¹ Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah 1626–1676 (trans. Ẓvi Werblowski; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973).

² Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990) 8–10; Pawel Maciejko, The Mixed Multitude (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011) 4–10; Maoz Kahana, “The Allure of Forbidden Knowledge: The Temptation of Sabbatian Literature for Mainstream Rabbis in the Frankist Moment 1756–1761,” JQR 102 (2012) 589–616. Yaacob Dweck, Dissident Rabbi: The Life of Jacob Sasportas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019) 324–65 compares Emden to Sasportas, the subject of Dweck’s book.

³ Jacob J. Schacter, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1988) 661–86; David Sorkin, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) 91–108; Shmuel Feiner, Moses Mendelssohn: Sage of Modernity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010) 107–52.

⁴ On Dönmeh, see Cengiz Sisman, The Burden of Silence: Sabbatai Sevi and the Evolution of the Ottoman-Turkish Dönmes (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); on Frankism, see Maciejko, Mixed Multitude. See also Schacter, Emden, 412–25.

⁵ On the idea that rabbis deliberately kept mum regarding concealed Sabbatean sympathizers, see Carlebach, Pursuit, 77–80; Maciejko, Mixed Multitude, 38.

⁶ Jacob Emden, Akiẓat Akrav (Altona, 1752), title page (). On the authorship of this pamphlet, see Shnayer Z. Leiman, “The Baal Teshuvah and the Emden-Eibeschütz Controversy,” Judaic Studies 1 (1985) 3–26, at 21.

⁷ On the controversy, see Mortimer J. Cohen, Jacob Emden: A Man of Controversy (Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1937); Gershom Scholem, review of Jacob Emden: A Man of Controversy by M. J. Cohen (Hebrew), in Sabbateanism Studies (ed. Yehuda Liebes; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1991) 665–80, including Scholem’s own opinion on the nature of the amulets, which he thinks were filled with Sabbatean references; Gershom Scholem, “On an Amulet by R’ Jonathan Eibeschütz and his Interpretation thereof,” in Sabbateanism Studies, 707–33; Gershom Scholem, Index to the Writings of the Emden-Eibeschütz Controversy (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006) (Hebrew). See also Yeḥezkel Duckesz, The Sages of AH”W (Hamburg: Goldschmidt Verlag, 1908) esp. 49–74 (Hebrew); Shmuel Ettinger, “The Emden-Eibeschütz Controversy in Light of Jewish Historiography,” Kabbalah 9 (2003) 329–92 (Hebrew); Yehuda Liebes, “Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Messianism and His Relation to Sabbateanism,” Tarbiẓ 49 (1980) 123–65 (Hebrew).

⁸ Jacob Emden, Sefat Emet (Amsterdam, 1752). See Shnayer Z. Leiman, “When a Rabbi Is Accused of Heresy: R. Ezekiel Landau’s Attitude toward R. Jonathan Eibeschütz in the Emden-Eibeschütz Controversy,” in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism (4 vols.; ed. Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Nahum M. Sarna; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 3:179–94; idem, “When a Rabbi Is Accused of Heresy: The Stance of Rabbi Jacob Joshua Falk in the Emden-Eibeschütz Controversy,” in Rabbinic Culture and Its Critics: Jewish Authority, Dissent, and Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Times (ed. Daniel Frank and Matt Goldish; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2008) 435–56.

⁹ For an introduction to the Zohar, see Isaiah Tishby, introduction to The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts (ed. Isaiah Tishby and Yeruḥam Fishel Lachower; trans. David Goldstein; New York: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1989). See also idem, “The Controversy Concerning the Book of the Zohar in Sixteenth-century Italy,” in Perakim: Sefer ha-Shana shel Makhon Schocken le-mechkar ha-yehadut leyad bet hamidrash lerabanim be-Amerika (ed. Eliezer Shimshon Rozental; Jerusalem, 1967) 1:131–82 (Hebrew).

¹⁰ For instance, Ismar Schorsch, From Text to Context (Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry 19; Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1994).

