We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 November 2015
Sometime in the afternoon of Wednesday, August 22, 1781, in one of the narrow houses along the Jewish lane (Judengasse) in Frankfurt am Main, Gumpert (Gumperz, in Hebrew sources, Gumpel) Aaron May (Mai) prepared himself to go out to attend to some business matters. Like many of his contemporaries involved in trade, Gumpert's business activities did not focus on just one line of work; he did his best to turn a profit in a number of ways, including selling wine and lending money at interest. Gumpert, who was in his thirties or perhaps even early forties, wore underneath his shirt a fringed garment (ẓiẓit, see Num. 15:37–41), as religious custom obligated Jewish males to do. His green jacket had silver clasps and his partially bald pate was covered by a wig with two curls in the back, topped by a hat. His elegant appearance made it clear to all observers that he was from a well-situated family, and that he had adopted some of the modes of contemporary fashion. Indeed, Gumpert came from what would soon be, if it was not already, one of the wealthiest Jewish families in Frankfurt.
1. A number of members of the May family are included in this study. To avoid confusion, they are referred to here by their first names.
2. Regarding the time of Gumpert's departure, see “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” Heb. MS. 1092, fol. 276v, The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem (available at http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/heb1092/index_eng.html, accessed November 11, 2013). A translation of the entry in the Memorbuch is provided in Appendix 1.
3. Regarding Gumpert's involvement in selling wine, see Edward Fram, A Window on Their World: The Court Diary of Rabbi Ḥayyim Gundersheim, Frankfurt am Main 1773–1794 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2012), no. 40. Gumpert also seems to have managed the extensive credit business of his father-in-law, Yuda Moses Kulp (see Johann Philipp Orth, Samlung/ merkwürdiger/ Rechtshändel/ samt ihren zweifels= und entschei=/dungsgründen, wie auch verschiedener/ rechts= und anderer materien;/ […], vol. 13 [Frankfurt: Brönner, 1776], 651–71).
4. Regarding Gumpert's age, see Criminalia 9304, fol. 144r–v, Institut für Stadtgeschichte (ISG) Frankfurt a.M., where he was said to be thirty years old. However, Shlomo Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot [Burial Records of the Jewish Community of Frankfurt am Main] 1241–1824,” 2.V.1823 (available at http://www.lbi.org/digibaeck/results/?qtype=pid&term=258967, accessed November 11, 2013), noted that Gumpert's wife died in 1823 at the age of eighty-four. She would have been over forty in 1781. It is possible that Gumpert was significantly younger than his wife, or perhaps, he was a few years older than the authorities thought.
5. ISG Frankfurt a.M., Criminalia 9304, fols. 185v, 246r–248r, 290r–v, 450r–451r, ISG Frankfurt a.M. On Gumpert's baldness and ẓiẓit, see Pinḥas ben Ẓevi Hirsch Horowitz, Sheʼelot u-teshuvot givʻat Pinḥas (Lemberg: J. Balaban, 1837), no. 23. Regarding Gumpert's dress as a sign of his economic status, with respect to the silver buttons, see Aileen Ribeiro, Dress in Eighteenth-Century Europe, 1715–1789 (London: B.T. Batsford, 1984), 140–41. In his history of wigs in the German lands, Friedrich Nicolai, Über den Gebrauch der falschen Haare und Perrucken in alten und neuern Zeiten: eine historische Untersuchung (Berlin: n.p., 1801), 107–25, noted that wigs were widely worn in Protestant areas by churchmen and scholars at the beginning of the eighteenth century (100). They appear to have remained part of the costume of the well-to-do into the 1780s (see Jakob Heinrich von Hefner-Alteneck, Trachten, Kunstwerke und Geräthschaften vom frühen Mittelalter bis Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts nach gleichzeitigen Originalen, vol. 10 [Frankfurt: H. Keller, 1889], plates 715–16). The wig could be a sign of secularization, yet Gumpert was also wearing ẓiẓit, which were unlikely to have been worn by a Jewish secularist (see Shmuel Feiner, The Origins of Jewish Secularization in Eighteenth-Century Europe, trans. Chaya Naor, Jewish Culture and Contexts [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010], 49–52).
6. By the year 1800, Gumpert's brother, Benedict, would have more than twice the assets of Me'ir Amschel Rothschild (see Alexander Dietz, Stammbuch der Frankfurter Juden. Geschichtliche Mitteilungen über die Frankfurter jüdischen Familien von 1349–1849, nebst einem Plane der Judengasse [Frankfurt: J. St. Goar, 1907], 196–97; English translation, Alexander Dietz, The Jewish Community of Frankfurt: A Genealogical Study 1349–1849 [Camelford: Vanderher, 1988], 240). The May family had a leadership role in the Jewish community. According to “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 175v, Gumpert's father, Aaron May, not only performed acts of charity himself but gave out funds to the poor on behalf of the community. Gumpert's mother, Beyla, was said to have been active in both collecting and distributing money to the poor (her entry on fol. 244r). Although these entries were paid for, and probably written according to the directions of, if not by, family members, an official position in the community was unlikely to have be fabricated. Similarly, if the description of Beyla's life strayed too far from the truth, it would have been ridiculed. In the early 1790s, Benedict himself became a communal leader (see Pinkas Frankfurt, Heb. MS. 24o662, nos. 446 [10 February 1793; fol. 223r (Arabic numeral pagination)] and 450–51 [26 March 1793; specifically fol. 226r], National Library of Israel [Jerusalem]).
