The Catholic world of central Europe, into which the Jews intruded as a foreign body, had a clear understanding of eschatology, which encompassed the Trinity of God, the divinity of the Saviour, Virgin Birth, and the central role of faith, sin, and salvation. In contrast, the religion of the Jews was perceived by its gentile surrounding as an arbitrary assortment of dry ceremonies [R3799] devoid of any spirituality, a perception that was promulgated in a series of publications by converted Jews.1 The heading of this chapter has been chosen to emphasize this discrepancy of perspective.
Jews understand themselves as descendants of a Middle-Eastern desert tribe who maintain an existential pact between themselves and their single, largely abstract deity: in return for their trust in him and submission to his law, they are promised their land, existential protection, and generational continuity. Some key events, such as the near sacrifice of Isaac, the exodus from Egypt, and the destruction of the Temple provide additional structure. The history and nature of this contract is outlined in a foundation document, the Torah, and further expanded in the other nineteen books of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). This relationship, based on obligations, is concretized by a bevy of commandments (mitzvoth), together forming the Jewish law (Halacha). The many commands – both positive obligations and negative prohibitions – are divided into two major sections: first, the “Commandments from the Torah” and second, the “Laws Instituted by the Rabbis.”
This secondary group is subdivided further into laws that secure the observation of the Commandments from the Torah, thus preventing accidental violation by building a “security zone” (gezeirah) around them, comprised of commandments created by the rabbis unrelated to biblical laws for the purpose of public welfare (takhanah) and customs (minhag).2 Regional, local, and temporal customs are recognized. In principle, all commandments are binding, but earlier commandments take precedence over later ones. The customs apply only under the appropriate temporal and local conditions.
Although the holy Jewish texts have their roots in preliterate, oral tradition, they have evolved over thousands of years. The Torah is only one link in this long chain and was followed by the Mishnah and Gemarah that together form the Talmud. In keeping with the respect for local traditions, the Talmud evolved in two more or less parallel but largely independent versions: the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud. This text constitutes an amazing achievement in social lawgiving. From the third to the fifth centuries, rabbinic academies in both Babylonia and Palestine compiled the Talmudic codex without constitutional sanction or structural power in a fully pluralistic manner.3 The prose of the Talmud is in the form of dialogues, disputes, and parables, surrounded by later commentaries. Over the centuries, it had been copied by hand, but in 1523 the complete Talmud was first printed in Venice, Italy. Over the subsequent 150 years it was banned, hounded, and burned by the church.4
The Talmud makes for difficult reading. Corresponding to its historic evolution, it is written in a medley of classical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, and Aramaic. Disputes set forth in the text frequently are not resolved but rather stimulate individual reflection. Thus it serves more as an intellectual tool rather than a prescriptive law book that sets clear standards.
This deficiency in prescriptive law was recognized by Yaakov ben Asher (~ 1270–1340) and Joseph ben Ephraim Qaro (1488–1575) who wrote the Arba’ah Turim and the Shulchan Aruch respectively, authoritative compilations of the Jewish law, which served as “handbooks” facilitating an observant lifestyle.5 This process of Halachic differentiation did not end with the publication of the Shulchan Aruch; it continues to the present day in the form of Case Law (Responsa). The authority of Responsa, like that of previous rabbinic conclusions, is based not on institutional power but on the individual reputation and the argumentative strength of the scholars who formulate them. The absence of a central, institutional religious power since the destruction of the Second Temple may have largely contributed to shielding Judaism from major structural schisms.6
In most biblical writings, divine protection guards against the dangers in this world and applies more to the Jewish people as a whole rather than to individuals. But while observation of the laws is the responsibility of each person, the notion of collective liability, emphasized by the Prophets, creates an uneasy social pressure towards religious conformity. The idea of individual reward and punishment in the hereafter appears relatively late in Judaism and could very well have been introduced from the outside. Halacha pervades just about every aspect of Jewish life. Over its long accretionary evolution, Judaism has become a tight amalgamation of spiritual, ethical and social precepts, and historical detritus. As in any complex system, it is often easy to miss the forest for the trees; the gap between religious ordinance and actual behaviour varies widely.
One of Judaism’s deepest thinkers, Moses Maimonides (~1135–1204), postulated that God’s existence is manifest only through his actions, and any other divine attributes are purely human constructs.7 If we accept that people have been created in God’s image,8 then it follows out of symmetry that a person’s godliness expresses itself only by his or her deeds, not by thoughts or words. Thus, Judaism is a religion of doing rather than talking.
Prime among Jewish tenets is the requirement that God has to be approached with humility and in purity9 – both spiritual and physical. Thus, an observant Jew may pray or read the Torah even without the benefit of a synagogue – but one may not do so in a state of impurity; for purification one needs a ritual bath (mikvah).10 The ritual bath is particularly crucial in maintaining “Purity of the Family,” a modest circumlocution of cleansing rituals related to reproductive function – particularly for women. An unassuming ritual bath therefore has a higher priority in a Jewish community than a prominent synagogue.11
A Stühlingen mikvah is described as situated in the moat on the western side of the town12 where the tanners had their pits, since flowing water is a prerequisite for both. We have no indication of when this mikvah was actually established. But in 1723 well-to-do Marumb ben Sandel Weil (S1.2.1) bought the former inn “Krone” as a residence [R3055] and in 1726 expanded its wash house to incorporate a private mikvah [R808]. His son Salomon Weil (S1.2.1.1) eventually had to sell the property [R1222] after the expulsion and their move to Gailingen.
