1.4).

Boroch remained in Stühlingen for only a short time. From 1690 he became a resident of Oberendingen [R934] but maintained his rights of passage and of conducting business in the Stühlingen region (Geleitgeld) [R3623]. His brother Daniel is mentioned once, Jäcklin twice; by 1683 their tracks are lost. Schmuli was named after his grandfather. He was under protection in Stühlingen from 1680 to 1717; for the first twenty years he was quite successful, but after 1700 he slowed down. At the time of his death he was destitute [R3061] and the “Holy (Burial) Society” raised objections to his burial, since he had not paid his dues over the years [R762].

Schmuli had three daughters and two sons. His daughter Schönele was married in Bolsheim Alsace; another daughter, Lia, was married in Sulz. His daughter Sara, after an unsuccessful engagement, chose baptism, became Karolina Antonia Hoffer, and within two years married the tanner Franz Anton Keller in Engen.33 Of his two sons, Seligman (G1.2.1.4.2) moved to Gailingen. His other son, Lang Jossel (G1.2.1.4.1), the only descendant of the original Seligmann in Stühlingen, was under protection from 1703 to 1743.

In 1723 Josel Levi, Lang Jossel’s maternal uncle, arrived from Sulz and in the presence of Schmuli and the two Parnasim Marum Weyl and Leib Gugenheimb accused him of having abandoned his parents to poverty [R3061]. Lang Jossel countered that he was not a rich man and that he was only one of their five children; furthermore, he had nine living children of his own to support. At first glance, it would appear that the fifth commandment to honour one’s father and mother34 should have carried enough authority to oblige lang Jossel. But the Talmud offers a more differentiated view: a son is obliged to support his parents only up to the point where it does not impair his ability to maintain his own nuclear family.35 This, obviously, was lang Jossel’s argument. We do not know the actual outcome of this intervention, since the records are silent. But Schmuli died in 1724 [R763] in Stühlingen and was buried somehow. Lang Jossel had at least eight surviving children by the time they left Stühlingen in 1743 and moved to Hechingen.36 His five daughters were Scheinle, Rebecca, Havele, Michtle, and Braunle, and three sons were Marum, Seligman/Salomon, and Leopold. The fact that Marum's father- and brother-in-law had moved to Hechingen could explain why Marum, his brothers, and parents went there as well.

Calmeli (G1.2.2) was married to a cousin, the daughter of his great uncle Jonas (G1.4) and was under protection from 1656 to 1691. Calmeli was a somewhat unsteady spirit who spent much time in fights and in court, but he was successful as a businessman. Calmeli had three daughters [R997]: Küenel [R925], married to Salomon Gedeon of Hechingen; Beschle [R953] (Bessle, or possibly Bäuerlin), married to Jecoph Gugenheimb [R1295] (G1.3.4); and Ehlen, as well as three sons. He had died by 1691 [R955]. Calmeli’s son Schmulin (G1.2.2.1) died young, only one year after his father, leaving behind a widow and at least two underage daughters, Madele and Bessele [R3713]. Schmulin’s widow sold her house [R1063] and moved with her daughters to Brötzingen near Pforzheim, where she remarried. Schmulin’s brother Joseph (G1.2.2.3) apparently owed the girls their father’s share of Calmeli’s estate [R3713]. Joseph was unable to pay, so Abraham Cann (Katz, Kahn?), stepbrother of the two young women, came to Stühlingen in 1703 to negotiate on behalf of his half-sisters. Apparently a settlement was reached with the assistance of Mayer Bloch (C2.1.2.1). Joseph was under protection in Stühlingen from 1694 to 1710, but by 1711 he had died [R3577]. Joseph had a son Feistel (G1.2.2.3.1).

Meyer

The first of the two lesser families, Meyer or Mayer, first appear in records of 1660. A David Jew of Lauchringen was mentioned in 1662, and by 1663 he was read as David Mey[er] in Oberlauchringen. He was mentioned a few times in Tiengen documents. Two Stühlingen records, one of 1660 [R3827] and one of 1666 [R4124], call him “Menckhe’s brother.” This reference cannot mean brother-in-law, since David was married to a daughter of David Dreyfuoss in Tiengen; however, it could mean step-brother or simply a close relative. The family name Meyer could have derived from the patronymic “Meyer,” indicating that David too is a son of Meyerle Bloch (C2.1). Naming and trading patterns show similarities between the Meyer and Bloch family, thus adding support to the hypothesis of a link between these families.

In 1673 David moved to Eberfingen and was there under protection until 1706 when he probably died. With him moved his brother Hirtzlin or Hürtzlin (M2), who was under protection until 1710. David had two sons: Jäckhlin (M1.1), who was married to the daughter of Leheman Bikert (B1.2.1.1) [R4407], and Elias (M1.2). Jäckhlin was under protection from 1673 to 1700, first in Ofteringen, then in Obermettingen, Horheim, and finally in Eberfingen. Jäckhlin had four sons: Salomon (M1.1.1), Elias (M1.1.2), David (M1.1.3), and Isac (M1.1.4). Salomon and David each had a son named Menckhin (C1.1.1.1, M1.1.3.1). Isac moved to Baisingen around 1700 [R675]. Jäckhlin’s brother Elias was under protection in Stühlingen from 1692 to 1743 and had two sons, Israel (M1.2.1) and Marx (M1.2.2). Israel left Stühlingen in 1717 to an unknown destination, while Marx stayed to the end and probably moved to Lengnau with Marum Dicker, although he does not appear in the Lengnau burial list. Hürtzlin was under protection from 1673 to 1710. His son Jäckhele (M2.1) was under protection in Eberfingen from 1700 to 1717.

