Review of Mada Toratekha: Studying G emara in Broad-based Depth

Review of Mada Toratekha Rav Yehuda Zoldan: Studying in Broad-based Depth

ר’ יהודה ברנדס מדע תורתך מסכת ברכות, מכללת הרצוג, אלון שבות תשעט

The Following post is a short review on a new work from Rabbi Professor Yehuda Brandes on Berakhot. For another recent article of RabbiBrandes about Learning Gemara see this issue of Hakirah. For a sample chapter of this new work or to purchase this work email [email protected]

Over the years, a variety of different styles and approaches have been developed and applied by people who devote themselves to the study of Gemara in a serious manner. Popular genres include: iyun, pilpul, emphasis on the halakhic outcome, ethical and value-based insights, academic studies, linguistic content and literary structures, historical aspects and Talmudic realia, among others. Few individuals can successfully apply all – or even most – of the styles in their own learning, as it would require the ability to understand and master different approaches and “languages” of learning.

Most people who sit down to learn and teach Gemara look at each issue on its own, using the approach with which they are most comfortable. They comment and suggest novel approaches on one specific matter or another, noting an interesting ruling of Maimonides or of one of the other commentaries on the issue, and so forth. In the commentaries of the aharonim (later commentaries), even after analyzing a topic in the Gemara and delving into its many details, we almost never find the presentation of a broad perspective containing insights that reflect on our place in the contemporary world.

Rabbi Professor Yehuda Brandes, who serves today as head of Herzog College in Alon Shvut, is one of the few individuals who is conversant in the almost all of the abovementioned areas. He has succeeded in weaving all of this together in an impressive whole in his newly published book Mada Toratekha on Tractate Berakhot, the tractate that is currently being studied in the new daf yomi cycle. His background – at Yeshivat Netiv Meir and Yeshivat HaKotel – the academic track in the that he has pursued, his rich experience as a high school teacher and lecturer in academic settings and in his community, his experience with different types of learners of different ages, his personal skills including an impressive ability to analyze different “languages” in depth, and the broad perspective that he offers, create a new and unique mix that is manifest in the book. [A previous book in this series, on Tractate Ketubot, was published in 2007.]

There are 23 presentations in the book, each of which deals with topics appearing in Tractate Berakhot. Each one of the presentations contains material from the and from Midrash , together with the approaches of rishonim and aharonim (early and later commentaries), classic Yeshiva-style exegesis, references in footnotes to academic research, together with Hassidic and theological works that relate to the topic under discussion. All of this is presented succinctly, with grace and sensitivity, using modern language. The writing is both challenging and thought provoking.

One place where this broad sweep can be seen is in the list of books and articles that appears in the bibliographic section at the end of the book – something that you rarely find in traditional commentaries. Under “alef,” for example, we find Rabbi Moshe Alashkar, Professor Hanoch Albeck, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, Professor Yaakov Nahum Epstein, Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, and more – unusual neighbors to find sharing space on a bookshelf. This work represents a unique composite of different worlds.

Structural analysis and existential insights

Here is an example of one of the presentations in the book: “Praying with intent” (Chapter 13). The presentation opens with the well-known that appears at the beginning of the fifth chapter:

One may only stand and begin to pray from an approach of gravity and submission (koved rosh). There is a tradition that the early generations of pious men would wait one hour, in order to reach the solemn frame of mind appropriate for prayer, and then pray, so that they would focus their hearts toward their Father in Heaven. Standing in prayer is standing before God and, as such, even if the king greets him, he should not respond to him; and even if a snake is wrapped on his heel, he should not interrupt his prayer.

(b. Berakhot 30b)

Rav Brandes gets right to the point, noting that the Mishnah contains three distinct messages:

– One must pray from an approach of gravity and submission (koved rosh);

– Serious preparation for prayer is an indication of piety;

– It is forbidden to interrupt one’s prayers. This is emphasized by the Mishnah by presenting extreme situations, e.g., when greeted by a king or challenged by a snake.

