1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0  

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 A second, more interesting branch of the Weil clan began with Marum (S1), later to be designated “Tochtermännlin” (son-in-law), who came to Stühlingen in 1631 [R2066] (he reminisced in 1656 about having come to this area twenty-five years earlier). His relationship to other members of the extended Weil clan is not documented, but his given name Marum suggests a family relationship. He married the orphaned daughter of the late Sannel Bloch (C1) around 1636 or 1637 [R1742]. The designation “Tochtermännlin” illustrates another difficulty arising from our methodology. The moniker “Marum Tochtermännlin” was originally translated mistakenly as “the son-in-law of Marum,” when it should have been interpreted as “Marum the son-in-law”; this misinterpretation was only discovered at a later stage of the analysis. Sannel had died in 1629 [R1654], and his widow carried on his business [R2578] with the occasional assistance of family members [R2671], employees [R3076], and eventually of her son-in-law [R1742] (that is, Marum). By 1640 Sannel’s widow had largely ceased business. It appears that Marum essentially had taken over. Marum was under protection from 1634 until his death in 1662. He was a successful businessman, engaging in the full spectrum of Jewish trade, although he only ranked fourteenth in overall business activity. Sannel seemed to have had other children [R605], but they left no further traces.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Marum Tochtermännlin would have coincided with the “famous Maharam Weil of Stühlingen” chronologically, but he had nothing to do with the construction of the synagogue. He did not appear to have been learned enough to aid the courts in resolving complex family law issues and did not serve in a prominent role for the Jewish community. He had two sons, Schmulin (S1.1) and Sandel (S1.2), but no Naftali Hirsch, Eisik, or Elieser Lipmann.12 He did, in fact, have a grandson, the rich Marum Weil (S1.2.1), Sandel’s son. But this grandson could not have been born in 1687, for he is mentioned already in 1683 [R1110]. It is possible, however, that Marum Dicker (the fat one) Weyl (W.1.3), was born in 1687; but he was the son of Samuel Weyl (W1) of Donaueschingen. Marum Tochtermännlin died in 1662, so he must have been alive in 1661, old enough to be the one who was fined for beating Calmeli (G1.2.2)[R3855]. But according to Kaufmann, who quotes Kayserling, the famous Jewish bibliophile who had died 1659 in Stühlingen, and whose impoverished widow had to sell his valuable book collection, was supposedly the famous Maharam Weil.13 Obviously, Marum Tochtermännlin would not have fit the bill. These comments may seem a bit too caustic, but such an attribution argues against the existence of a Stühlingen Maharam Weyl matching Netanel Weyl’s grandfather as he is described in the biography of Karlsruhe’s chief rabbi.14

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0  

12Ibid., 5.

13Kaufmann, “Zur Geschichte der Familie Dreyfuss,” 425; Kayserling, “Richelieu, Buxdorf et Jacob Roman,” 77.

14Löwenstein, Nathanael Weil, 1 – 37

Page 102

Source: https://www.stuehlingen.online/Book/?page_id=1899

Skip to toolbar