A synagogue (Schul)13 is first mentioned in 1628 [R1604]. Apparently builder Veltin Kayser claimed 27 fl. from the treasurer of the Jewish community for work he had performed on the synagogue. Two members of the community, Jecoff (G1) and Jäggle (C2), refused to pay their share, claiming that they had not been consulted. They demanded that whoever had ordered the work in the first place should pay. But by an ironic triumph of justice, Hanns Hofacker the younger in 1635 claimed 7 fl. from two trustees, namely Jecoff (Jacoff) and Jäggle (Jeggle), for supplies he had delivered to the synagogue [R3115].
The original synagogue was probably situated just outside of but adjacent to the southwest corner of the town wall.14 It also incorporated living quarters for a rabbi.15 As the community grew, a new synagogue had to be built adjacent to and east of its predecessor16 and was later converted to a barn (Judenscheuer).17 Because of its location in the town, both the old and new synagogue were automatically oriented towards Jerusalem. It is possible that the original old prayer room became the women’s annex. The synagogue seat affair of 1730 mentions both an “upper” and a “lower” man’s seat [R2253], and suggests a somewhat unusual seating arrangement. Seats were usually situated all at one level below that of both the ark and the Torah reading platform (bimah).18 However, men’s seats can be found on several levels in the Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam, which was built around the same time.19
We know that the synagogue had a Torah scroll in 1688 [R879], and it is almost certain that the scroll sat in an ark covered by an embroidered curtain.20 The myth of the learned and immensely rich rabbi Maharam Weil is woven around the second synagogue,21 as a prominent plaque reminds the visitor.
Rabbis are mentioned very rarely in the 4826 Stühlingen records pertaining to Jews. This is not astonishing, given the restricted role permitted to the rabbi by the letters of protection.22 Deprived of his judicial function, a rabbi would preside at weddings and funerals. He was not needed for regular synagogue services, although some rabbis were renowned for their learned expositions on a variety of religious and philosophical topics. We have no documentary evidence that a Stühlingen rabbi ever functioned in the accepted role of a community rabbi typical for the transition period from Middle Ages to the early modern period.23 Nor was the Stühlingen rabbi’s function acknowledged by the secular authorities, unlike the case in Burgau.24
The only explicitly tax-exempt rabbi mentioned was Salomon Bloch, Reb Shlomele, (C2.1.4.2).25 In the Lengnau mohel book (list of ritual circumcisers),26 Salomon is designated as chaver (member) rather than rabbi, indicating that he had only some basic rabbinical qualifications. He appears in Stühlingen records between 1687 [R1441] and 1734 [R2380]. In a petition to the count, he describes himself humbly as “schoolmaster of the Jews’ school who earns his living by teaching the young,”27 and explains further that he had inherited this position by law from his father-in-law.
The first mention of a Stühlingen rabbi was less than auspicious: “David Jew of Eberfingen and Marx Jew, the rabbi of Stühlingen, have beaten each other bloody” [R1545].
Stühlingen does not appear to have had its own rabbi between 1660 and 1680. In 1660 the resolution of a quarrel between Jacob Nöwenburger (Z8) and Calmeli (G1.2.1) regarding an issue of family law had to be deferred “until a rabbi comes to town” [R3799]. Joneli (G1.4) had to pay a fine in 1660 because he had brought his problem before Rabbi Matheis in Tiengen [R3841]. Apparently it was not unusual for small, rural Jewish communities in Swabia to flourish without a resident rabbi.28
But occasionally a rabbi was employed in Stühlingen. In 1684 a “Jew Lidtmann, hitherto the rabbi in Stühlingen, sues Schmulin Calmelin’s son [G1.2.2.1] for the return of a credit of 30 Reichstaler plus interest…” [R1354]. A local rabbi also was present in 1729 [R2204]. In 1741 the community dismissed Rabbi Falck Levi, two years before the community was abolished, “because his services were no longer required” [R1168].