These three messages touch on different points. Submissive prayer describes the behavior and mental state of the worshiper. Preparation and focus in prayer concentrates on the content, the interpretations of the words, and the very consciousness of standing before God. The prohibition against interrupting one’s prayers is a practical issue emphasizing the need to maintain continuity in prayer even in the face of imminent danger.

From here Rabbi Brandes moves to the Gemara’s discussion, analyzing the fourAmoraitic opinions offered, interpreting the concept of koved rosh. Although only one opinion will be accepted as law, Rabbi Brandes examines each of the four opinions – and the verses that they quote – deriving how we are to approach prayer, how we can connect awe and fear, joy and trembling. From here we are treated to a close reading of thebaraitot that are brought by the Gemara that parallel the structure of the Mishnah:

One may neither stand to pray from an atmosphere of sorrow nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should approach prayer from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva.

We continue with the flow of theGemara , as the author deals with such issues as how we can focus our hearts towards heaven in prayer, or how to train ourselves in “the art of restraint” by emulating RabbiAkiva who prayed privately in an enthusiastic manner, in contrast with his restrained prayer when praying in public.

In the context of prayer, theGemara brings a number of aggadic statements about Hannah, the prophet Shmuel’s mother, whose prayer (see 1 Sam. Chapter 2) serves as an archetype for Jewish prayer generally. These statements are analyzed and recorded under a series of headings, like: “Midrash Hannah – Characteristics of an eminent worshiper,” “Intoxicated prayer,” “The expanse of the worshiper.”

Having gathered the many sourcesappearing in the Gemara together with those that he introduced in his presentations, Rabbi Brandes sums them up with insights that are practical, yet existential, and applicable to the here and now. He writes: “Every individual, whether young or old, has his or her role in prayer. The Talmudic discussions, both halakhah and , can serve as a guide and a compass, directing us towards the study and experience needed for meaningful prayer. Still, the unique characteristics and personal meaning of prayer can only be attained through the efforts of the individual and the community in every generation. They must shape their experiences according to their own image and principles, based on the guidance of the prophets of Israel, its sages and its founders” (p. 217). In concluding his lesson on birkat hamazon (the Grace After Meals), Rabbi Brandes writes: “When reading the Shema and its blessings, the worshipper accepts the Yoke of Heaven‘ when you sit at home and when travelyou on the way,’ with eyes closed and focused intent, disengaged from the surrounding environment. When going to pray in the synagogue, one stands before God in the midst of one’s community. It is at the dinner table at home when we have the opportunity to bring Godliness into the very heart of the physical world.This is the responsibility of the Jewish people living in God’s land, enjoying the sweetness of its fruit and enjoying God’s presence (p. 243).

The lessons on other topics that appear in this book are treated in a similar fashion. These include, orf example: “Times of the evening recitation of theShema ,” “Women’s exemptions from the commandments ofShema, Tefillin and prayer,” “Sources of blessings and their significance,” “Bread,” “Points of difference between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel in regard to a meal,” “Dreams,” and more.

Calling for a New Approach

The format of the book is also unusual. There are two columns on each page, with a different font for the sources quoted from the Talmudic works and the commentaries, and with rich footnotes for reference. The book is written in a literary Hebrew and is well edited. This design is reminiscent of the layout in traditional commentaries on the Talmud, which often appear in two columns, albeitusually in “ script,” with no subheadings, no footnotes, no language editing and many abbreviations. One can assume that the choice of this format is meant to suggest that what is found in this book is “new wine in a venerable container.”

In his introduction to the book, RabbiBrandes notes the context in which these lectures were presented over the years: in the Himmelfarb school in Jerusalem, in Beit Morasha and in community lectures. Each group contributed their part, and the unique structure of theselessons drew from their participation. The variety of students and their different ages reinforces the argument that a high quality and challenging Gemara class speaks to everyone. The tempo may be different, the emphasis might change – there are bound to be other differences, as well – but if a broad and in- depth presentation is offered, everyone becomes a partner in thinking and suggesting solutions. The outcome will be fresh insights and understandings with no limitations based on age or place.