7. According to several records, Gumpert was also carrying his “10 Gebothe” (Ten Commandments). It is unclear what exactly was meant by this term for no one who referred to it described the item(s). Lucia Raspe kindly pointed out to us that the meaning of Zehngebot as a physical object was the subject of an extensive discussion on http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/geschichte-juden/ during January and February 1999. The relevant messages are nos. 132–35, 137, 140, 150–51, and 157 (accessed October 30, 2013). What is clear from this discussion is that the term Zehngebot was used by non-Jews in the German lands in the early modern period for various items related to Jewish religious life. The fact that Gumpert carried his “10 Gebothe” in his pocket gives some idea about the limited size of this/these item(s).
8. The reconstruction of events is based upon the testimonies in the records of the city of Frankfurt as well as Hebrew material. These sources represent different perspectives of what transpired. We have tried to build a composite picture based on the multiple voices.
9. Criminalia 9303, fol. 66r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
10. Criminalia 9303, fols. 5r–v, 81v–82r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
11. During their interrogations, the two women gave detailed reports of Kliebenstein's visitors. See Criminalia 9303, fols. 37r–41v, 42r–49v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
12. Criminalia 9303, fol. 37r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M. Whether the reticence of Jews to socialize with Kliebenstein by themselves was particular to him or a general policy in visiting non-Jews, cannot be determined as yet.
13. There were 60 kreuzer in a gulden. See Georg Ludwig Kriegk, Deutsche Kulturbilder aus dem achtzehnten Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1874), 174, and Joachim Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre: städtische Lebenswelten und Kriminalität im 18. Jahrhundert (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2003), 96–99.
14. Criminalia 9303, fols. 38v–39r, 43r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
15. Criminalia 9303, fols. 173r–174r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
16. Criminalia 9303, fols. 42v–45r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
17. Criminalia 9303, fols. 52v–53r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
18. Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 102.
19. See, for comparison, a similar sort of reaction by a wife whose husband did not come home one evening about a century earlier in Altona, described in Chava Turniansky, ed., Glikl: Zikhronot 1691–1719 (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2006), 424–27.
20. Criminalia 9303, fol. 66r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
21. Criminalia 9303, fols. 66v–67v, ISG Frankfurt a.M. Besides Gumpert, Benedict, and Michael, there was another brother, Me'ir, who had converted to Protestantism in 1767, and a sister, Yette (see Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 2.V.1823 and 1.VII.1756).
22. Cf., Horowitz, Responsa no. 23. Horowitz paraphrased the information in a much briefer way, noting that the name of the debtor was found in the account book, and the family went to him. However, for Horowitz, all this information was ancillary to the focus of his legal inquiry.
23. If Benedict's claims were correct, Gumpert kept an account book that included the name(s) of any guarantor(s). One would assume that he generally also recorded the name of debtors and, presumably, differentiated between them. That Benedict first went to the guarantor could be for a number of reasons, such as he knew where she lived or perhaps Gumpert had not recorded Kliebenstein's name so that no one would easily connect them (see below). A similar attempt to conceal a loan from others is found in Fram, A Window on Their World, no. 147.
24. Criminalia 9303, fols. 67v–68v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
25. Benedict's father, Aaron May, appears to have immigrated to Frankfurt, perhaps from Innsbruck (see Dietz, Stammbuch, 196; Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 1.VII.1756). Benedict's mother, Beyla, was a native of Frankfurt. She and Aaron appear to have married in Frankfurt around 1738 (see “’Eleh toldot,” 11.IX.1773, as well as 4.V.1709 and 26.I.1750).
26. “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 276v.
27. Criminalia 9303, fol. 71r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
28. Criminalia 9303, fols. 68v–71r, ISG Frankfurt a.M. Cf., the description recorded in “the Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 276v. Though in the Memorbuch much of the same information was presented in an encapsulated form (e.g., it does not say that he went to see Mrs. Korbek first or that Kliebenstein went back into his rooms), nothing contradicts the report of the authorities.
29. Criminalia 9303, fols. 71v–72r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
30. Criminalia 9303, fol. 73r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
31. Criminalia 9303, fol. 92r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M. For some time the British had used such men as troops in a number of conflicts, including in North America. Though the local German princes found the arrangement profitable, it drained the region of its labor pool. Desperate to ease the burden on the local population, recruiters were actively seeking foreign volunteers for military service, sometimes accepting even criminals to augment the enlistees. Kliebenstein may have been trying to join the troops of Landgraf Frederick II of Hessen-Kassel, who were, in part, hired out to the English army fighting in the American War of Independence. In this regard, see Daniel Krebs, A Generous and Merciful Enemy: Life for German Prisoners of War during the American Revolution (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013), 36–38, and Rodney Atwood, The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 207–15. That Kliebenstein was likely heading to America is mentioned in a private memoir of the time that gives an account of this specific story (see Theodor Reiffenstein, “Auszüge aus einer Familien-Chronik,” Mittheilungen des Vereins für Geschichte und Alterthumskunde in Frankfurt am Main 2 [1858]: 154–55).
