Eybeschutz's father Nosson Nota was the
rabbi in
Ivančice (, Yiddish
Eybeshits) in
Habsburg Moravia. Born in
Kraków, Eybeschutz was a
illui (
Talmudic prodigy child); on his father's death, he studied in the
yeshiva of
Meir Eisenstadt in Prossnitz (now
Prostějov), and then later in Holleschau (now Holešov in the
Zlín Region). He also lived in
Vienna for a short time. He married Elkele Spira, daughter of
Isaac Spira-Fraenkel, and they lived in Hamburg for two years with
Mordecai ha-Kohen, Elkele's maternal grandfather. At eighteen, Eybeschutz was appointed rabbi of
Bolesławiec, where he stayed for three years. Afterward, he settled in
Prague in 1711 and became
rosh yeshiva and a famous preacher. The people of
Prague held Eybeschutz in high esteem, and he was considered second only to Chief Rabbi
David Oppenheim. In Prague, Eybeschutz received permission to print the Talmud, but with the omission of all passages
contradicting the principles of Christianity, in consultation with
Chief Rabbi David Oppenheim. Legends and rumors seeking to discredit the event said that he did this without the consultation of the Prague rabbis, and they revoked the printing license. In 1724, in Prague, he was suspected of being a
Sabbatean. Despite denouncing the Sabbatean movement on
Yom Kippur, the accusations continued. Therefore, in 1736, Eybeschutz was only appointed dayan of Prague and not chief rabbi. He became rabbi of
Metz in 1741 and, in 1750, was elected rabbi of the "Three Communities:" Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek. In July 1725, the Ashkenazi
beth din of
Amsterdam issued a ban of
ḥerem "excommunication" on Sabbateans (). Sabbatean writings found by the beth din at that time were attributed to Eybeschutz. In early September, similar excommunication proclamations were issued by the batei din of
Frankfurt an der Oder and the triple community of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck. The three bans were printed and circulated in other European Jewish communities. Excerpts from the testimonies were printed by Jacob Emden in his
Beth Jonatan haSofer, printed in Altona in 1762. Katzenellenbogen was unwilling to attack Eybeschutz publicly, mentioning that "greater than him have fallen and crumbled" and that "there is nothing we can do to him." However, Katzenelenbogen stated that one of the texts found by the Amsterdam beth din,
And I Came this Day unto the Fountain, was authored by Eybeschutz and declared that all copies of the work in circulation should be immediately burned. As a result of Eybeschutz and other rabbis in Prague formulating a new and distinct
ḥerem against Sabbatianism shortly after the other bans were published, his reputation was restored, and Eybeschutz was regarded as having been vindicated. The issue was to arise again, albeit tangentially, in the 1751 dispute between Emden and Eybeschutz. He was "an acknowledged genius" in at least three separate areas of Jewish religious creativity: Talmud and halakha;
derush (
homiletics) and popular preaching; and Kabbalah. "He was a man of erudition, but he owed his fame chiefly to his personality. Few men of the period so profoundly impressed their mark on Jewish life." == Sabbatian controversy == Eybeschutz was again accused of secret Sabbatean beliefs following a suspicion that he had issued
amulets recognising the Messianic claims of
Sabbatai Zevi. The recent discovery of notarial copies of the actual amulets found in Metz and copying the amulets written by Eybeschutz support Emden's view that these are Sabbatean writings. In 1752, the controversy between Emden and Eybeschutz raged. Clashes between opposing supporters occurred in the streets, drawing the secular authorities' attention. Emden fled. The controversy was heard by both the Senate of Hamburg and by the Royal Court of Denmark. The
Hamburg Senate quickly found in favour of Eybeschutz. The
King of Denmark asked Eybeschutz to answer questions about the amulets. Conflicting testimony was put forward and the matter remained officially unresolved although the court imposed fines on both parties for civil unrest and ordered that Emden be allowed to return to Altona. At this point, Eybeschutz was defended by Carl Anton, a convert to Christianity, but a former disciple of Eybeschutz. Emden refused to accept the outcome and sent out vicious pamphlets attacking Eybeschutz. Eybeschutz was re-elected as Chief Rabbi. In December of that year, the Hamburg Senate rejected the King's decision and the election result. The Senate of Hamburg started an intricate process to determine the powers of Eybeschutz, and many members of that congregation demanded that he should submit his case to rabbinical authorities. The controversy was a momentous incident in
Jewish history of the era, involving both
Yechezkel Landau and the
Vilna Gaon. Eybeschutz approached the young Gaon to examine and appraise the amulets. The Gaon replied in a letter that while he had sympathy with Eybeschutz, he did not believe that the words of a young man would assist in the dispute. Some time after the dispute, Landau, a relatively unknown rabbi from
Yampil, attempted to resolve the dispute offering both parties a dignified exit. His proposal was accepted by Eybeschutz but vehemently rejected by Emden, who continued to publish attacks on Eybeschutz. and the debate of 1725 has been located in the archives. In 1760, the quarrel broke out once more when some Sabbatean elements were discovered among the students of Eybeschutz' yeshiva. At the same time, his younger son,
Wolf Jonas Eybeschutz, presented himself as a Sabbatean prophet and was close to several
Frankists, a Sabbatean sect, and the yeshiva was closed. == Descendants ==