Many of the Talmudic tractates – and Berakhot is among them – have a myriad of recent commentaries on them that have been published. To that list of books on Tractate Berakhot we now have a new – and unique – addition. This work offers a new approach that can speak to contemporary students. We are a generation that collects everything that has been written throughout the ages. The challengetaken up by Rabbi Brandes is to gather all those styles of learning in a respectful and harmonious fashion, and to use them to build additional layers, in a manner that both inspires and challenges.

Four New Books

Four New books

By Eliezer Brodt

In this post I would like to briefly describe four new (well, newish) works. For a short time, copies of these works can be purchased through me for a special price. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. Contact me at [email protected] for more information.

תשובות ר’ יצחק בן שמואל מדמפייר, (ר”י הזקן), ההדירו והוסיפו. מבואות פנחס רוט ואברהם (רמי) ריינר, הוצאת מקיצי נרדמים, ירושלים תש”ף, לט עמודים+ 331 עמודים

The first volume which I am very happy to announce is the publication of an important and eagerly awaited work,The Responsa of the Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel of Dampierre (Ri HaZaken), A Critical Edition, edited with an introduction and notes by Avraham (Rami) Reiner & Pinchas Roth. This volume was printed by Mekitzei Nirdamim and is distributed by Magnes Press. The following is from the book’s abstract:

Isaac ben Samuel of Dampierre, often known as Ri ha-Zaken, was a leading figure in the Tosafist movement. The Tosafists were active in Northern France during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Their dialectical approach to interpretation of the Talmud and other classic rabbinic texts created a revolution in Jewish intellectual life. This volume gathers, for the first time, 140 responsa written by Isaac of Dampierre in response to questions of practical law and legal interpretation. Each responsum was edited according to the most accurate manuscripts, with a critical apparatus and extensive historical and textual notes. The introduction explores Isaac of Dampierre’s life and thought as they emerge from the responsa.

Here is the table of contents for this work:

יוסף פרץ, לשון ומסורה אסופת מאמרים, הוצאת מכללת אורות ישראל,. 570 עמודים

The second book which I would like to mention is by Yoseph Peretz, Language and Masorah. Peretz is one of the leading experts in the field of the Masorah and . This fascinating volume is a compilation of his articles, new and those published over many years, on a wide range of topics. If you’re interested in an in-depth introduction of the book e mail me at [email protected]

Here is the table of contents for this work that gives one an idea of what the work is about:

אהרן קסל, העולם המופלא של נוסח התורה, כרמל, 356 עמודים.

The third book which I would like to mention is the Wondrous story of the Text of the by Aharon Cassel.

The description of this book is as follows:

This book may aptly be subtitled: “Everything You Wanted to Know about the Text of the Torah But Were Afraid to Ask.” It deals mainly with the letter-text (consonantal text) of the Torah as it appears in Torah scrolls. The discussion centers around the variations between the texts in various sources, the methods of transmission of the text, and the mechanisms (like the Masorah) that are intended to guarantee the accuracy of the transmission. The book also touches on the subject of the closed and open ‘parshiyot’ in the Torah and the structure of the two songs in the Torah, the Song of the Sea and the Song of Moses (Haazinu). It also relates to the vocalization and cantillation notes in the text but not to the graphic form of the letters.

Topics dealt with in the book are: Who determined the text of the Torah that is accepted today? What are the differences between the various texts, both those we have today and those from generations ago? How was the Torah transmitted in biblical times? What happened to the text during the Babylonian exile and what was the enterprise of Ezra and the men of the Great Assembly? Who added the vocalization and cantillation notes to the letter text, and why? When did they start becoming strict about matres lectionis (the use of certain consonants to indicate a vowel in the word i.e. the spelling of the word being defective haser][ or plene [ma’le])? What is the Masorah? Why is the Aleppo Codex unique? What is special about the Yemenite text? What is the fascinating story of the Rema’s (Rabbi Moses Isserles) Torah scroll? What was Rabbi Mordechai Breuer’s amazing enterprise?

This book deals with these questions and many more, in an attempt to encompass the entire subject and to give the reader a taste of its many aspects. The book is intended for anyone interested in Judaism, Jewish history or the history of books; for readers with Jewish religious knowledge and for those who do not have such knowledge.

