?AYON, NEHEMIAH ?IYYA BEN MOSES

?AYON, NEHEMIAH ?IYYA BEN MOSES (c. 1655–c. 1730), kabbalist with Shabbatean tendencies. Because of the bitter dispute which centered around ?ayon, the information about his life is full of contradictions and must be sifted critically. His ancestors came from Sarajevo, Bosnia. From there, his father moved to Ere? Israel after spending several years in Egypt where, according to his own testimony, ?ayon was born. As a child, he was taken to Jerusalem, grew up in Shechem (Nablus) and in Jerusalem, and studied under ?ayyim Abulafia. At the age of 18 he returned to Sarajevo with his father and married there. His enemies claimed that from that time on he was known for his adventures. He traveled widely throughout the Balkans and spent several years in Belgrade until its occupation by Austria in 1688. He may have joined his father as an emissary to Italy for the ransoming of captives from Belgrade. According to the testimony of Judah Brieli, ?ayon was in Leghorn in 1691. Later he served for a short time in the rabbinate of Skoplje (Üsküb), Macedonia, at the recommendation of one of the great rabbis of Salonika.

He returned to Ere? Israel c. 1695 and lived for several years in Shechem (Nablus). After his first wife's death, ?ayon married the daughter of one of the scholars of Safed. ?ayon was well versed in exoteric and esoteric lore. From his youth, he was attracted to Kabbalah and he knew the Shabbatean groups intimately. His kabbalistic doctrine evades the issue of Shabbetai ?evi's messianic claims, but is based on principles common to Shabbateanism. When ?ayon received the pamphlet Raza de-Meheimanuta ("The Mystery of the True Faith"), attributed to Shabbetai ?evi by his sectarians, he claimed that he himself wrote it and that it was revealed to him by Elijah or by the angel *Metatron. Changing its name to Meheimanuta de-Khula he began to write a detailed commentary. In the meanwhile, he lived briefly in Rosetta, Egypt, and from that time he became known as one who engaged in practical Kabbalah. When he returned to Jerusalem (c. 1702–05), hostility developed between him and R. Abraham Yi??aki who for several years leveled many accusations against ?ayon (but never directly accused him of Shabbateanism). Later, he returned to Safed and from there he went to Smyrna, apparently intending to publish his long commentary to Meheimanuta de-Khula and to find supporters for a yeshivah, which he wished to establish in Jerusalem. On his return to Jerusalem, the rabbis began to harass him and he was forced to leave Ere? Israel. He went to Italy via Egypt (1710–11). According to the testimony of Joseph *Ergas, in Leghorn, ?ayon disclosed to him his belief in Shabbetai ?evi. In 1711, in Venice, he published his small book Raza de-Yi?uda on the meaning of the verse on the unity of God, Shema Yisrael, as an abridgment of his larger work to which he added, in the meantime, a second commentary. The rabbis of Venice gave approbations to this booklet without understanding its intent. The book did not arouse controversy. Later, ?ayon moved to Prague where he was received with great honor in scholarly circles and gained approval for Oz le-Elohim, his main work, and Divrei Ne?emyah, a book of sermons. David Oppenheim approbated Divrei Ne?emyah and ?ayon altered the approbation to include the kabbalistic Oz le-Elohim as well. R. Naphtali Cohen, who at first befriended ?ayon, kept him at a distance after a rumor got about that connected him with the *Doenmeh in Salonika. ?ayon traveled via Moravia and Silesia to Berlin where, in 1713, supported by the wealthy members of the community, he succeeded in publishing Oz le-Elohim. It was daring of ?ayon to publish a text which in many manuscripts was circulated then as a work of Shabbetai ?evi. With great acumen, he tried to prove in his two commentaries that this doctrine was firmly based in the classical texts of the Kabbalah. In some passages, he criticized the works of *Nathan of Gaza and Abraham Miguel *Cardozo, in spite of his doctrine being basically close to Cardozo's. ?ayon's innovations were a new formulation of the principles of the beginning of Emanation and the difference between the First Cause which he calls "Nishmata de-Kol ?ayyei" ("Soul of All Living Beings") and the *Ein-Sof ("The Infinite Being"). What the kabbalists call Ein-Sof is in his opinion only the extension of the Essence (of God) or the Shoresh ha-Ne'lam ("the Hidden Root," i.e., God), but paradoxically enough this Essence is finite and it possesses a definite structure, *Shi'ur Komah ("Measure of the Body of God"). ?ayon thought that Isaac Luria's doctrine of ?im?um ("withdrawal") must be understood literally and not allegorically. His doctrine of the three superior par?ufim ("aspects of God"), attika kaddisha, malka kaddisha, and Shekhinah, differs from the theories of other Shabbateans only in details and in terminology. His book may by defined as a strange mixture of basically Shabbatean theology and exegetical acumen by which he read the new theses into the *Zohar and the Lurianic writings. He prefaced his book with a long essay in which he argued, apparently hinting at the unorthodox sources of his thought, that it is lawful to learn Kabbalah from everyone, not only from those who conform to traditional Orthodox criteria. Divrei Ne?emyah contained a long sermon in which it was possible to see an indirect defense of the apostasy of the Doenmeh sect in Salonika, but which could also be interpreted as criticism of them. In June 1713 ?ayon left Berlin for Amsterdam. Apparently he knew of the hidden Shabbatean tendency of Solomon *Ayllon, rabbi of the Sephardi congregation. Indeed, ?ayon received the patronage of Ayllon, his bet din, and the parnasim of the community. However, a bitter and complex struggle developed between the supporters of ?ayon and those of ?evi *Ashkenazi, the rabbi of the Ashkenazi community, and of Moses *?agiz who knew of ?ayon's early quarrels in Ere? Israel and recognized the Shabbatean "heresy" in his opinions, when they investigated his book. In this controversy, relevant factors (the true views of ?ayon and his Shabbateanism) and personal factors (the arrogant behavior of ?evi Ashkenazi, personal antagonisms) are mingled. Essentially, the accusers of ?ayon were right but from a formal and procedural point of view the Sephardi bet din was right. The quarrel aroused strong emotions, at first in Amsterdam, in the summer and the winter of 1713, and it swiftly spread to other countries. Naphtali Cohen apologized for his previous approval of ?ayon and excommunicated him. So did Italian rabbis to whom both sides turned for support. The leaders were Judah Brieli of Mantua and Samson Morpurgo of Ancona. Most of the participants in the controversy had not actually seen the books of ?ayon and depended only on the letters from both sides. The major pamphlets against ?ayon are: Le-Einei Kol Yisrael (the judicial decision of ?evi Ashkenazi and letters from him and from Naphtali Cohen; Amsterdam, 1713); Edut le-Yisrael (ibid., 1714); works by Moses ?agiz including Milhamah la-Adonai ve-?erev la-Adonai, also including the letters of many Italian rabbis (Amsterdam, 1714); Shever Poshe'im (London, 1714); Iggeret ha-Kena'ot (Berlin, 1714); Tok?ahat Megullah ve-ha-?ad Na?ash by Joseph Ergas (London, 1715); and Esh Dat by David Nieto (London, 1715). This book and several leaflets also appeared in Spanish. The bet din of the Sephardim published in Hebrew and in Spanish Kosht Imrei Emet (Amsterdam, 1713; in Spanish, Manifesto). ?ayon answered his critics in several books and pamphlets in which he defended his views but denied that they contain any Shabbatean doctrine. They include Ha-?ad ?evi Ashkenazi; (Amsterdam, 1714); Moda'a Rabba (1714, including his biography); Shalhevet Yah (against Ergas), also including the pamphlets Pitkah min Shemaya, Ketovet Ka'aka, and Iggeret Shevukin (1714). His polemics against Ergas' Ha-?ad Na?ash, called Na?ash Ne?oshet, is found in ?ayon's handwriting (Oxford, Ms. 1900). Because of the controversy he had aroused, ?ayon did not succeed in publishing his second comprehensive work on Kabbalah, Sefer Ta'a?umot. A complete manuscript of the work is preserved in the library of the bet din, formerly that of the bet ha-midrash, in London (62).

