Rare: Edut Hashem Ne'emanah - Hebron Controversy, 1862. Not Listed Bibliographically

Rare: Edut Hashem Ne'emanah - Hebron Controversy, 1862. Not Listed Bibliographically

Sharp controversy in the Hebron community - dispute about the city's kollel funds, with a profound description of the difficult condition of Hebron's Jews, and many details about the relationship between the communities in Jerusalem and in Hebron.

In 1854, the people of Hebron decided to appoint philanthropist R' Yosef Shalom of Baghdad to manage the city's Kollels due to their having fallen into deep debt. The situation did not improve, so city rabbis began demanding reports of income and expenses from Rabbi Yosef Shalom. When there was no response, they turned to Jerusalem's rabbis for assistance. The latter demanded a detailed report, but this demand was also not heeded. Given that he was a British citizen, Rabbi Yosef Shalom turned to the consul for help. However, those who worked against him also turned to the British with proof that he lied and that he was not a British citizen. During this episode, Rabbi Raphael Yisrael Elyakim and Rabbi Moshe Kimchi, who were active in this affair, were imprisoned and freed after three months, after many efforts.

R' Yosef Shalom, the Ben Ish Chai's cousin, was excommunicated by the rabbis, Ashkenazim and Sephardim alike. He authored Edut B'Yehosef in which he placed blame on his opponents. A response to his claims was published in Kuntress Shever Posh'im authored by Rabbi Yehudah Papo.

Bibliographically unknown publication signed by the leaders of the Hebron community who sided with R' Yosef Shalom, written very sharply and signed by 24 members of the Hebron community, including by members of the renowned Kastel, Kargal and Turjeman families.

Even the known publications from this affair are rare. For more about these events, refer to A. Ben Ya'akov, Yehudei Bavel B'Eretz Yisrael, pp. 24-25, Sefer Chevron 1970 pp. 145-147. Sh. HaLevi, HaSefarim HaIvri'im SheNidpesu BiYerushalayim, 62.

Precise details of this dispute are not sufficiently clear, and there are several versions of it. This publication will presumably shed important light on the affair.

More material enclosed.

[3] pp, 29 cm.

Moderate-fine condition. Aging stains. Tears along the folds and the margins, without lack in the text.