Here is the table of contents for this work:

אמנון בזק, נצחוני בני, שאלות יסוד בלימוד תורה שבעל פה, ידיעות. ספרים, 486 עמודים

The fourth work I would like to mention is from Amnon Bazak, titled Fundamental Questions in the Study of Oral Law. This very useful, clearly written book deals with key questions about: Torah She-Baal Peh, which parts were given at Sinai, how Drashot work – especially when they are contradict P’shuto Shel Mikra, Pshuto Shel Mishna and the editing of the Talmud.

Here is the table of contents for this work: New Notes Added in the Koren Talmud Bavli

New Notes Added in the Koren Talmud Bavli Shalom Z. Berger

I would like to thank Chaim Katz for his close reading of the Koren Talmud Bavli, focusing on the new notes that were added in Tractate Berakhot, which he shared in a recent post on the Seforim Blog. His post offers an opportunity to share some of the background to the changes in the new English edition as compared to the original Steinsaltz Talmud Hebrew edition.

Perhaps the most important thing to clarify is the thinking that went into the decision to produce a new translation of the Talmud in English. What has driven much of Rav Steinsaltz’ publishing is his belief that basic Jewish texts should not be confined to a specific group in the Jewish world. Jewish texts belong to all Jews, and all Jews should be given access to the wisdom of Jewish thinkers and writers. This was the idea behind the original Steinsaltz translation of the Talmud Bavli into modern Hebrew, and it is what led to the decision to develop an English translation that would be based on it. From the current chatter on social media, it appears that the combination of the availability of this English edition of the Talmud Bavli and the publicity given to Daf Yomi study following the recent Siyum HaShas has confirmed the wisdom of this undertaking.

When the team involved in the translation first gathered to discuss what changes – if any – would be made to the English edition, many possibilities were discussed. First and foremost, was the layout itself. It would have been impossible to fit a side-by-side translation next to the tzurat hadaf of the traditional Vilna Shas, yet there was a strong feeling that the tzurat hadaf was essential. Was an interlinear translation important – following the tradition of the Steinsaltz Hebrew (and competing English) translation – or were there other, perhaps even better, ways of presenting a translation that matched the original Aramaic text? Without going into details (perhaps that is for another Seforim blog post), the decision was made to create a volume that could serve as a pedagogic tool, with the original text facing an English translation that highlights the literal translation, while interspersing language that helped with transition and clarification. A separate section had the tzurat hadaf with full punctuation and vowelization for both Gemara and Rashi, and light punctuation for Tosafot. The idea was that someone with little background in Talmud study would start with the translation, following it to learn terminology and cadence, and work their way up to the “Hebrew” side of the Gemara while having the English translation as a reference.

Beyond the standard contents, the Hebrew Steinsaltz Gemara includes a number of additions that appear on virtually every page. The bottom of the page containsiyunim and halakha, while the side bars have girsa’ot, lashon and a number of different categories, e.g., hahayyim, ha’olam, ishim, etc. Another addition that is not nearly as obvious to the reader is the replacement of censored lines, like the addition of Berakhot 17b). I do not believe that the idea) כגון ישו הנוצרי behind these additions was to produce an “academic” edition of the Talmud, rather the point was to make the Talmud as accessible as possible – to introduce the personalities of the participants in the Talmudic discussions, to clarify the realia that often leaves the reader confused by means of maps, charts and images, to show how the discussions on the Talmud page lead to a conclusion in the codes, and so forth.

Many hours were spent deciding which of these to include and whether the English edition required changes or updates. For example, there was talk of adding contemporary responsa to the halakha category (a suggestion that was ultimately rejected). The final decision was to leave out girsa’ot, to update lashon with an advisory group of academic scholars, to review the iyunim, adding new ones or removing old ones as necessary, to update the “personalities” biographies and to combine most of the different additional categories into a single “background” category. Perhaps the most obvious changes apparent to anyone who opens the Koren Talmud Bavli are the image upgrades that appear throughout the different volumes. Far from the simple sketches that appear in the original, the new images are clear, full-color (in the standard edition) representations that make these volumes aesthetically appealing and offer greater clarification of the issue at hand.