32. Criminalia 9303, fols. 92v–94r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
33. Criminalia 9303, fol. 94r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
34. That individuals connected to the local militia assisted a self-admitted murderer to escape from the authorities in Frankfurt is startling. However, tensions between soldiers and Jews were often higher than those between Jews and non-Jewish civilians. Some Jews believed that noncommissioned officers showed “inhuman religious hate” towards Jews. See Michael Silber, “From Tolerated Aliens to Citizen-Soldiers: Jewish Military Service in the Era of Joseph II,” in Constructing Nationalities in East Central Europe, ed. Pieter M. Judson and Marsha L. Rozenblit, Austrian and Habsburg Studies 6 (New York: Berghahn, 2005), 28. During the early and mid-seventeenth century, soldiers carried out most of the violent attacks on individual Jews in Frankfurt, prompting the city authorities to issue special public warnings reminding soldiers not to start arguments with Jews. See Maria Boes, “Zweifach im Visier. Jüdische Opfer von Straftaten und Rechtsprechung im Römisch-Deutschen Reich der Frühen Neuzeit,” in Juden im Recht: neue Zugänge zur Rechtsgeschichte der Juden im Alten Reich, ed. Andreas Gotzmann and Stephan Wendehorst (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007), 229. On soldiers' views of Jews as not capable of being good fighters, see Schmit, H. D., “The Terms of Emancipation 1781–1812: The Public Debate in Germany and Its Effect on the Mentality and Ideas of German Jewry,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 1 (1956): 43Google Scholar. Also see, Silber, “From Tolerated Aliens,” 22–24. This may have contributed to these two military men viewing Jews as lesser men and their turning a blind eye to the murder of a Jew.
35. Criminalia 9303, fol. 1r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
36. Criminalia 9303, fols. 50r–53r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
37. Criminalia 9304, fols. 52v–53r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
38. Shulhan ‘Arukh, Yoreh de ‘ah, 364.4 with the glosses of Rabbis Shabbetai ben Me'ir ha-Kohen and David ben Samuel ha-Levi.
39. Criminalia 9304, fols. 54r–55r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
40. In Hebrew sources Schnapper is generally referred to as Abraham Wennig. Benedict May married Schnapper's daughter, Schönle, in 1772 (see Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 1.XI.1793, 14.I.1821; “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 229v; Aryeh Segall, “Ḥomer le-pinkas ha-kahal [Frankfurṭ], Personal Papers of Aryeh Segall,” no. 412, Central Archive for the History of the Jewish People, Jerusalem; Marcus Horovitz, Sefer ʾavnei zikkaron: Ha-ketav ve-ha-miktav mi-beit ha-kevarot ha-yashan de-k[ehillat] k[odesh] Frankfurt ʻal nehar Main [Frankfurt: Kaufmann, 1901], no. 3599). Schnapper's entry in “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 336r, noted that at the time of his death in 1793, he had been tireless in his efforts on behalf of the Jewish community (“le-hishtadel be-ẓorkhei ẓibbur ve-Yisra'el”) for “about thirty years.”
41. Aberle Tebele Wimpfen served as parnas for at least fifteen years until his demise in 1791 (see Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 1.II.1791). Regarding his membership in the Jewish burial society of Frankfurt, see “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 323r.
42. Criminalia 9304, fols. 54r–55r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
43. Although Jewish law prohibits disgracing the body of the deceased (see B. Sanhedrin 47a), it may not have rule out autopsies for criminal investigations (see Immanuel Jakobovits, “The Dissection of the Dead in Jewish Law,” Tradition 1, no. 1 [1958]: 83–84).
44. Criminalia 9304, fols. 66r–70v, ISG Frankfurt a.M. Generally the dead were washed and prepared for burial by the ḥevra kaddisha. However, in the case of immediate death as the result of a murder, such as here, the body would not be cleansed but buried as it was (see Shulḥan ‘Arukh, Yoreh de‘ah, 364.4, with the comments of Rabbi Shabbetai ben Me'ir ha-Kohen).
45. Criminalia 9304, fols. 68r–70v, 144r–146v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
46. “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 276v. Frankfurt was not the only Jewish community to maintain a section of the cemetery for martyrs. According to Michael Brocke, Worms did not have such a section, but in Georgensgmünd (Bavaria) there are five graves of martyrs from the early seventeenth century placed together near the entrance to the cemetery (e-mail correspondence from Michael Brocke to Edward Fram, November 11 and 13, 2013).
47. In a 1750 edict, the Frankfurt city council specifically tried to prevent the frequent visits in the Judengasse of Christian apprentices seeking to buy and sell clothes and other items, Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 370. The testimonies of Kliebenstein and his circle of apprentice friends suggest that the council was not fully successful in its efforts.