In several cases, authorities and secular courts required the assistance of community elders or other knowledgeable Jews to interpret specific aspects of Jewish laws, mainly family law [R1009]. Occasionally, even external rabbis from as far away as Frankfurt had to be consulted to solve particularly intractable problems [R2253, R90]. These findings are compatible with the conclusion of Augusta Wedler-Steinberg that a single common rabbi served the Jewish communities of Tiengen, Stühlingen, Endingen, and Lengnau during most of the seventeenth century and may have resided in any of these places at one time or another.29
In contrast to the rabbi, cantors (Vorsinger) and beadles (Schulklopfer) seemed to have had a more permanent role in the Stühlingen community:30 “Beer Jew from Prague, currently the cantor of the local Jews, is fined 10 fl. for attempting to defraud a man at the Zurzach fair” [R3765]. It is likely that the cantor led the synagogue service, a role well established as “envoy of the congregation” (shaliach tzibur).31
Although employees of the community were paid poorly, they nevertheless seemed to have had available funds at times:
Schmuli Jew, Callmelin’s son, has borrowed money from Jacob shul-singer [synagogue singer] Jew in order to pay a debt and set jewellery as pawn. Schmuli’s wife appears and says this is her property. Two Jewish elders, namely Seeligmännlein and Abrahamb, were questioned about the Jewish laws regarding property rights over a dowry. [R4831]
Although community personnel were generally exempt from protection tax, there were exceptions: Davit vorsinger (David the cantor) had to pay tax in 1712.32 Presumably he was taxed because he also engaged in commercial activities not generally permitted to tax-exempt community staff. In fact, commercial transactions of David the cantor are mentioned frequently between 1712 and 1736. In the Extractus summarius33 of April 25, 1739 the sum of 232.33 fl. is still owed to one “Daniel Vorsinger.” It is possible that the scribe misspelled the name. In 1726 David acted not only as cantor but also as beadle [R817]. On several occasions his son Schmuly is also mentioned [R2223]. In 1723 David also enacted a transaction of 237 fl. to provide a dowry for his daughter [R2355].
The Schulklopfer derives this designation from his primary role: he has to rise early and go from house to house waking the men for morning service at the synagogue by knocking (klopfen) on each door. But given the proximity of Jewish houses in Stühlingen, this was probably the least of his tasks around the synagogue; he most likely functioned more as a general gofer. In 1670 Hirschle the Schulklopfer was fined for verbal abuse [4213]. The former Schulklopfer Peter took a bible and the Torah scroll hostage in order to have his outstanding salary paid [R879]. He was succeeded by Judi the Schulklopfer [R93].
The third and largest group of tax-exempt community employees were the Hebrew schoolteachers. Before 1660 there was no evidence that the community ran its own primary (heder) or secondary school (talmud torah), but instead individual families hired migrant religious teachers. This custom continued in the outlying villages until the end of the seventeenth century [R3668]. A communal schoolmaster was first mentioned in 1667 [R3574]: Yochanan (Hönlin, Y1), a poor Jew who had originally come to Stühlingen in 1632 [R2765] with his family as refugee from Hemmendorf near Rottenburg, where the Thirty Years’ War had taken a particularly heavy toll. At first, Hönlin was given protection on a temporary basis, and Naftali (Hürtzle, B1.2.1) paid the tax on his behalf [R2791]. In 1662 he was finally given permanent protection in Horheim [R3977] and by 1668 in Stühlingen proper, on condition that he only acted as schoolmaster and would not engage in any commerce [R4186].
Later on, several schoolmasters were mentioned: an unnamed schoolmaster in 1681 had launched a lawsuit against the community [R1254]. Mordechai (Model) called Mendel the schoolmaster an apostate (shumet) in 1688 [R870]. In that same year, there was a court case between several Stühlingen Jews and a schoolmaster, Jacob Simon. The latter was to teach the five books of Moses, reading, and writing [R874], a load that seems particularly light. In 1737 schoolmaster Moises Gottfrid was a victim of theft [R2464]. A year later, schoolmaster Jacob Salamon sued Salamon Weil [R2501] for unkown cause.
The internal structure and function of a Jewish community administration in the early modern period34 usually followed a standard set of takhanot (bylaws) and minhagim (customs).35 Such an administration commonly required two foremen (parnassim) who were ostensibly elected, but in reality often represented a quasi-hereditary meritocracy. It was also customary for communities to elect, hire, and fire their rabbis. Many letters of protection elsewhere required authorities to sanction, or at least be informed of, such appointments;36 in some jurisdictions the foremen were even elected in the presence of the secular authorities.37 The Stühlingen letters of protection make no mention of this practice; consequently, the appointment of rabbis and foremen is rarely reported in official protocols.
The community leaders were expected to record accounts, deliberations, decisions, and relevant events in protocols (pinkasim). Neither pinkasim nor written bylaws have survived from Stühlingen. Parnassim were mentioned only twice in the Stühlingen protocols: at the end of the seventeenth century Sandel (S1.2) and Model (T1) Weil acted as parnassim, the former as chairman, the latter as secretary, and a treasurer is mentioned as well [R962]. In 1736 the wealthy Marum the Fat (W1.3) Weil and Marum Weil, Sandel’s son, served as parnassim [R2436].38
A central role of Jewish community organization is the coordination of charity (tzedakah). For the observant Jew, charity is not an option – it is a duty. To dedicate to God one tenth of all takings is one of the earliest commandments,39 an idea that in scripture gradually developed further.40 In the book of Exodus charity took on the form of offerings and in subsequent books the tithes were destined for the priests.41 Charity as assistance to the poor appears in later sacred writings, such as the book Nehemiah,42 and was not limited to Jews, since even the King Nebuchadnezzar was thus commanded. The book of Proverbs then set forth the responsibility for one’s neighbour and the stranger.43 Although the book of Tobit never made it into the Hebrew Bible, it also introduced charity as an essential element of righteousness.44 After the destruction of the Temple, charity eventually assumed a central role in Jewish religious life through the Mishnah, the Talmud, and finally the writings of Maimonides.45
Many of the Jewish charity customs in rural southern Germany had their roots in the old Frankfurt community.46 This Jewish-German culture of charity was already highly structured in the eighteenth century.47 Communities set up elaborate collection boxes [R2208];48 other forms of charity fundraising included the sale and even auctioning of community honours, such as call to the Torah reading.49 Jewish charity covered six major areas of concern: the sick, the dead and dying, widows and orphans, the hungry, indigent brides, and the homeless vagrants.50 For the care of the sick, the dying, and the dead, the community almost certainly had a Sister/Brotherhood (chewra kaddischa).51 The commotion relating to the funeral of Samuel Gugenheimb (G1.2.1.4) suggests that he and/or his son Lang Josel (G1.2.1.4.1) had not fulfilled their responsibility towards the Brotherhood [R762].