When making changes in the notes, it was essential that the Talmud being produced in English remain the “Steinsaltz Gemara” in that the new material would reflect Rav Steinsaltz’ approach to teaching and learning. As such, it was necessary for someone familiar with Rav Steinsaltz’ somewhat eclectic approach to compiling notes in his Gemara to spearhead that effort. I had just finished a multi-year project reviewing Rav Steinslatz’ notes on the entire Shas, producing a daily essay based on his teachings (see here), and I was tasked with heading up the team that was to work on the English notes in the new edition.

Our assumption was that the audience for the new English Talmud would be less familiar with concepts and personalities appearing in the Gemara than Hebrew speakers, so we aimed to make sure that when new concepts or personalities appeared, they would receive a background or personality note.

The most obvious method of adding relevant material was to “borrow” from Rav Steinsaltz’ own work – from other tractates in the Hebrew Talmud Bavli, from his Reference Guide to the Talmud and from his other published works. To assist in this, a database was created of all the notes that appeared in the original Steinsaltz Hebrew Gemara, from which notes could be readily accessed and inserted, as appropriate. Beyond that, decisions would have to be made about where to insert new notes (or change existing ones), and research would need to be done to ensure the quality and consistency of those notes.

The new audience presented other challenges, as well. Translating holy texts is a weighty matter, indeed (see b. Megillah 3a). It is well-known that select quotes from the Talmud have been used as the basis for anti-Semitic screeds since medieval times.[1] Making the Talmud available in English exposes it to an impossibly broad populace, and we believed that it would be necessary to offer background explanations to sections that could be viewed in a negative or questionable light. Heated online discussions that included the Editor-in Chief, Rav Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, other members of the editorial team, and outside experts, led to the creation of new notes that were inserted in the volumes.

What kind of notes would be added? Here are some examples:

– Notes were inserted to offer explanations for Talmudic statements that cast Gentiles in a bad light. Here we repeatedly turned to the well-known Meiri, “who explains that the Sages in the Talmud were referring to pagans whose way of life was completely lacking in ethical or moral constraints, and who for many centuries cruelly persecuted and murdered the Jews. The Meiri claims that by his time in the thirteenth century, all of humanity had adopted the moral and ethical codes of the major monotheistic religions. Therefore, statements like the one in the mishna do not apply to contemporary gentiles.”[2]

– Another example is how to deal with statements in the Gemara that appear to present beliefs that are contradicted by modern science. The following note appears in Sanhedrin 91a:

Akhbar that today is half flesh and half earth: Post-talmudic sages, ranging from Maimonides to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, have asserted that Talmudic beliefs about the natural world were an outgrowth of the prevailing views of the wider society in Talmudic times. The Sages of the Talmud lived many centuries before the development of modern science and were influenced by contemporaneous scientific theories. Therefore, their notions of the natural world, some with halakhic implication, are at times inconsistent with modern science. In the case of the creature discussed here, the Sages may have heard reports of a creature of this kind, or may even themselves have observed a creature emerging from the earth that superficially appeared to be half-flesh and half-earth. It is apparent that some commentaries (Rashi, Meiri) hold that it is a product of spontaneous generation, a phenomenon that was universally accepted well in the nineteenth century but is rejected by modern science.

On the one hand, this type of note is typical of the Steinsaltz realia background notes that attempt to make the Gemara explicable to contemporary understanding. At the same time, it does depart from the usual approach by recognizing the fact that scientific beliefs appearing in the Talmud may be incorrect.

– We also added notes to explain passages in the Gemara that are hard to understand from the perspective of the natural world. As an example, the Gemara in Shevuot 23a quotes a Baraita that teaches: “A priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk and then entered the Temple and performed the sacrificial rites is liable for violating the prohibition against conducting the Temple service while intoxicated.” An existing Hebrew language Steinsaltz note suggests that the figs from Ke’ila may have caused intoxication because their high sugar levels could lead to fermentation that produced alcohol. No mention is made about how honey or milk might lead to intoxication. In this case, the new note was based on a suggestion made by Rav Menachem Kasher in his Torah Shelemah,[3] leading to the following: Milk can also ferment, and in some cultures it is common to drink fermented alcoholic milk beverages known as Kefir. In the Bible there are references to the intoxicating powers of milk (see Judges 4:19). Another possibility is that the word halav here, rather than denoting milk, is referring to white date wine. This usage appears a number of times in . The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 19:5) discusses halav in the context of teruma, which can consist only of produce. Similarly, the translates the word halav in the Song of Songs (5:1) as referring to white wine Torah( Shelema).