48. Criminalia 9303, fols. 160r–164v, 189r–190r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
49. Frankfurter Staats-Ristretto, August 25, 1781, p. 548.
50. Other interrogated Jews—Feist Rapp, Emanuel Rapp, Moses Rindskopf, and Simon Benedict Scheuer—described their money lending/changing business as rather spontaneous and sporadic. See, Criminalia 9303, fols. 182r–183r, 186v–190v, 194r–200r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
51. Criminalia 9303, fols. 253v–254r; 9304, fol. 402r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
52. The written sources of these events reflect a different perspective on these interreligious relationships than the testimony that they record. Binary thinking pervades the material: members of one group are often differentiated from “the Other” in various ways. For example, in a responsum regarding the personal status of Gumpert's widow (see below), Rabbi Pinḥas Horowitz never mentioned Kliebenstein by name but referred to him as “the non-Jew” (ha-kuti). Similarly, the records of interrogations referenced Gumpert as “the Jew” (der Jude) or “the Jew May” (der Jude May) rather than (only) using his name (see, for example, Criminalia 9303, fols. 81r–83v; 9304, fols. 596/neufol. 1r–597v/neufol. 3r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.). In interrogations of Christians who had been around Kliebenstein, again, the records always referred to Jews by the general term “the Jew” or “the Jews”—and sometimes by seemingly negative physical attributes such as “small,” “thin,” “pale,” and the like (see, for example, Criminalia 9303, fols. 17v–18r, 48r–49r, 166r–167v, ISG Frankfurt a.M). The attribute “Jew” was always present. In internal documents, Jews regularly added the term “the non-circumcised” before the name of a non-Jew. For example, in the Frankfurt Memorbuch Kliebenstein was referred to as “the uncircumcised Johannes Georg Kliebenstein” (fol. 276v). “The uncircumcised” was used in more neutral citations as well (see, for example, fol. 241r). These examples reflect conventions as well as formal attitudes. By contrast, when Horowitz recorded eyewitness testimony in Yiddish, two Jews who had been present in Höchst spoke of the non-Jews simply by their professions, without any mention of their religion or derogatory appellations. In sum, the style of written records did not necessarily portray the character of Jewish-Christian relations in daily life. On differences in language between the records of interrogations that took place in Frankfurt and official protocols and edicts, see Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 63, 64; Karl Härter, “Strafverfahren im frühneuzeitlichen Territorialstaat: Inquisition, Entscheidungsfindung, Supplikation,” in Kriminalitätsgeschichte: Beiträge zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte der Vormoderne, ed. Andreas Blauert (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 2000), 469.
53. Criminalia 9303, fol. 7r–v; 9304, fols. 57r–59r (“Expedirt den 23. August 1781. 1.) Darmstadt[,] Mannheim[,] Straßburg biß Baßel 2.) Hanau[,] Würtzburg[,] Nürnberg[,] Regenspurg biß Wien 3.) Friedberg[,] Giesen[,] Marburg[,] Bassel biß Hamburg 4.) Eisenach[,] Gotha[,] Leipzig biß Berlin 5.) Maynz[,] Coblenz[,] Cölln bis Amsterdam”), 64r–65r, 149r–161r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
54. In its biblical context, go'el ha-dam (lit., redeemer of blood, see Num. 35:19) refers to vengeance killing. However, by the seventeenth century, the commandment had transformed into an obligation for blood relatives to seek out the killer and bring him/her to justice. Since Gumpert had only young children (see Fram, A Window on Their World, no. 143), the onus would have fallen on Gumpert's brothers. On the nature of obligation as well as the duty of the family to seek out the killer, including placing the onus on the family rather than the community, see Menahem Mendel ben Abraham Krochmal, Sheʼelot u-teshuvot ẓemaḥ ẓedek (Amsterdam: David di Castro, 1675), no. 111.
55. Gumpert's family could not have begun to sit shivah, the seven days of mourning that usually begin right after the burial, because only Gumpert's torso was found. Without the head and with hope that it would be found, the obligation to mourn in the official fashion did not begin. See Shulḥan ‘Arukh, Yoreh de‘ah, 375.7.
56. Krochmal, Responsa, no. 111.
57. Criminalia 9303, fol. 59r; 9304, fols. 75r–84v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
58. Criminalia 9303, fol. 94r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
59. Isaac Kulp was the half-brother of Gumpert's widow (see Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 21.XII.1785 and 7.V.1808). Meyer Yuda Kulp does not appear to have been directly related to Gumpert (see Ettlinger, 30.X.1813). Meyer (through Judah [11.XI.1784], David [8.IV.1775], and Me'ir [26.I.1726]) and Isaac (through Judah [21.XII.1785], Moses [29.I.1748], and Isaac [10.XII.1712]) had a common great-great grandfather in Judah Kulp-Wetzlar (5.IV.1691).
60. The army commander mentioned this in a letter to the city of Frankfurt, Criminalia 9304, fol. 329r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M. It is not clear whether any of these activities by Jews violated the Sabbath. The Frankfurt Memorbuch referred to Benedict's search without any derision, in fact it appeared to praise his efforts to “redeem the blood” of his brother.
61. Criminalia 9304, fols. 292r–294v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
62. Criminalia 9304, fols. 128r–130v, 132r–140r, ISG Frankfurt a.M. The cost of transporting Kliebenstein was said to total 155 florin, 17 kreuzer.
63. Criminalia 9304, fol. 94r–95v, ISG Frankfurt a.M., and Horowitz, Responsa, no. 23. The municipal archive records state that this all happened around 9:00 a.m. The one testimony given before the rabbinic court in Frankfurt regarding the time states that it happened at 7:00 a.m.
64. Criminalia 9304, fols. 112r–115v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
65. The Jews' rationale for demanding the torso was the need to bury the blood as well as the body. Here, after the body parts had been in water for at least four full days, there may have been relatively little blood to bury, for fresh water dilutes blood. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the agreement reached between the city and the Jewish community on the day of the murder was meant to extend to other situations.
66. Criminalia 9304, fols. 116r–117v, 122r–123r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
67. Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 61–62.
68. While in most places in the Holy Roman Empire, the pretrial (Spezialinquisition) and trial (Generalinquisition) were separate processes, in Frankfurt they were combined. Furthermore, the interrogation process in Frankfurt did not follow a predetermined protocol but was more flexible in character. On this, see Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 63–64.