Jewish vagrants were the dominant target of charitable work in the seventeenth century, with few jurisdictions willing to allow poor, homeless Jews to settle in the aftermath of the Thirty Years’ War, the Khmelnytsky pogroms,52 and the War of the Spanish Succession. Jewish communities in southern Germany and Switzerland had established a complex system of vouchers, called Pletten, Politen, Pläten, Polleten, Bletten, or Blätten,53 which committed each family to hosting a number of vagrants for as many days as the authorities permitted. According to the letters of protection, the duration of this hospitality was typically one night or, at most, over a major holiday. Given the vagrants’ hardships and occasional familial links, the Jews often attempted to extend their hospitality [R2060], which resulted in fines [R1281] and even incarceration.54
Religious services in Stühlingen presumably differed little from that of other Jewish communities in Germany, taking the form of communal Torah reading and prayers “in the traditional manner” (nusach ashkenaz).55 But unfortunately decorum was not always maintained: Mausche Mayer got into a quarrel about a debt with Leib (G1.4.1) in the synagogue and beat him bloody. Leib’s wife is fined for beating Mausche in the synagogue” [R3616]. Another time, “Salomon Weil senior (R1.1.2) is fined for unlawfully shouting in the synagogue” [R2367], and “Menckhe Bloch (C2.1.2) is fined for bad conduct in the synagogue” [R1147]. Finally, as of January 1, 1745, the Jews of Stühlingen lost their synagogue [R31].
But social excesses could also be associated with celebrations outside the synagogue: “Lemann (R1), Jecoff (G1), Sannel (C1), and Meierle (C2.1) are fined for throwing stones in windows, breaking drinking glasses, and other wantonness at the circumcision of Jägli Jew’s (C2) son” [R1563]. Weddings too were an occasion for hijinks:
The following Jews are fined for leaving the common [overland] road when welcoming a newly arriving groom: Salamon Weyl, Marum’s son (S1.2.1.1), Faisel Gugenheimb (G1.4.1.1), Isac Bloch (C2.1.4.2.1), Marx Bloch (C2.1.4.2.3), Jonas Gugenheimb (G1.4.1.2), Abraham Bloch (C2.1.2.1.1.3), Isac Bolack, Seeligmann Gugenheimb (G1.4.2.1.2), Marum Gugenheimb (G1.2.2.3.1), Moyses Bloch (C2.1.2.1.1.2), Schmule Weyl (R1.1.1.2) as their leader, Jacob Weyl) (W3.3) same. [R803]
Marum Weyl (W1.3) is fined for a riot at the wedding of his youngest daughter Ella last Saturday while the bells were rung for Ave Maria and the Poor Souls. [R2187]
The only surviving physical witness of Jewish religious observation in Stühlingen is the cushion cover of the Eliah chair for the circumcision of Lehemann Weil’s (W1.3.2) son. It is the property of the Swiss National Museum and exhibited in the Jewish Museum of Switzerland in Basel.56 It measures about twenty-six by twenty-seven inches and is beautifully dyed and embroidered with the traditional blessings. The picture in the central medallion suggests a Purim scene, with the Hebrew letters ??"? corresponding to the year 492 in the short notation. Although the order of numerals does not correspond to the standard Hebrew notation, it matches the Yiddish diction (units before decimals). The circumcision, therefore, probably took place on March 11, 1732, and the child, therefore, was born on March 3.