– As noted above, perhaps the most attractive additions were the enhanced images. Accompanying the above-mentioned note were new images of figs, together with a map of Israel showing the location of Ke’ila. On more than one occasion, I received a request from editors asking for suggestions of images that could be added to tractates that were lacking visual enhancements to the text.

Tractate Berakhot, which is what Chaim Katz focused on in his review, posed a problem of a different order. Simply put, Berakhot has a lot of words on each page.4 This led to a situation where the original Hebrew Steinsaltz, which limited to a single amud to a two page spread, had little room for explanatory notes, given that the text of the Gemara, Rashi and the Hebrew translation took up almost all the room on the page. This was especially true on pages of aggada, where the Gemara text took up even more room on the page, so that on pages where Rav Steinsaltz’ commentary would have been especially helpful, there was little to be found. The English translation pages did not have these limitations – indeed, English translation guaranteed that there would be quite a bit of “white space” – and it became necessary to add material that matched Rav Steinsaltz’ writings, which include Jewish philosophy, kabbalah and hassidut. Most of the new notes in the tractate have their roots in this perceived need.

As Chaim Katz writes, many of the new notes are from classical commentaries on the aggadic portions of Gemara. While it is correct that the vast majority of the original Hebrew notes in Berakhot are from classical sources, there are some contemporary scholars referred to in those notes (e.g., 28b, where Rav Isaac HaLevi Herzog is brought alongside Rav Sa’adia Ga’on and others in explaining why Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived that King Hezekiah was coming to escort him to the next world).

In consultation with Rav Steinsaltz – who was involved in several other projects and was unable to turn his attention to writing a new commentary on these sections of Berakhot – I suggested Rav Kook’s Ein Aya as an approach that would dovetail nicely with Rav Steinsaltz’ own writings and an ideal source for the kind of ideas that would enhance the study of the tractate, both on their own merits and by introducing an important thinker to the English reading public. Previously, the Ein Aya had changed my personal experience when I taught Berakhot, inasmuch as contemporary questions on aggadic portions of the Gemara that go undiscussed by the classic commentaries are given voice by Rav Kook. Studying this work, choosing which pieces would engage the contemporary English reader, and distilling them into concise prose for inclusion in the new volume, was a challenging labor of love. As Chaim Katz notes, the Ein Aya is considerably longer than standard commentaries. Furthermore, Rav Kook’s language is difficult and often obscure. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether I succeeded in capturing and conveying Rav Kook’s ideas accurately in the limited space available.

After almost 20 years of working on various Steinsaltz-related Talmud projects efforts, this is a fitting time for me to express my appreciation to Rav Adin Steinsaltz and to Rav Meni Even-Yisrael for having been given the opportunity to play a role in fulfilling Rav Steinsaltz’ vision of spreading Torah to as wide a spectrum of Jews as possible.

Rabbi Dr. Shalom Berger [email protected] served as Senior Content Editor for the Koren Talmud Bavli project. He is now involved in developing English language educational programming for Herzog College’s Tanakh department.

[1] Some readers may recall that there was a time not long ago when the only place one could find the Soncino translation of the Talmud online was on a notorious anti-Semitic website, which highlighted sections that were thought to “prove” a variety of accusations against “rabbinic” Jews. [2] This note appears in Avoda Zara 22a. Inserting the Meiri in cases like this has solid precedent, see b. Bava Kama 113a in the standard Vilna edition. [3] See Vol. 27 in the supplements (Miluim) pp. 273-274. Rav Kasher opens by expressing surprise that he has never seen this question raised elsewhere. [4] According to this calculation – https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/2672/what-is-the-l ongest-masechta – significantly more than any other tractate.