69. For the standard procedure of the so called Inquisitionsprozess (inquisition trial), see Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 61–68, and Karl Härter, “Strafverfahren im frühneuzeitlichen Territorialstaat,” 459–80. A general introduction to criminal procedures in the empire can be found in Roeck, Bernd, “Criminal Procedure in the Holy Roman Empire in Early Modern Times,” International Association for the History of Crime and Justice Bulletin 18 (1993): 21–40Google Scholar.
70. The term “sodomy” had many different meanings at the time, but in Frankfurt it was specifically used by the authorities to describe bestiality and same-sex relations. On this see Maria Boes, “On Trial for Sodomy in Early Modern Germany,” in Sodomy in Early Modern Europe, ed. Thomas Betteridge (New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), 27–45.
71. Criminalia 9303, fol. 591r; 9304, fol. 596v/neufol. 1v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
72. Criminalia 9305, fols. 138v–147v, 159v–173v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
73. Criminalia 9304, fol. 465v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
74. Criminalia 9303, fols. 313v–319r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
75. Criminalia 9304, fol. 465v, ISG Frankfurt a.M., “daß […] der Jude May der vom Inquisiten erzählten Wollust fähig gewesen[…].”
76. Criminalia 9303, fols. 182r–190v, 192v–199v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
77. Karl Härter, “Zur Stellung der Juden im frühneuzeitlichen Strafrecht. Gesetzgebung, Rechtswissenschaft und Justizpraxis,” in Juden im Recht: neue Zugänge zur Rechtsgeschichte der Juden im Alten Reich, ed. Andreas Gotzmann and Stephan Wendehorst (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007), 347–79. See too the extensive study regarding the severity of sodomy, its prosecution, and change of values in the Netherlands, in Theo van der Meer, “Sodomy and the Pursuit of a Third Sex in the Early Modern Period,” in Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History, ed. Gilbert H. Herdt (New York: Zone, 1994), 137–212. Boes suggested that in Frankfurt people were less concerned about “sodomitic practices” than the jurists who worked for the authorities and were protagonists of the new Roman law. Boes claimed that there was a general atmosphere of sexual tolerance towards same-sex relations in early modern Frankfurt (Boes, “On Trial for Sodomy,” 42). Boes's views about the discrepancy between the attitudes of the general public and those of the authorities regarding same-sex relations are supported by the Kliebenstein/May case in which many of those interrogated claimed to have known about Kliebenstein's sexual orientation but do not seem to have been sufficiently bothered by it to report him. Some said that they themselves had been physically molested by him, but, again, nobody ever brought this to the attention of the authorities.
78. Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 62–63.
79. Criminalia 9304, fols. 324r–326v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
80. In earlier versions of his confession, Kliebenstein claimed that he had accidently killed Gumpert when the latter tried to molest him sexually while Kliebenstein was busy shaving. In this early confession, Kliebenstien described Gumpert as the sexual aggressor and denied that he had ever had “sodomitic” experiences before. However, Kliebenstein later admitted to having had many sexual relations with different men, among them, Gumpert. See Criminalia 9303, fols. 80v–85r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
81. Boes, Maria, “Jews in the Criminal-Justice System of Early Modern Germany,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 30, no. 3 (1999): 415, 416, 428Google Scholar.
82. Helmut Puff, Sodomy in Reformation Germany and Switzerland, 1400–1600 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003): 29, 30; Boes, “On Trial for Sodomy,” 29.
83. Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 407. Richard J. Evans, Rituals of Retribution: Capital Punishment in Germany, 1600–1987 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 28 n. 1, points out that in Germany people were broken with the wheel rather than on the wheel as in France. On the significance of execution with the wheel and decapitation by the sword, see Evans, 55.
84. Criminalia 9304, fol. 491r, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
85. Richard van Dülman, Theatre of Horror: Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Germany, trans. Elisabeth Neu (Cambridge: Polity, 1990), 102, notes that the heads of those who were spared death with the wheel were generally stuck onto a pole.
86. Criminalia 9304, fol. 327r–v, ISG Frankfurt a.M.
87. For a detailed description of the execution, see Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 407–8. Similar concerns surfaced almost a century earlier in Altona when the murderer of Abraham Metz was sentenced to death. Glikl of Hameln wrote that local Jews were in mortal danger as the mob reacted to the news (Turniansky, Glikl, 444–45). The local council in Altona threatened those who attacked the Jews and/or their property on the day of execution (see Peter Freimark, “Zum Verhältnis von Juden und Christen in Altona im 17./18. Jahrhundert,” Theokratia: Jahrbuch des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 2 [1970–1972]: 255–58.).
88. The execution was an opportunity for the Lutheran preacher Johann Andreas Claus (d. 1815) to sermonize. The date that he preached his sermon is not known but it was written out after Kliebenstein's execution for Claus cited what he claimed to be Kliebenstein's last words. According to Claus, Kliebenstein said that young and old alike should be warned to steer clear from minor sins for they ultimately lead to greater transgressions, including Unreinigkeiten. In the context of this sermon, this word likely had a sexual connotation. The sermon was not published but can be found in manuscript form in Criminalia 9306, 1–79, ISG Frankfurt a.M. Kliebenstein's presumed last words are found on pages 78–79.
89. This might suggest a shift to greater neutrality in the proceedings of the Frankfurt jurisdiction in contrast to former times, when the fact that a victim was Jewish could still play in favor of the perpetrator and lead to milder punishments (Boes, “Zweifach im Visier,” 230–41). This greater level of neutrality did not necessarily apply in cases in which Jews were thought to be the perpetrators rather than the victims. See Härter, “Zur Stellung der Juden im frühneuzeitlichen Strafrecht,” 376–79; Otto Ulbricht, “Criminality and Punishment of the Jews in the Early Modern Period,” in In and Out of the Ghetto: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany, ed. R. Po-chia Hsia and Hartmut Lehmann (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 49–70; Boes, “Jews in the Criminal-Justice System,” 415–19, 421, 422, 430–35. For a different perspective, see Eibach, Frankfurter Verhöre, 215, 415.