The medallion is surrounded by a Hebrew inscription: “This belongs to Jehudah, son of the leader and guide, Parnas and chairman, the honourable Marahm Stühlingen [Weil], and his [!Lehmann’s] wife Reichel, daughter of the leader and guide, the honourable Jacob Lengnau [Gugenheim], Switzerland.” Given the proliferation of honorifics in the prose, the cover was probably created by Marahram’s wife. In the explanation accompanying the exhibit the word ‘????’ (Marahm) had been misread as ‘???"?’ (abbreviation for “Our Teacher the Rabbi Meir”). The cemetery register of Lengnau and Endingen lists only one son of Jehuda (Lehmann) Weil – Izchak (January. 29, 1738 – February. 19, 1823).57 Since his circumcision would not have fallen on Purim, this cushion cover was probably not intended for him. Judah (Lehmann) Weil died on June 28, 1788, aged seventy-nine, and his wife Rahel (Reichel) on November. 9, 1783, both in Lengnau.58
Seats in the synagogue represented more than just bodily supports during spiritual pursuits. Their location in the sanctuary not only reflected social position in the congregation, but also represented capital assets that could be bought and sold like other goods:
Faistel Gugenheimb (G1.4.1.1) representing Kayla Gugenheimb, wife of Mauschi Bloch (C2.1), sells Meyer Bloch (C2.1.2.1) as representative of his son Mencke Bloch (C2.1.2.1.1) the upper half of a house [situated] between Jonas (G1.4.1.2) and Meyer Gugenheimb (G1.4.1.1.1), bordering at the rear to the garden and at the front to the common lane, plus a forecourt (Baulege) and a vegetable garden behind the house, and two mens’ and womens’ seats in the synagogue for fl 400 cash. [R4973]
But these transactions did not always proceed that smoothly [R2253]:
Marum Weyl junior the Fat (W1.3) a resident of here and Donaueschingen, declares that he had six years ago bought a man’s and a woman’s seat [Mann- und Weiberstuhl] in the synagogue from Daniel Bickert (B1.2.1.2.1.1) who had been under protection here but now lives in Wangen near Stein-am-Rhein, in the presence of three witnesses and the rabbi of Gailingen who issued a contract. Now Jonas Gugenheimb (G1.4.1.2) also claims this seat, explaining that he had bought it from the heirs of Daniel’s brother two years after. Plaintiff requests to cross-examine under oath said Daniel Bickert, whom he had unexpectedly met in the market yesterday. Jonas Gugenheimb refers to the Jewish ceremonies and claims that his title to this seat has priority and that Daniel Bickert was not authorized to sell it, because the younger brother always owned it [allzeiten in diesem Stuhl gestanden]. Daniel Bickert refers to Meyer Bloch (C2.1.2.1), Isaac Bickert (B1.2.1.2.2.1) and Reb Salmele (C2.1.4.2) who will say that this seat belonged to his father and that the older brother had the other, lower seat. Rabbi Salmele remembers well that old Schmuly (B1.2.1.2) stood in the upper and Daniel Bickert’s father in the lower seat. When Schmuly died, Hirtzel (B1.2.1.2.1.2) stood in the upper and Daniel in the lower seat. The matter will depend on both parties presenting the purchase documents, and these documents are to be compared [gegeneinander gehalten]. Lehmann Bickert (B1.2.1.1.3.1) says the same. Decision: As both brothers, Hirtzel and Daniel, have sold the upper seat, therefore plaintiff and defendant are to offer evidence as to which of the sellers has taken over which seat from their parents and present the ownership documents. They are to be translated and explained by an impartial rabbi. In the meantime, plaintiff and defendant are to alternate using the upper seat.
As confusing as this story appears, it teaches us a lot. It illustrates the sentimental importance of a specific synagogue seat from various points of view. At the most concrete level, it is an investment threatened by a misunderstanding at best and a potential scam at worst. Second, it deals with the social status associated with specific synagogue seats, not unlike designated family pews in historic churches. Marum the Fat was a “nouveau riche” intruder in Stühlingen, having been evicted from Donaueschingen together with his extended family the year before. Owning a seat appropriate to his self-perceived, elevated social position was essential.
And finally, the anecdote points out a pitfall of this type of research: the elaborate prose, apparently accepted by the various witnesses, describes Daniel and Naphtali (Hirtzel) as brothers, sons of Isaac, and grandsons of Schmuly. The latter once occupied the disputed seat. But this view is contradicted by the results of the more mechanical record analysis described in chapter 2. A plain protocol entry, reporting that “Daniel Bikert, son of Lehman [Bikert] is fined 1 fl. 20 kr.” for an unspecified offence [R172], assigns Daniel to a completely different branch of the Bickert family. The file 'Beilagen zur Stühlinger Geldrechnung 1721/22' in itself is somewhat suspect. Rather than just listing receipts for the indicated period of 1721/22, it contains a medley of twenty-four random revenues for the period 1704–22, suggesting that they resulted from a general office sweep. The discrepancy can be explained in two ways: (i) the clerk simply assumed that Daniel was the son of Lehmann Bickert rather than Isaac; or (ii) the five individual occurrences of the name Daniel Bickert during the period of interest are insufficient to resolve the presence of two separate Daniel Bickerts, one the son of Lehmann, the other of Isaac. In any case, Daniel’s position in the Bickert family tree needs to be adjusted accordingly.