Bernheimb

Salomon Bernheimb (A1) first came to Stühlingen in 1675 to marry Menkhen Bloch’s (C2.1.2) daughter [R4400]. He was under protection in Horheim between 1677 and 1710, around the time he died. Salomon had three sons: Menkin (A1.1), David (A1.2), married to the daughter of a Marum Weyl  (U1.3) in Untereggingen, and Meyer (A1.3). Salomon’s sons were under protection in Stühlingen until 1720, when Menkin with his sons Isaac (A1.1.1) and Hirsch (A1.1.2), together with his brothers David and Meyer, with his son Isac (A1.3.1), moved to Tiengen [R546] but continued trading in Stühlingen under passage permits (Geleitbriefe). It is possible that Salomon had a brother Benjamin in Untereggingen (A2), with a son also named Isac (A2.1); but this fraternal relationship is tentative, based only on a single entry stating that Benjamin was a brother of Salomon [R142].

Others

Five Jews had been living in Ofteringen since 1599 [R3428], whose family connections cannot be determined. They might have been brothers Moschi (O1), Hoscha (O2), Schmoll (O3), Schwartz (black) Judele (O4), and Meierle (O5). Moschi had a son Judele (O1.1), who seemed to have acted as a kind of lawyer representing various Stühlingen Jews in legal situations [R1790]. Some Jews belonging to the Levi clan lived in Unterlauchringen.

Generally, the relations among Stühlingen’s Jews were peaceful, although ongoing tensions existed between the families of Marum (G1.3) and Calmeli (G1.2.2) Gugenheimb with occasional serious altercations. However, an epic fight erupted between various members of the extended Weyl family and some in-laws when they should have been joyfully celebrating the first day of Tabernacles (Sukkot) 1697 together [R3689]. It all started innocently with an argument between Jossel (G1.3.3) and Samuel (W1) over the sale of a Polish horse, but then things quickly escalated. Invectives started flying back and forth, and Abraham (G1.3.1) and Model (T1) joined in the fray. Efrem (W2) and his son Moyses (W2.1) accused Samuel of various nefarious deeds, whereupon Samuel threw a glass of wine at the latter. Sandel (S1.2) got into an argument with Model, and Marum (S1.2.1), Sandel’s son, threw a pitcher of wine at Model, which hit him on his chest. Marum (U1.3) started wrestling with Model. It would have taken a Pieter Breughel37 to paint the scene. The next morning brought regrets, hangovers, bruises, and hefty fines for fighting [R3689].

The social intercourse of the Stühlingen Jews also involved their coreligionists from surrounding communities including Gailingen, Randegg, Tiengen, Endingen and Lengnau, many of which visited Stühlingen not only socially but also to ply their trade there, based on acquired letters of passage. Jews from all over southern Germany visited Stühlingen, linked together by a shared belief system and broadly based family ties.

 

Footnotes -> List of References

  1Cf. Deut. 32:7.

  2Judah and Reifmann, "Mavo Ha-Talmud."

  3"Mathematics Genealogy Project."

  4Cf. Num. 27:1–11.

  5Toch, “Siedlungsstruktur der Juden,”

  6GLA, 61/7121, Court proceedings of Tiengen Dominion, 1583–6, March 19, 1584.

  7Butzer, Hüttenmeister, and Treue, “Ich will euch sagen von einem bösen Stück ...,”; Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden." 461, 75

  8Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden." 461.

  9In the register of Jews for both Lengnau and Endingen this family name appeared consistently as “Weil” in 1761 and “Wyler” in 1774.

10Samuel Pletscher Collection, "Schuldurkunde"", Stühlingen 1610.

11Löwenstein, "Nathanael Weil." 1 - 37

12Ibid., 5.

13Kaufmann, “Zur Geschichte der Familie Dreyfuss,” 425; Kayserling, “Richelieu, Buxdorf et Jacob Roman,” 77.

14Löwenstein, Nathanael Weil, 1 - 37

15Stolberg-Wernigerode, "Neue deutsche Biographie," 569.

16Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden," 75.

17GLA, 224/216, "Erhebung des Abzugs von Verlassenschaften von verstorbenen Juden," December 26, 1678.

18Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden," 165.

19Ibid., 168.

20Ibid., 166.

21JFEL-II, 108.

22JFEL-IV, 432–3.

23John Berkovitch, personal communication.

24Ettlinger, part C, Hauptteil (Personalblätter), E. 1600–19, “Josef Gugenheim 1614 oder 1615?”

25Ulmer, "Turmoil, Trauma and Triumph."

26Ettlinger, Abkürzungen, Li. 1619.

27John Berkovitch, personal communication; Bhat, “A General Study of Palatalization,”

28Zimmer, Jewish Synods, 190–1.

29Ibid., 98.

30Ranke, “Die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen,” 000. <pg #?>

31StAA, VÖ lit. 263, fol. 187.

32Cf. BT, Bava Kamah 89a; Kofsky, “A Comparative Analysis.”

33Rosenthal, “Die Judenmission vor 200 Jahren (I).”

34Exod. 20:12.

35TB, "Kiddushin" 32a.

36Steve Guggenheim researched lang Jossel and his descendants, his early ancestors, and has communicated this information in private correspondence.

37Pieter Brueghel the Elder, Dutch painter, 1525–69, known for his paintings of peasant village life.

---