90. The epitaph is not fully extant. See Horovitz, Sefer ʾavnei zikkaron, no. 3716.
91. Michael Brocke, Der alte jüdische Friedhof zu Frankfurt am Main: unbekannte Denkmäler und Inschriften (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1996), 375. The meaning of kadosh as “pious” was not new. Isadore Twersky, Rabad of Posquières: A Twelfth-Century Talmudist, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1980), 27 n. 34, pointed out that it referred to piety in medieval times—and earlier. This was also true in northern Europe as noted by Ephraim Urbach, Baʻalei ha-tosafot: Toledotehem, ḥibureihem, shiṭatam, 4th ed. (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1980), 458–59, n. 45, with respect to Rabbi Isaac of Dampierre (d. ca. 1184) who was called ha-kadosh due to his piety. Also see Ephraim Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2000), 193 n. 9. Our thanks to Ephraim Kanarfogel for pointing out these latter sources. Also see Reiner, Avraham, “’Even she-katuv ‘aleha: To'arei ha-nifṭarim ‘al maẓevot beit ha-‘olmin be-Virẓburg 1147–1346,” Tarbiz 78, no. 1 (2009): 144–45 n. 120Google Scholar.
92. Horovitz, Sefer ʾavnei zikkaron, no. 3716. On the use of the phrase “may God avenge his blood,” see Turniansky, Glikl, 117 n. 342.
93. “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 276v.
94. See the case of Schönle Maas discussed below. A case from Hamburg may also be instructive. In 1783, an eighteen-year-old Isaac Renner was murdered in Hamburg. His gravestone proclaimed him a martyr with a large incipit reading ha-kadosh (see http://www.steinheim-institut.de/cgi-bin/epidat?function=Ins&sel=hha&lang=en&inv=7800, with the attached link to a photograph of the gravestone; accessed November 10, 2013, as well as Nathanja Hüttenmeister, “Form und Freiheit: Inschriftentypen am Beispiel der Verwandtschaft der Kauffrau Glückel und einiger auβergewöhnlicher Todesfälle,” in Verborgene Pracht: der jüdische Friedhof Hamburg-Altona, aschkenasische Grabmale, ed. Michael Brocke [Dresden: Sandstein, 2008], 231). According to the epitaph, Renner was killed like the biblical Abner (see 2 Sam. 2:27), tricked to enter a place and killed there by those who enticed him to enter. When Renner's murderers were caught and questioned, it became clear that Renner was killed because they wanted his “Jewish blood” (see Hermann Leberecht Strack, The Jew and Human Sacrifice [Human Blood and Jewish Ritual]: An Historical and Sociological Inquiry [New York: Bloch, 1909], 100–2). The religious motive for the murder would seem to have raised the “level” of Renner's martyrdom yet it was not reflected on the victim's gravestone that was so careful to mention the circumstances of his death. Perhaps the epitaph was composed before the inquiry took place. On the case of Renner, also see Max Grunwald, Hamburgs deutsche Juden bis zur Auflösung der Dreigemeinden, 1811 (Hamburg: A. Janssen, 1904), 186–88.
95. Entries in the Memorbuch were not strictly chronological. For example, the entry following Gumpert's dealt with a person who died on October 15, 1781, the one following that with someone who died on September 29, and the next one memorialized a person who died on May 24, 1781 (“The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 277r). The entries that preceded that of Gumpert dealt with people who died on July 29, August 20, August 24, and August 30, 1781 (fol. 276r–v) respectively. This order suggests that Gumpert's entry was placed in the Memorbuch relatively soon after the burial of his head and limbs.
96. Maimonides, Code of Law, Book of Principles of the Torah 5.1–4. These notions were also codified in Joseph Caro's Shulḥan ‘Arukh, Yoreh de‘ah, 157.1.
97. Horovitz, Sefer ʾavnei zikkaron, no. 3785. Her gravestone states that she died and was buried on Monday, 18 Tevet (December 23).
98. Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 23.XII.1782.
99. Horovitz, Sefer ʾavnei zikkaron, no. 3785. Also see, Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 23.XII.1782.
100. Kriegk, Deutsche Kulturbilder, 170–86.
101. Frommet was executed in Frankfurt on November 4, 1783. See Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 4.XI.1783. As in most executions, the body was not returned to the family/community but was buried by the authorities at the place of execution. It would seem unlikely that there would have been any Hebrew gravestone with an epitaph that expanded on her life/death. See Ettlinger, as well as Evans, Rituals of Retribution, 89, and Dülman, Theatre of Horror, 101–2.
102. “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 286v. There is some ambiguity in the language of the Memorbuch. The text is not fully punctuated and, from a grammatical perspective, it is not clear to whom the statement of martyrdom referred. Since the entry was paid for by members of Schönle's family, logic would suggest that the reference was to her. However, in terms of sentence structure, the referent appears to be Frommet, not Schönle. No less significantly, the beginning of the entry in the Memorbuch lists a number of Schönle's positive traits, but failed to describe her as “holy” or a martyr. This contrasts sharply not only with the opening sections of Gumpert's entry in the Memorbuch and those of other martyrs (see, for example, fols. 15r, 34r, where the word ha-kadosh was left out but later added by the same hand above the line, and 38v), but with Schönle's own gravestone that opened with “the martyress” (ha-'ishah ha-kedoshah). Apparently, once the details of the case became clear, the term “martyr” could no longer be applied to Schönle. A Jew killed by a fellow Jew was not a martyr.