But occasionally we find much more fundamental events of Jewish history reflected in the dry bureaucratic language of municipal clerks:
Jäcklin Wiell senior (R1.1], Jew in Stühlingen, is presenting an account for capital and interest with Christian Fässler of Schwaningen. It shows that said Fässler still owes 8 fl. 56 kr. to the Jew after his present payment. [The debt is part of an estate from the debtor’s deceased father Balthasar.] Judgment: Should the creditor hopefully be called to the Holy Land, or go there on his own volition between now and the upcoming St. Martin’s day, the debtor will have to pay the full amount of capital plus interest accrued since 1664 immediately and without appeal. Otherwise the regular payment on St. Martin’s day applies. [R4097]
A month later:
Jäcklin Wiell senior (R1.1), Jew in Stühlingen, sells to miller Michael Schüedell in Weizen a horse for the price of 100 fl. under the following conditions: the buyer keeps the horse only if the seller, or in case of his passing his heirs or heirs’ heirs, must travel to the Holy Land. The buyer and his heirs are bound by this contract. Within fourteen days of receiving true and credible proof of this emigration they have to pay the full 100 fl. [R4110]
Marum, the son of Jekhuff Gugenheim (G1.3) too entered in two similar contracts [R4120]. Why would simple rural Jews from the backwoods of southern Germany seriously consider emigration to Palestine all of a sudden in the seventeenth century? The mysterious call came from Sabbatai Zevi,59 a previously obscure Sephardi rabbi born in Smyrna in 1626, who gradually promoted himself as the new Messiah of the Jews. Sabbatai travelled from Smyrna, over Salonika, to Cairo and Jerusalem, where he spent time studying, teaching, and persuading. He found fervent followers, such as Nathan of Gaza who whipped up the masses. His messianic movement had mystical roots in the Kabbalah and was furthered by the bloody pogroms of the Khmelnytsky Uprising in the Ukraine (1648–57).60 This movement spread rapidly among the Jews from the Middle East to eastern and western Europe61 and reached its apex in the spring and summer of 1666. News about the new Messiah kept coming to Europe through the Italian ports, Hamburg, and Amsterdam from October 1665 on by letters and messengers.62 Copies of Nathan of Gaza’s “Manuals of Devotion” were reprinted in Mantua by April 1666 for distribution in synagogues.63 In Italy preparations for Purim plays were called off because it was thought to be inappropriate to celebrate Purim when the Messiah had appeared. It took a bit longer for the news to penetrate to Germany. But in March 1666 a broadsheet on Sabbatai Zevi was published in Augsburg.64 Ultimately the Sabbatean movement collapsed like a pricked balloon after Sabbatai Zevi converted to Islam in September 1666. While some authors claimed that the Sabbatean movement seemed to have persisted for a few years in some regions of Germany,65 this appeared not to be the case in Stühlingen.
That vague rumours of a potential Messiah in a faraway land could cause such a sudden flicker of messianic fever in otherwise sensible individuals suggests the presence of a latent redemptive hope. Redemption for the Jews is not necessarily to be understood in the Christian sense as God’s coming Judgment. Rather, it is the utopian triumph of good over evil, all life forms living in peace, Jews returning to the Holy Land, and the Temple rebuilt.66
But for some Jews overcome by the seeming futility of this hope, a crossing over the interconfessional boundary to Christianity was still tempting. At a practical level, it appeared to promise an end to discrimination and persecution, as well as easier access to occupational and social advancement. However, it seems surprising how few of Stühlingen’s Jews chose this path. No baptisms of Jews were recorded prior to 1720; but in that year the missionary zeal of the young prince Joseph Ernst Wilhelm imbued his administration. A special file was created in the Princely Archives: “Politica; Div. I (Jews); Subdiv. 4 (Conversion to the Catholic Faith).” This file contains records relating to three conversions before 1733; another three conversions between 1729 and 1740 emerge from the Stühlingen record analysis. Altogether, six Stühlingen Jews were baptized: two brothers, small boys forcefully removed from their family, two young women on the rebound from broken engagements, and two grown men who converted for different reasons.
On May 2, 1720 the chief bailiff of Stühlingen reported to his lord:
About fourteen days ago came Sara, the sister of the local protected Jew Long Josel Gugenheimb (G1.2.1.4.1), together with two in Philipsburg baptized Jews from Donaueschingen, – where she had been a servant the Stühlingen parish priest. She asked for instruction in the Catholic faith and promotion to baptism. The chief bailiff was at first cautious and interrogated the two companions. Since their account seemed correct, and he found nothing suspicious, he sent them home and secured Sara in the home of an upstanding citizen to protect her from the evil machinations of the Jews. That man praised her good intentions and zeal. He reported that her familiarity with Christian teaching had reached the point, where he could fully recommend her baptism right after Pentecost.67
The baptism was promptly celebrated with great pomp, in front of a multitude on Trinity Sunday (May 26, 1720). Father Augustine and the parish priest of Grafenhausen gave moving sermons. After the event, the ecclesiastic and secular dignitaries retired to the town manse for a big feast. The cost for the baptismal dress and accompanying festivities was duly accounted in detail at 48 fl. 19 kr. [R157]. The prince had promised the newly baptized Carolina Antonia Hoffer a generous stipend. Within two years she was married to the tanner Franz Anton Keller in Engen. Since her two brothers, Josel in Stühlingen and Seligmann (G1.4.2.1.2) in Gailingen, had previously (March 1718) together pledged a dowry of 250 fl. on the occasion of her engagement to Marum, son of Josef Mayer in Emmendingen, her new husband now demanded this dowry as his due. Josel’s half was collected easily by the Stühlingen bailiff without excessive resistance. But Seligmann’s half was considered lost, since the Fürstenberg authorities had no jurisdiction in Gailingen.68
The next baptism was less melodramatic. In 1728 or 1729 Lehmann Weil, son of Samuel and brother of Marum the Fat, was baptized with the name Anthoni Joseph Ernst (sic) so he could stay in Donaueschingen [R4570].