?evi Ashkenazi and Moses ?agiz were forced to leave Amsterdam. However, the intervention of the rabbis of Smyrna and Constantinople, who excommunicated ?ayon and condemned his works in 1714, decided the struggle against ?ayon, whose supporters advised him to return to Turkey in order to obtain the annulment of the excommunication. ?ayon returned and attempted to achieve this but he succeeded only partially. In his old age, he went back to Europe where in the pamphlet Ha-Kolot Ye?dalun (1725) he published some documents in his favor. His journey was unsuccessful because Moses ?agiz again came out against him in the booklet Le?ishat Saraf (Hanau, 1726) where he threw suspicion on several of the documents, or on the circumstances under which they were signed. Most of the communities did not allow him access and even Ayllon refused to receive him in Amsterdam. ?ayon wandered to North Africa and apparently died there before 1730. According to ?agiz, his son converted to Catholicism in order to take revenge on his father's persecutors and was active in Italy.

bibliography:

Graetz, Hist, 5 (1949), 215–31; D. Kahana (Kogan), Toledot ha-Mekubbalim, Shabbeta'im, ve-ha-?asidim (1913), 123–7; Kauffmann, in: Ha-?oker, 2 (1894), 11–15; Scholem, in: Zion, 3 (1929), 172–9; Sonne, in: Kobez al jad, 2 (1937), 157–96; Herling, in: Amanah, 1 (1939), 259–74; idem, in: ks, 15 (1939), 130–5; Kahana, in: Sinai, 21 (1947), 328–34; A. Freimann (ed.), Inyanei Shabbetai ?evi (1912), 117–38; Friedmann, in: Sefunot, 10 (1966) 489–618; Levi, in: ri, 8 (1911), 169–85; 9 (1912), 5–29.

[Gershom Scholem]