¹¹ For instance, Jacob Emden, Ẓiẓim u-Ferachim (Altona, 1768), a kabbalistic dictionary and commentary. Emden’s work on the prayer book is likewise suffused with mystical notions: idem, Siddur Amudei Shamayim (Altona, 1745–1748). Emden was also received as a mystic. For instance, the most popular edition of his prayer book, reedited and renamed Bet Ya’acov (House of Jacob), features a title page (which already appeared on older editions) describing Emden as “the pious, the mystic”; idem, Siddur Bet Ya’acov (Zhitomir, 1889), title page.

¹² See n. 69 below, for instance.

¹³ See Tishby, introduction, 40–42; Schachter, Emden, 499–591, describes Emden as, on the one hand, interested in non-Jewish wisdom and, on the other, opposed to philosophy, “confronting the modern era.”

¹⁴ See, for instance, Shmuel Dotan, “Jacob Emden and His Generation,” HCA 47 (1976) 104–25 (Hebrew).

¹⁵ See Daniel Abrams, “The Invention of the Zohar as a Book: On the Assumptions and Expectations of the Kabbalists and Modern Scholars,” Kabbalah 19 (2009) 7–142; Boaz Huss, Like the Radiance of the Sky: Chapters in the Reception History of the Zohar and the Construction of Its Symbolic Value (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008) 321–23 (Hebrew).

¹⁶ The Lemberg edition was reprinted identically (Sifriyat Mekorot [Jerusalem, 1970]). The publisher of the 1995 edition is identified only as “Oraḥ ṣaddikim Institute,” with a P.O. box. Strange rumors swirl around on Jewish ultra-Orthodox online forums, claiming that the editor and publisher of this edition died an untimely death due to illness because he published the work (see the discussion on Beḥadrei Ḥaredim from 2008: http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=2443449&forum_ id=19616). Clearly, the work remains controversial in certain circles.

¹⁷ Emden, Mitpaḥat Sefarim (Altona, 1768) ().

¹⁸ Emden, Mitpaḥat Sefarim (2nd ed.; Lemberg, 1873), introduction ().

¹⁹ Harvard’s Houghton Library (Heb 41900.300) has such a list. Other copies, such as the two in YIVO’s Rabbinic Collection (24 ) and the one at the National Library of Israel (5251.2) do not seem to include the list. Since this list is a paratext that does not make up an integral part of the work, it could be added or removed without impacting the work. Additionally, its use is geographically and temporally limited (it is only relevant as long as the books can be bought from Wolf and for those who live in an area where they could get those books), so it is not surprising that it cannot be found in all copies. The list could also have been removed by a later owner.

²⁰ For more examples of Emden’s popularity among maskilim such as Wolf and Yiẓhak Satanov, see Huss, Like the Radiance, 321–23.

²¹ Megalleh Temirin (Revealer of secrets; Vienna, 1819) is an epistolary novel written by the maskil Joseph Perl. The pseudonymous book, which some critics regard as the first Hebrew novel, imitates the Epistolae obscurorum virorum (Letters of obscure men; 1515) of Crotus Rubianus and satirizes Hasidim as abusing the superstitious mystical beliefs of their gullible coreligionists in order to defraud them, by, for instance, taking their money in exchange for promised miraculous recoveries. For a critical edition, see Joseph Perl, Sefer Megale Temirin (ed. Jonatan Meir; 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 2013) (Hebrew). Wolf had planned to print the first series of “Great Hebrew Works” as part of his maskilic educational enterprise. He succeeded in printing only three books before running out of funds. See Avraham Yaari, “First Attempts at Collecting (Towards a History of Hebrew Publishing),” Moznaim 3.27 (1932) 1–12.

²² Emden, Mitpaḥat Sefarim (Lemberg, 1873) 4.

²³ See Schacter, Emden, 717. As Schacter put it, maskilim “repeatedly invoked his name and opinions in support of their own positions and sometimes went so far as to claim him as one of their own.” Abraham Bick calls him “One of the first to pave the path of internal and historical criticism.” See Rabbi Jacob Emden: Notes and Commentaries on Zohar (ed. Abraham Bick; Jerusalem, 1975) 15. On the contradictions, see 16–17: Bick distinguishes Emden’s critical spirit from that of the “Renaissance iconoclasts,” (such as Delmedigo) as well as the “pioneers of Haskalah” (Shmuel David Luzzato). Bick considers Emden’s stance to be that the Zohar is the timeless truth, but its temporal revelation carries the markers of its place and time.