In February 1733, a young boy named Abraham, son of Mayer Weil (U1.1.1) in Horheim, supposedly mentioned to a farmer, for whom he did a variety of chores, that he was interested in being baptized. He was immediately taken from his home and baptized by April. A short time later, his eight-year-old brother was also forcefully removed from home and baptized, despite the vigorous but ineffectual protests of the Jewish community. The prince’s intervention contravened the decree of Pope Martin V, declared February 12, 1418 in Constance,69 and the subsequent official clarifications by the pope’s private secretary Ludwig Alamandi,70 which explicitly forbade the baptism of Jewish children less than twelve years old against their parents’ will. The long arm of the prince eventually apprenticed the older brother with a cobbler at state expense.71
The last, complex case led to two conversions; its sordid details would have marked it fit for the tabloids, had they existed in those days. Sometime in early 1732, the wealthy merchant Simon Weyl (W1.2), under protection in Donaueschingen, and the cattle dealer Menke Bloch (C2.1.2.1.1) in Stühlingen agreed on an engagement contract between Simon’s daughter Vögele and Menke’s son Mauschi (C2.1.2.1.1.2), despite the social gap that separated them. Menke managed to include a clause according to which Simon’s brother Marum the Fat would obtain a letter of protection for Mauschi from the prince, or else pay him the sum of 100 fl. The marriage was set for April 1732, but April passed without the nuptials taking place. Simon sued for breach of contract. The defendant Menke countered that neither the letter of protection nor the 100 fl. had been provided, and for this reason the wedding could not proceed. Whether the letter of protection would be valid in Donaueschingen or in Stühlingen also seemed to be a point of contention. Marum argued that the prince had been abroad, and the unavailability of his Highness was insufficient cause to delay the wedding. The court agreed but referred the decision on the question of the validity of the letter in Donaueschingen or Stühlingen to a rabbi, since the original contract was written in Hebrew. The wedding nevertheless was to take place. Father Menke and grandfather Meyer Bloch (C2.1.2.1) were held jointly responsible, on penalty of imprisonment, for keeping the hesitant groom from absconding [R2318].
Four days later the case was again in front of the court. The situation must have appeared considerably more urgent to the desperate father of the bride than it did to the reluctant groom or his scheming father. In the meantime, two Jews present in Stühlingen, plus Marum Weyl, Sandel’s son (S1.2.1), were consulted on the matter. They declared unanimously that the contract had to be considered as a whole; one condition could not be fulfilled without the other. However, the insertion in the contract of only an abbreviation for Donaueschingen had been deceitful and served to confuse the issue. The authorities claimed neutrality and ordered the wedding to proceed within fourteen days, unless a rabbi declared the contract invalid. A 100 fl. bond was deposited at court, and no further appeal from either party would be heard [R2321].
The wedding never took place: Vögele declared her intent of becoming baptized [R2326]. Menke, Mauschi, and Mauschi’s brother Abraham were fined for obstinacy, and Mauschi was evicted from Stühlingen [R2329]. Nine years later, Mauschi was dead [R1158]. Menke continued to occupy the courts [R2503] and became an outcast in the Jewish community [R1147]. He was subsequently baptized on the third Sunday in September, 1740 with the name Franz Anton Vest in the church of Rheinau Abbey. The entry in the baptismal records states:
Hoc anno dominica tertia septembris baptizatus fuit solemniter Franciscus Antonius Vest, vir 59 annorum, Judeus ex Stüehlingen prius erat, levantibus archiprefecto s[ocietatis] J[esu] domino Michaele Stüelingensi, et s[ocietatis] J[esu] patri domicello archiprefecto Diengensi.72
(This year, on the third Sunday of September, Franz Anton Vest, a fifty-nine-year-old man, formerly a Jew from Stühlingen, was solemnly baptized, with the Jesuit headmaster of Stühlingen, Michael, and the assistant headmaster of Tiengen acting as godparents.)
Menke died on November 24, 1742 at the age of sixty-one73 and was buried in Rheinau. On his deathbed he invested the ninth altar of the chapel in the tiny village of Altenburg (Jestetten), 2 km to the north of Rheinau, with a donation of 100 fl.74
The usual resting place for Stühlingen Jews would have been the ancient Jewish graveyard, established in the sixteenth century, on the opposite bank of the Wutach River. Its exact location is unknown today, despite various unsuccessful searches.75 A solitary eroded tombstone placed as a monument in the town’s Jews’ Corner is the only enduring witness of Stühlingen’s ancient Jewish cemetery.
Footnotes -> List of References
1Pfefferkorn, Speculum adhortationis Iudaice ad Christu[m]; Salomon, Jüdisches Ceremonien; Majern, Minh?gim das ist.
2Pollack, “An Historical Explanation,” 195–216.;
3Steinsalz, Adin, <"The Essential Talmud", chap. 1 - 10
4Ibid., 101.
5The Arba’ah Turim became integrated into the Shulchan Aruch.