Cemeteries and Response to Criticism

Cemeteries and Response to Criticism

Marc B. Shapiro

In my last post here I said that when it is safe, I will go to Baghdad to visit the grave of the Ben Ish Hai. I cannot find a picture of the Ben Ish Hai’s grave online, but you can see it in R. Yaakov Moshe Hillel’s beautifully produced recent book, Ben Ish Hai, p. 337. However, this is from the old cemetery in Baghdad, and because of a government order the remains in this cemetery were moved in the early 1960s. So it remains to be seen if the grave can now be located.[1] R. Hillel, p. 336 n. 480, claims that the precise location cannot be identified.

כיום, לא ניתן לזהות את קבריהם, בשל תנאי אקלים קשים השוררים בבבל אשר גרמו להתפוררות המצבות, ומחוסר רישום מדוייק של חלקות .הקבורה

Yet until we can go in and actually examine the spot, we cannot be certain if this is the case. There have been other examples of graves thought to have been lost, which have then been found. The best-known example is the grave of R. Israel Salanter, which was only located twenty years ago.[2]

While there is no doubt that the Ben Ish Hai was buried in Baghdad, there is also a tombstone for him on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. According to a famous story, which is also told on the tombstone, the Ben Ish Hai’s body was not only magically transferred to Jerusalem on the day he died, but the grave- digger testified to burying him on the Mount of Olives and wanted payment for his labor.[3] I guess we can say that the Ben Ish Hai was buried three times: twice in Baghdad and once in Jerusalem.

It is hard to know whether the entire story of the burial in Jerusalem is a legend, or if there actually was a grave digger who figured out a way to make some money and invented the story to get paid for digging the grave. Assuming the latter is the case, the grave digger must have known his crowd, that not only would they be inclined to believe such a story, but that they would also not think of actually confirming the story by digging up the grave. Truth be told, it would have to be a very fearless grave digger to leave the grave empty, because one never knows if it will be opened, so it is possible that some unknown person is actually found beneath the tombstone. It is also possible that the grave digger did not have any bad intent, but just had a very vivid imagination. In any case, it is fascinating that such a tombstone exists in the most special Jewish cemetery, and even more incredible that there are people who actually believe that the Ben Ish Hai is buried there.

Supposedly, the Ben Ish Hai’s tombstone on the Mount of Olives is the only one that is standing upright, as all others are horizontal. (Maybe someone in Jerusalem can confirm this.) It is worth noting that R. Yitzhak Kaduri paid the grave in Jerusalem no mind, and even joked about it.[4] R. Shmuel Eliyahu has stated that while the Ben Ish Hai is buried in Baghdad, his spirit came to Jerusalem.[5]

Similar to the story with the Ben Ish Hai’s burial place, R. Abraham Joshua of Apt is buried in Medzhybizh, near the Baal Shem Tov’s grave, but there is a legend that angels carried his body to Tiberias, and there is a stone marking his grave there as well.[6]

This last summer I was in Marrakech, Morocco. In the local Jewish cemetery, R. Jacob Timsut is buried. Yet, “one month after the deceased rabbi was buried in Marrakech, a letter arrived from Jerusalem announcing the marvelous appearance of a tombstone with the name of Rabbi Ya’aqov Timsut in the well- known cemetery on the Mount of Olives.”[7] So once again, you can visit the tzaddik’s grave in its original spot or in Jerusalem.

Regarding tombstones even though the deceased is not buried there, I must call attention to the fascinating comments of R. Hayyim Nathan Dembitzer (1820-1892). R. Dembitzer was a dayan in Cracow and author of the responsa volume Torat Hen. Yet his claim to fame is his historical writings. As a real historian, he was prepared to accept the truth from where it came, and it is significant that in his work Mikhtevei Bikoret (Cracow, 1892), he included correspondence with Heinrich Graetz. Here is the title page and the first two pages of this book.

Look at how respectfully he refers to Graetz, which is the sort of thing that would have driven R. Samson Raphael Hirsch and R. Esriel Hildesheimer crazy. Dembitzer’s respectful scholarly interactions with Graetz, in which he did not let religious differences interfere, is parallel to how certain important rabbinic figures related respectfully to Louis G