²⁴ See Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment (trans. Chaya Naor; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002) 30–35, where Feiner discusses historians who viewed Emden as a “precursor” of Haskalah.

²⁵ b. Meg. 25b–26a. The halakic discussion in the Talmud considers whether the wrappings of Torah scrolls may be sold in order to purchase new scrolls.

²⁶ Emden, Mitpaḥat Sefarim (Altona, 1768), title page (not numbered; all page numbers refer to the first edition in the edition’s original foliation, and the section number is provided in parentheses where relevant. Punctuation is in the original unless otherwise mentioned) ().

²⁷ The younger Delmedigo accompanied the author’s critique with a defense of the Zohar of his own writing, Maẓref la-Hokhma (Refiner for wisdom). See Yaacob Dweck, The Scandal of Kabbalah: Leon Modena, Jewish Mysticism, Early Modern Venice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011) 79–86, esp. 82.

²⁸ Tishby, introduction, 31, explains that Elijah Delmedigo presented his critique of the Zohar as rooted in a general opposition to Kabbalah, which he claimed to share with “most of the followers of the Talmud, and also those who follow the plain [nonmystical] meaning, and the philosophers of our people” (the translation is Goldstein’s). Elijah Delmedigo, Beḥinat ha-Dat (Basel, 1629) 5b (). Concerning Christian Zohar-criticism, see Huss, Like the Radiance, 298–312.

²⁹ For an English translation of the testimony, see Tishby, introduction, 13–15.

³⁰ Emden, Mitpaḥat, 2b, 5a.

³¹ Ibid., 5b–6a.

³² Ibid., 13a (§157).

³³ Ibid., 12b (§135), 13a (§152).

³⁴ Ibid., 16b (§2) ().

³⁵ Ibid., 12b (§130): The Zohar writes that unmarried priests were forbidden to work in the Temple, but this only applies to the high priest on the Day of Atonement.

³⁶ Ibid., 12a (§118–119): The Zohar implies that Jewish slaves are not required to keep halakha, which, Emden explains, confuses the laws of Jewish slaves with those of Canaanite slaves.

³⁷ Ibid., 11a (§86), points out that the copyist probably confused a passage from Ecclesiastes with a similar one from Ezekiel. Ibid., 11b (§102) (). This misquotation, Emden emphasizes, could not possibly be a late copyist’s error, since the subsequent teaching in the Zohar is based entirely on the misquoted word. Ibid., 13a (§163).

³⁸ Ibid., 11b (§110), concerning the timing of King David’s marriage to Bathsheba.

³⁹ For example, passages in which the Zohar seems to be confusing two different types of offerings: ibid., 12a (§113–115).

⁴⁰ Ibid., 12b–13a (§127–128), for the notion that Rabbi Shimon merited divine revelation to which even Moses was not privy.

⁴¹ Ibid., 11a (§89) ().

⁴² Ibid., 16a ().

⁴³ Ibid., 16b.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 17b ().

⁴⁵ Ibid., 17b ().

⁴⁶ See b. Hag. 14b.

⁴⁷ Emden, Mitpaḥat, introduction (). Emden does not continue this line of thought. He may have gone back and forth on this hypothesis. On Emden’s attitude toward Maimonides, see Schacter, Emden, 545–70.

⁴⁸ Maoz Kahana, “The Scientific Revolution and the Codification of Sources of Knowledge: Medicine, Halakah and Alchemy, Hamburg-Altona, 1736,” Tarbiẓ 22 (2014) 165–212 (Hebrew); Maoz Kahana, A Heartless Chicken: Religion and Science in Early Modern Rabbinic Culture (Bialik: Jerusalem, 2021) (Hebrew). Kahana’s book, published as the current article was being prepared for print, is further evidence that contextualizing Jewish history with developments in early modern intellectual and cultural history more generally immeasurably enriches the field of Jewish studies.

⁴⁹ Maoz Kahana, “An Esoteric Path to Modernity: Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Alchemical Quest,” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies (2013) 1–23.