6Steinsalz, Adin, “The Essential Talmud,” chap. 37
7Maimonides and Friedländer, "The Guide of the Perplexed", 185; Bujis, “Attributes of Action in Maimonides,”
8Cf. Gen. 1:27.
9BT, Shab. 104a; Ber. 10a.
10Lev. 15:18.
11Ullmann, "Nachbarschaft und Konkurrenz",160; Berlin, "Responsa Meshiv Davar"
12Häusler, "Stühlingen: Vergangenheit und Gegenwart." 157.
13Elbogen, "Der jüdische Gottesdienst." 477–82.
14See Fig. 2, chap. 1, page 8.
15Häusler, "Stühlingen: Vergangenheit und Gegenwart.", 157.
16Ibid., 158.
17Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden," 176–7.
18Frauberger, “Ueber Bau,”; Grotte, “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synagogentypen"; Kashtan, “Synagogue.”
19Witte, "Interior of the Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam."
20Weber, “Synagogenausstattungen.”
21Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden," 175; Häusler, "Stühlingen: Vergangenheit und Gegenwart," 158.
22See ch. 5, pg 41. (comments to paragraph 2)
23Friedmann, “The Changing Role of the Community Rabbinate.”
24Ullmann, Nachbarschaft und Konkurrenz, 161–6.
25FFA, "Judenakte," Politica, 4 I 1, RM, rep. 5, sch.2, June 11, 1717.
26Kaufmann, “Zur Geschichte der Familie Dreyfuss.”
27Rosenthal, Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden, 176.
28Johler, "Geschichte, Landes- und Orts-Kunde" 36.
29Weldler-Steinberg and Guggenheim-Grünberg, "Geschichte der Juden in der Schweiz." 144.
30Elbogen, "Der jüdische Gottesdienst," 482–92.
31Baer, "Das Protokollbuch."
32FFA, "Judenakte," Politica, Amt Stühlingen, div. 1, litt. 0, 18, January 25, 1712.
33See ch. 8, p. 72
34Rohrbacher, “Organisationsformen der süddeutschen Juden”
35Baer, "Das Protokollbuch."; Weldler-Steinberg and Guggenheim-Grünberg, "Geschichte der Juden in der Schweiz," 132; Bell, "Jewish Identity," 41–4; Guggenheim, "Aus der Vergangenheit."
36Mordstein, Selbstbewusste Untertänigkeit, 305.
37Ullmann, "Nachbarschaft und Konkurrenz," 187.
38Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden," 176.
39Cf. Gen. 28:22.
40Cf. Lev. 27:30.
41Cf. Exod. 25:2; Neh. 10:38.
42Cf. Dan. 4:24.
43Cf. Prov. 6:2.
44Macantangay, “Acts of Charity.”
45Maimonides, "Mishneh Torah, Laws of Charity", 10:7–14; Maimonides, Meszler, and Raphael, "Gifts for the Poor,"
46Horovitz, "Die Wohlthätigkeit."
47Mainzer, ""Gedenkblätter zur Erinnerung.
48Frauberger, “Ueber alte Kultusgegenstände,” 63; Rapp Buri, "Jüdisches Kulturgut," 45.
49Ullmann, "Nachbarschaft und Konkurrenz," 182; Smith, "Auctions."
50Penslar, "Shylock’s Children."
51Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 8 "Hevrah Kaddisha" 442 - 6.
52Weinryb, “The Hebrew Chronicles.”
53Weldler-Steinberg and Guggenheim-Grünberg, "Geschichte der Juden in der Schweiz," 136 (Pletten); Ullmann, "Nachbarschaft und Konkurrenz," 373 (Politen); Guggenheim, "Aus der Vergangenheit," 46 (Bletten); Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der Badischen Juden," 166 (Blätten); Rosenthal’s explanation for the etymology of this term is, in the opinion of this author, likely incorrect. Rather than being derived from the French term 'billet', the word’s origin is probably the Hebrew word ???? meaning “leftover.”
54Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden, 177.
55Lowenstein, "The Jewish Cultural Tapestry," 81–91; Elbogen, "Der jüdische Gottesdienst," 493–510.
56Rapp Buri, "Jüdisches Kulturgut," 302.
57JFEL-II, grave 42.
58Ibid., graves 45, 52.
59Scholem, "Sabbatai Sevi."
60Weinryb, “The Hebrew Chronicles.”
61Maier and Waugh, “The Blowing of Messiah’s Trumpet.”
62Scholem, "Sabbatai Sevi."
63Ibid., 478.
64Ibid., 557.
65Weinberg, "Geschichte der Juden," 31.
66Buber, "Good and Evil."; Buber, "I and Thou."; Cf. Isa. 11:6; Pss. 122, 137, 138.
67Rosenthal, “Die Judenmission vor 200 Jahren (I).”
68Ibid.
69Stern, "Urkundliche Beiträge," 21–2.
70Ibid., 22–4.
71Rosenthal, “Die Judenmission vor 200 Jahren (II).”
72StAZ, "Kirchenbücher des Klosters Rheinau."
73Ibid., E III 94.1, fol. 681.
74Ibid., E III 94.1, fol. 682.
75Rosenthal, "Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden,," 75.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.