103. Owing to her age, the Frankfurt authorities weighed the issue of capital punishment very carefully. Some argued that Frommet should be treated as a child and spared. Ultimately, a formal question was addressed to a law faculty. See Kriegk, Deutsche Kulturbilder, 179.
104. Rachel L. Greenblatt, To Tell Their Children: Jewish Communal Memory in Early Modern Prague, Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014), 62–63, 154–55; Šedinová, Jiřina, “Hebrew Literary Sources to the Czech History of the First Half of the 17th Century,” Judaica Bohemiae 23, no. 1 (1987): 47Google Scholar.
105. Regarding the other deaths, see Šedinová, “Hebrew Literary Sources,” 47.
106. Turniansky, Glikl, 425–45, especially 443. Also see Grunwald, Hamburgs deutsche Juden, 17.
107. Abraham Metz's gravestone has been transcribed and translated at http://www.steinheim-institut.de/cgi-bin/epidat?function=Ins&sel=hha&lang=en&inv=6235 with bibliographic references to the murder case (accessed November 10, 2013; also see Hüttenmeister, “Form und Freiheit,” 229–31). See too Eduard (Yeḥezk'el) Duckesz, Sefer ḥakmei AHV ḥelek sheni me-s[efer] AHV (1908; reprint, Israel: n.p., 1968), 4–5. Regarding Glikl, see Turniansky, Glikl, 425. Glikl was not consistent in labeling those murdered for their money as martyrs (see 116–7, and 142–47).
108. For a rather one-sided and reverential introduction to the events, see Maximilian Fischer, Marzellin Ortner, der layenbruder, und vertheidigung Klosterneuburgs gegen die Türcken im jahre 1683 ([Vienna]: n.p., 1842). On the labeling of the two Jews from Frankfurt as martyrs, see Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 17.IX.1683, and “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 34r.
109. The siege was part of the Nine Years' War. See John A. Lynn, The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667–1714 (London: Longman, 1999), 201–2.
110. “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 38v. The appellation was not forgotten, for when his son died in 1766 in Hamburg, his gravestone noted that he was “son of the martyr Me'ir from Frankfurt” (http://www.steinheim-institut.de/cgi-bin/epidat?function=Ins&sel=hha&lang=en&inv=1838, accessed November 10, 2013). By contrast, when one of Gumpert's daughters died in 1845, there was no mention of Gumpert's martyrdom even though Gumpert's name was specifically mentioned (“The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fol. 524r).
111. Siegmund Salfeld, Das Martyrologium des Nürnberger Memorbuches (Berlin: Simion, 1898), 89–92, with an annotated German translation, 292–304. Regarding the source, see Salfeld's introduction, xxiv. In some entries more than one person was listed as dying during the particular event. Each such case has been considered here as one listing. While most of the entries were not dated, towards the end there is an entry for “the old woman, Mrs. Rebecca,” daughter of Rabbi Me'ir of Rothenburg (92). Rabbi Me'ir was born in 1215 and had more than one daughter (see Avraham Grossman, Ḥasidot u-mordot: Nashim yehudiyyot be-'europah bi-yemei ha-beinayyim [Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2001], 320). Assuming that Rebecca was born in the mid-thirteenth century, she would have been an “old woman” in the first half of the fourteenth century.
112. Reiner, “‘Even she-katuv ‘aleha,” 144, took a more expansive view and assumed that the term “neherag” meant the murder of a Jew by a non-Jew and could include cases of martyrdom. While the former may be true, we do not believe that the evidence supports the latter assertion in the case of Nürnberg. Indeed, Michael Brocke, “Märtyrer in Worms und Mainz. Eine epigraphische Studie zu qadosh,” in Aus den Quellen: Beiträge zur deutsch-jüdischen Geschichte, Festschrift für Ina Lorenz zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Andreas Brämer et al., Studien zur jüdischen Geschichte, vol. 10 (Munich: Dölling & Galitz, 2005), 15, points out that there was a development in the use of the terms neherag and kadosh in medieval German Jewish culture. There appear to be differences between various locales as well, as Brocke's and Reiner's works make clear.
113. Salfeld, Das Martyrologium, 91, 92.
114. Salfeld, Das Martyrologium, 89.
115. Salfeld, Das Martyrologium, 90.
116. Not each of the people listed as having died for “the unity of the Name” or “for the sanctification of the Name” were labeled as a martyr (kadosh). R. Isaac son of “our father Abraham” (Avraham ’avinu (perhaps his father was unknown; converts appear in the list with the appellation of ha-ger [the convert]) was said to have been burned for the sanctification of the Name, yet he was not called a martyr. The exact same circumstance of death was given for R. Jacob ben Isaac in the immediately preceding entry and he was called ha-kadosh (Salfeld, Das Martyrologium, 89). Why one was called a martyr and the other not, thus, requires further consideration.