⁵⁰ Jacob Emden, Iggeret Purim, excerpt published from manuscript in Jacob J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Iggeret Purim,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature Volume II (ed. Isadore Twersky; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) 445. Translation from Schacter, Emden, 567, and see n. 262, there. See also ibid., 550: “together with Sabbatianism, he [Emden] considered the evils of philosophy to be one of the most dangerous features of the Jewish community of his times as he viewed it … he went so far as to consider philosophers to be of even greater danger to Jewish survival and continuity than Sabbatians!”

⁵¹ Emden, Iggeret Bikkoret, 16a ().

⁵² See Schacter, Emden, 280.

⁵³ See, for instance, nn. 69–70 below.

⁵⁴ See above, n. 11.

⁵⁵ b. Ber. 5b.

⁵⁶ Rashi in tractate Berakhot 5b on “North to south.”

⁵⁷ This is the opinion presented in Shulḥan Arukh, Orakh Ḥayim, 3:7, in Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Temple, 7:9, and other standard halakic works.

⁵⁸ Zohar, Bamidbar, 3:118b.

⁵⁹ Ẓvi Ashekanzi, ShUT Ḥakham Ẓvi, §36.

⁶⁰ “”.

⁶¹ b. Nid. 31a. Whether this refers to ovulation or some form of female arousal and natural lubrication is unclear.

⁶² ShUT She’ilat Yaveẓ, 1: §47 ().

⁶³ Ibid. (). On Emden’s belief in the interdependence of all the sacred books, see Iggeret Bikkoret, 16a ().

⁶⁴ Likkutei ha Pardes (attributed to Rashi) (). “Laws of the groom in his first year [of marriage]: … another thing, the Sages said, he who wants to make all his sons male, should have sex and sleep with the head of his bed and his face while he is having sex facing east.”

⁶⁵ ShUT She’ilat Yaveẓ, 1: §47 ().

⁶⁶ Ibid. ().

⁶⁷ Ibid. ().

⁶⁸ Emden, Mitpaḥat, 6a ().

⁶⁹ Ibid., 1 [2a] ().

⁷⁰ Ibid., 42a ()

⁷¹ Tishby, introduction, 31.

⁷² Dweck, The Scandal, 92. However, Dweck points out that Modena did believe the Zohar to have a legitimate place in the Jewish world as an edifying work (80).

⁷³ Huss, Like the Radiance, 316. See also Dotan, “Emden,” 119.

⁷⁴ Tishby, introduction, 40–41.

⁷⁵ Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim pt. 2, 453 (1992 ed.) (). See also, Huss, Like the Radiance, 322. Rabbi Avraham Bombach, who published a recent edition of Emden’s corrections of the Zohar (from a notebook in manuscript as well as Emden’s marginalia in his copy of the Zohar [Amsterdam, 1705]) agrees with Azulai’s hypothesis. He concludes that, since the threat of Sabbateanism is no longer relevant today, there is no need to print any of Emden’s remarks from Mitpaḥat Sefarim that question the Zohar’s antiquity. See Avraham Bombach, introduction to Jacob Emden, Niẓoẓei Yaveẓ (“Sparks of Yaveẓ”) (ed. Avraham Bombach; Jerusalem, 2017) introduction (n.p.).

⁷⁶ Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, pt. 2,453().

⁷⁷ For a discussion and reproduction of the broadside from the National Library of Israel (NLI) collection, see Dweck, Dissident Rabbi, 338.

⁷⁸ Jacob Emden, Reshima mi-Hibburei ha-Mefursam ba-Olam beShem ha-Rav Ja’acov Emden ve-Talmidav ha-Nidpasim (Broadside, NLI Scholem Collection 5385.1 Altona, ca. 1760) nnsoa)].] 11 ].

⁷⁹ The quartos count: 11 controversy-related pamphlets (not necessarily about Eibeschütz), 5 speeches, sermons, or eulogies, and Mitpaḥat Sefarim. The exceptions are Ẓiẓim u-Feraḥin, an alphabetically-arranged booklet with kabbalistic interpretations based upon a seventeenth-century work and Eẓ Avot, a commentary on the mishnaic section Ethics of the Fathers (the first book listed under the “quarto” heading). Perhaps this format reflects the subject of the Ethics of the Fathers which, while scholarly, is nevertheless lighter and more popular fare than, say, halakic writings. Ẓiẓim u-Feraḥin is likewise said to treat “hints” and numerology (gematria), which are more piecemeal, rather than containing a larger kabbalistic commentary or philosophical inquiry (especially given their alphabetical arrangement).

⁸⁰ Emden, Mitpaḥat, title page.

⁸¹ Tishby, introduction, 42; Huss, Like the Radiance, 314–15.

⁸² Berhard Brilling, “Die Privilegien der Hebräischen Buchdruckereien in Altona (1726–1836): Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des hebräischen Buchdruckes in Altona,” Studies in Bibliography and Booklore 9 (1971) 153–66. For the formulation of the privilege request, see ibid., 160: “und sich solchergestalt dadurch ohne jemandes Beeintrachtigung ehrlich zu ernahren suchen möge”; and Arthur Arnheim, “Hebrew Prints and Censorship in Altona,” Studies in Bibliography and Booklore (2001) 3–9. Arnheim considers this need for independence to stem from an episode in 1740, when Emden asked for permission to publish a book and was told that he must sign a promise not to criticize local leaders. Emden refused, and postponed the book’s publication.

⁸³ Bernhard Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography of the Following Cities in Central Europe: Altona, Augsberg, Berlin, Cologne, Frankfort M., Frankfort O., Fürth, Hamburg [and Others] from Its Beginning in the Year 1513 (Antwerp, 1935) 76–77; Moritz Steinschneider, “Hebräische Drucke in Deutschland (Fortsetzung) 5. Altona,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 1 (Braunschweig, 1887) 281–82.

⁸⁴ Jacob Emden, Megillat Sefer (Warsaw, 1896) 167.

⁸⁵ Schacter, Emden, 256, 305; vol. 1 was completed in 1746, vol. 2 in 1747.

⁸⁶ For examples of his (mostly failed) ventures in trade and lending, see Emden, Megillat Sefer, 71–77, 56–84, 94, 104, 147–48, 157, 166, 181. By contrast, see, for instance, ibid., 174–75. After summarizing yet another failed venture with the hope that God will repay his loss (), Emden continues: “Despite this, I did not retreat from the mitzvah (good deed/commandment) that I commenced, and I did not abandon the labor of the Lord, as long as I still had money in my possession to spend on the labor of print … I did not hold back even for a moment from teaching Torah to the People of Israel, in this way that benefits those near and far”—by which he means print. He then lists the work that he printed already and how he quickly moved to print ever more writings ().

⁸⁷ On the Emden-Eibeschütz controversy, print, and newspapers, see Pawel Maciejko, “The Jews’ Entry into the Public Sphere: The Emden-Eibeschütz Controversy Reconsidered,” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 6 (2007) 135–54.

⁸⁸ Huss, Like the Radiance, 127–134. Huss’s book studies the way in which Rabbi Shimon is positioned as an alternative source of authority to Moses and the processes by which the Zohar accrued legitimacy, using Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital. See also Abrams, “Zohar.”

⁸⁹ Emden, Mitpaḥat, 3a ().

⁹⁰ Ibid., 5a (emphasis added) ().

⁹¹ Ibid., title page ().

⁹² See n. 78 (emphasis added).

⁹³ Ibid., 9a (§43) (). See also ibid., 9b: “it seems that the mistake originated here, and those who added to the Zohar switched it, and with good intentions they exchanged the wrong for the right.” Ibid., 9b (§58): “who would not be shocked at this [mistake, contradiction of Talmud] … there is no doubt that a mistaken student wrote this” (). Ibid., 11a (§86): “and it seems to me that the copier exchanged the words.”(). Ibid., 17a (§2): “In any case, he has mixed in many of his own things also within the body of the book of the Zohar, bitter weeds and twisted novellae have also doubtlessly been brought forth in it, and we do not know who is their inventor, whether they were added by copyists or as a mistake.” (). Ibid., 11b (§111): “a remark and addition from a ‘heart-less’ [unintelligent] copyist.” (). Ibid., 12b: “this is a scribal error” ().

⁹⁴ The erring printer is a general trope almost as soon as print started and is similar to the trope of the erring scribe in the case of manuscript copies. Apart from reflecting a plausible realistic scenario, this was also a useful mechanism for dealing with problematic elements of a text without having to dismantle the text as a whole or casting aspersions on the author. See, for instance, Brian Richardson, Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacular Text, 1470–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Ann Blair, “Erasmus and His Amanuenses,” Erasmus Studies 39 (2019) 34–38.