117. Freehof, Solomon, “Hazkarat neshamot,” Hebrew Union College Annual 36 (1965): 185–86Google Scholar. While Freehof understated the number of donations given by the families of martyrs (see, for example, Salfeld, Das Martyrologium, 92), he was correct in noting that it was only martyrs who were entered in the Memorbuch without giving something to charity (see the four examples on 89, 90). This divide between the entries of martyrs and others also existed in Prague (see Greenblatt, To Tell Their Children, 36–37).
118. See, most notably Jacob Katz, “Bein 1648 le-1648,” in Sefer yovel le-Yiẓḥak Baer be-melo'at lo shev‘im shanah, ed. Shlomo Ettlinger et al. (Jerusalem: Historical Society of Israel, 1960), 332 (reprinted in his Halakhah ve-kabbalah: Meḥkarim be-toledot dat Yisraʾel ʻal medoreha ve-zikatah ha-ḥevratit [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984], 325). With respect to the Italian lands, see Horowitz, Elliott, “The Jews of Europe and the Moment of Death in Medieval and Modern Times,” Judaism 44, no. 3 (Summer 1995): 275–78Google Scholar, and eastern Europe, Fram, Y., “Bein 1096 le-1648–49—‘iyyun me-ḥadash,” Zion 61, no. 2 (1996): 179–80Google Scholar.
119. Turniansky, Glikl, 425 n. 315, specifically suggested that in the early modern period the term “martyr” was used for those who were murdered or killed in various disasters such as fires and plagues. This was certainly true in Cracow where in November 1664 a number of Jews were killed when a wooden house on the property of a Jew collapsed. The victims—the text only refers to them collectively—were said to have died “because of our sins,” that is the sins of the community, not their own. They were labeled kedoshim in the entry in the record book (pinkas) of the Cracow ḥevra kaddisha, where “may their deaths be an atonement for all of Israel” was added (P. H. Wettstein, “Toledot ’anshei shem be-Kra'ka,” Hamicpe, April 8, 1910, 7.15 edition, 6). Perhaps the prayer that the victims’ death be an atonement (i.e., a sacrifice; see B. Mo‘ed Katan 28a) justified declaring them “holy” (kedoshim). The situation may have been different in Frankfurt. Regarding the deaths in the fire that engulfed the Judengasse in 1711, see “The Frankfurt Memorbuch,” fols. 66r and 57r, the latter with Horovitz, Sefer ʾavnei zikkaron, no. 1588.
120. Gershon Ashkenazi, Sheʼelot u-teshuvot ʻavodat ha-Gershuni (Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wust, 1699), no. 106. Also see, See Fram, “Bein 1096 le-1648–49,” 179–80.
121. Horowitz, Responsa, no. 23.
122. Shulḥan ‘Arukh, ’Even ha-‘ezer, 17.26, regarding the identification of a body that had been in the water and had wounds, an issue, albeit not a source, specifically addressed by Horowitz.
123. Though in relating the evidence, Horowitz did write, “and the witnesses asked the wife of the martyr [ha-kadosh] whether she knew . . . , ” suggesting that Horowitz acknowledged Gumpert's martyrdom, the citation is in a mix of Hebrew and Yiddish and is part of a series of testimonies from the rabbinic court. Horowitz only began to introduce his own voice later in the text of this responsum. The quote cited above appears at a point of the writing when Horowitz, or his secretary, was still copying out material from the court records. A disconnect between Horowitz and Frankfurt Jewry is also suggested by the very last line in this responsum where Horowitz concluded, “therefore one should not prevent this woman from marrying [’ein le-‘agen] and the matter has already been permitted.” It would seem that Jews of Frankfurt had already decided the matter and Gumpert's wife had been treated as a widow before Horowitz put down—or perhaps even picked up!—his quill. Although Yachet May did not remarry until about 1794 (see Ettlinger, “’Eleh toldot,” 2.V.1823), by the end of December 1781, she had already requested her share of the estate before the rabbinic court (see Fram, A Window on Their World, no. 143). Horowitz's responsa were reprinted in a new edition in Jerusalem in 2008 (Machon Hamaor). A blurb on the frontispiece claims that the editors “corrected thousands of mistakes” and added new responsa in this printing. This may well be true. What they did not bother to tell readers is that they also left out material, including all the Yiddish testimonies found in this case (pages 78–79). Caveat utilitor!
124. Fram, A Window on Their World, nos. 143, 148, and compare, for example, with nos. 53, 74, 181. Note, however, that in the index to Gundersheim's diary, which may or may not have been prepared by Gundersheim, Gumpert was referred to as ha-kadosh in one instance (p. 530). On Gundersheim's background, see pp. 23–26.
125. August 22, 1781.
126. According to the Hebrew calendar, the year was 5541. The scribe would have had to either spell out “five thousand” or use a long string of Hebrew letters to show this number (Hebrew did not use Arabic numbers but rather letters in a form akin to Roman numerals). To save space, the scribe simply noted that the “small count” was being used, a message to readers to add 5,000 to the total sum. This remains the standard form to this day.
127. Prov. 13:12.
128. August 23.
129. 1 Kings 2:42.
130. August 24.
131. Num. 35:9–28.
132. August 30.
133. Houses in the Frankfurt Judengasse were named, much like the houses of the wealthy in England and many apartment buildings in New York.
134. Judg. 5:24.
135. There was some question regarding Frommet's age. There was no record of the date of her birth and in testimony, she and her mother disagreed about her age. Apparently, she also looked very young. See Kriegk, Deutsche Kulturbilder, 173.
136. A site on the western side of Frankfurt—within the city walls—where executions were sometimes carried out during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
137. December 23, 1782.