⁹⁵ While the consensus seems to be that the Mantua edition was preferable, Daniel Abrams has pointed out that the Mantua edition exhibits a heavier hand in forcibly creating a smooth, unified edition, whereas Cremona more faithfully reflects earlier, more fluid, textual traditions surrounding the Zohar. See Daniel Abrams, “The Printing of the Zohar in Mantua: The Self-Awareness of the Printers in Producing a Standardized Text,” conference paper posted online: https://beithazohar.com/the-printing-of-the-zohar-in-mantua/?lang=en.

⁹⁶ Zohar Vayeḥi (Mantua, 1558) 211b (). For more on the competing editions, on editorial remarks in the Mantua edition such as this one, and on substantial differences within the Mantua edition from one copy to another, see Abrams, “The Printing.”

⁹⁷ Ibid., introduction (n.p.): “In addition to the other copies which are spread throughout the province of Italy. Yet our minds did not rest before we found another, very old copy, that came from Safed [may it be rebuilt speedily, in our days], and usually we relied on that one and we purified and studied its language as one would purify gold to fix our edition”().

⁹⁸ Anthony Grafton, “On the Scholarship of Politian and Its Context,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 40 (1977) 150–88; Martin Lowry, The World of Aldus Manutius: Business and Scholarship in Renaissance Venice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979).

⁹⁹ Yakov Z. Mayer, “From Manuscript Culture to Print Culture: The 1523 Venice Edition of the Palestinian Talmud” (PhD diss., Tel-Aviv University, 2018) 38–112.

¹⁰⁰ Elchanan Reiner, “Beyond the Realm of the Haskalah: Changing Learning Patterns in Jewish Traditional Society,” Jahrbuch des Simon Dubnow Instituts 6 (2007) 123–33, at 130.

¹⁰¹ Emden, Mitpaḥat, 12–13 [5a] ().

¹⁰² David Kastan, Shakespeare and the Book (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 117.

¹⁰³ Emden, Mitpaḥat, 5a ().

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., 33 (§63) [10a], (). Ibid., 34 (§66) [10a]: “and he has falsified/forged the Torah of our mothers, to ascribe a mistake to Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, God forbid, this is a humiliation for us” ().

¹⁰⁵ Emden, Mitpaḥat, 42a ().

¹⁰⁶ Dotan, “Emden.”

¹⁰⁷ Feiner, Jewish Enlightenment, 32–33.

¹⁰⁸ The work that best summarizes and analyzes the findings of the many specific studies carried out in the first decades of this field is David Ruderman, Early Modern Jewry: A New Cultural History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).

¹⁰⁹ Maoz Kahana’s recent book on religion and science in 18th-cent. rabbinic writing is an example of the value of such an approach and confirms this article’s thesis about the need to reevaluate Emden from an early modern perspective. Kahana’s attention to the importance of alchemy in the world of early modern science provides an original framework for Emden’s textual criticism as a form of “philological alchemy.” See Kahana, Heartless Chicken, esp. 236–254. It briefly mentions humanism and Emden’s exposure to philology; see ibid., 238 n.70.

¹¹⁰ For instances of linguistic and historical knowledge, as well as information from other manuscripts and printed books, see nn. 30–34, above. One example of geography is his discussion of where the azure color of the ritual fringes can be found; see Mitpaḥat 9a.

¹¹¹ Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) 70–71. “He” refers to Wolfgang Speyer, who wrote Die literarische Fälschung im Heidnischen und Christlichen Altertum (Munich: Beck, 1971).

¹¹² Grafton, Forgers, 71. See also, Jay R. Berkovitz, “Rabbinic Antecedents and Parallels to Wissenschaft des Judentums,” in Jewish Historiography Between Past and Future: 200 Years of Wissenschaft des Judentums (ed. Paul Mendes-Flohr, Rachel Livneh-Freudenthal and Guy Miron; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019) 8–24, assumes a similar bifurcation between critical thought and premodern approaches for Jewish scholars.

¹¹³ Ibid., 72.

¹¹⁴ Ibid., 92.

¹¹⁵ Dotan, “Emden,” 121–23.