What Became of Tychsen?: The Non-Jewish ‘Rabbi’ and his “Congregation” of Jewish Medical Students

By Dr. Edward Reichman, MD

This essay was inspired by two recent Seforim blog posts, one on Professor Shnayer Leiman’s contributions,[1] and the other on a topic related to R’ Yonasan Eybeshutz.[2]

In November 16, 2006 an article by Dr. Shnayer Leiman appeared in the newly formed Seforim Blog entitled, “Two Cases of Non-Jews with Rabbinic Ordination: One Real and One Imaginary.” The “real” ordination was bestowed upon Olaf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815). In 1759, Tychsen received the title of Haver, a lower form of rabbinic ordination, by Moses the son of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Lifshuetz. Tychsen is perhaps the only known case in Jewish history of a non-Jew receiving such an honor or degree.[3]

Leiman provides a biography of Tychsen. He pursued studies in Hindustani, Ethiopic and Arabic, as well as Hebrew and Yiddish and became an Orientalist of international renown making significant contributions to cuneiform studies and numismatics as well.[4] During his early years he also pursued various missionary activities in the Jewish community, largely unsuccessful by his own account. 

As Leiman notes, in 1752, while a student at the Christian Academy in Altona, Tychsen attended the lectures of R. Yonasan Eybeschutz. Leiman essentially leaves us at the point of Tychsen’s ordination, with brief mention of his subsequent academic career. What became of Tychsen’s “rabbinic” career after he received this singular distinction? Did he apply for a rabbinic position? Did he maintain any connection with the Jewish community? 

In fact, Tychsen did continue to maintain a strong connection to both rabbinic literature and the Jewish community in varying degrees throughout his life. He is perhaps best known for his involvement in the premature burial controversy, which would earn him a place of infamy in Jewish history. Tychsen taught at the university in Butzow, the residence of the Duke of Mecklenberg. During this period there was concern that physicians were misdiagnosing death, and as a result, people were being buried prematurely.[5] On February 19, 1772 Tychsen sent a letter to the Duke of Mecklenberg regarding the Jews’ burial practice, interring after waiting only three hours, where it is known that there can sometimes be misdiagnosis of death. Tychsen detailed the Jewish origins of hastening burial in general, reflecting familiarity with rabbinic literature. He claimed that the need to bury quickly was established in countries with hot climates, where the body would decompose quickly, not applicable to a country like Germany. He also reported cases of people who were supposedly buried alive.[6] On April 30, 1772, Duke Friedrich of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, in response to Tychsen’s letter, issued an order prohibiting the Jews in his realm from immediately burying their dead and requiring that they rather wait for three days after death before interment. This began what would become a worldwide halakhic debate about the halakhic definition of death and the time of burial.[7]

Tychsen was also peripherally involved with one of Jewish history’s greatest seforim collections. Rabbi David Oppenheim amassed an extraordinary collection of books and manuscripts which languished in storage for years after his death.[8] Tychsen visited the collection for three weeks, reporting on its manuscripts to the Italian Christian Hebraist Giovanni Bernardo De Rossi. He attempted to arouse the interest of potential buyers, including Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, Duke Karl Eugen of Wurtemberg, and Archduke Frederick Francis I of Mecklenberg. His efforts were to no avail and the collection ultimately found its home in Oxford, where it remains to this day.[9]

Here we highlight a little-known, though more substantive, connection of Tychsen with the Jewish community. One year after his ordination, toward the end of 1760, Tychsen was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages at the newly established University of Bützow in Mecklenburg. It is in this capacity that Tychsen exercised a rabbinic role, becoming a university campus rabbi of sorts for a select group of Jews at the university. Though he may not actually have had a “minyan” of students, nonetheless, his impact on this select group was profound and long lasting, akin to that of a rebbe.[10]

The interactions of Tychsen with the Jewish community must be viewed through a particular lens. Tychsen was a devout Lutheran Protestant and trained and engaged in proselytizing activities in his early life. This fact remains at least in the background of all his interactions with the Jewish students at Butzow and has been evaluated elsewhere. Whether his relationships with the Jewish medical students were primarily or partially motivated by his proselytizing tendencies, or whether his proselytizing endeavors had ceased by then, is a matter of historical speculation.[11] This is not the focus of the present essay.[12]

In his capacity as a faculty member of the University of Butzow Tychsen encountered a number of Jewish students attending the university’s medical school. Though an Orientalist and not a physician or scientist, he nonetheless served as a mentor for these students to whom he was drawn by shared interests and possibly proselytizing intentions. Tychen served this role for all the Jewish medical students who attended the University of Butzow during its twenty-nine years of existence. 

The first Jewish student of the Butzow Medical School, and the first with whom Tychsen developed a relationship was Markus Moses. This relationship has been the subject of a number of dedicated essays.[13] Markus Moses was the son of Moshe ben Meir Harif Lemberger (Lvov), Chief Rabbi of Pressburg and head of its yeshiva. Lemberger, as well as his son Markus, were apparently involved in the Emden- Eybeshutz controversy.[14] Markus (Mordechai) was born in Pressburg in 1729, received a traditional Jewish education, and married. Shortly thereafter, his wife and two young children died. In 1758, after the death of his father, Markus began the study of secular subjects. Over the next few years he traveled to Germany and continued study in various cities, including the field of medicine, ultimately ending up in Butzow in 1763. Aron Isak, the leader of the Jewish community, took him under his wing and orchestrated his admission to the recently founded Butzow Medical School,[15] thus waiving the high taxes imposed upon the Jewish community for new town visitors. The faculty were impressed with Moses’ great intelligence and facility with multiple languages and accepted him, with the approval of the Duke and Professor George Detharding, the head of the faculty, with free tuition. Below is a letter in Hebrew from Paul Theodore Carpov, an Orientalist and Christian Hebraist at Butzow, supporting Moses’ acceptance to the medical school at Butzow and advocating for his financial support as well.[16]

As per the letter, Moses brought with him impressive letters of recommendation not only from the great scholars of “his nation,” but also from those of “our nation.” Carpov also notes the Duke’s approval, as well as the financial issues relating to his application. Carpov was clearly taken by the young Jewish student. 

Below is the record of matriculation of Markus Moses in 1764.

Moses clearly had a predisposition for the field of medicine and was soon relied upon by Detharding to see the latter’s private patients.[17]

Tychsen had a working academic relationship with Moses as evidenced by the multiple research papers Moses wrote under his mentorship. It is remarkable that all of the papers were on Jewish topics. I have found a number of cases, though relatively few in number, of Jewish medical students throughout the centuries who wrote their medical school dissertations on a Jewish related topic,[18] but I have never encountered any student who authored so many Jewish related papers as part of their medical training. The topics included the Samaritan Bible, a discussion of the kosher and non-kosher animals based on the work of Rambam, and an essay on the diseases of the old as reflected in Kohelet (chapter 12).[19] Moses’ graduation dissertation, discussed below, was also on a Jewish topic and was supervised by Tychsen.

Disputatio de Pentateucho Ebraeo-Samaritano, 1765[20]

Essay on kosher and non-kosher animals based on Rambam.[21]

The nature of the relationship Tychsen had with Moses, as well as with other Jewish medical students in Butzow, went far beyond the usual Professor-student model. There wrote each other dozens of letters and continued correspondence for years after graduation.[22] In one letter dated March 16, 1765[23] Moses apologizes for not responding promptly to Tychsen’s previous letter. Moses continues that soon he will either write again, or will see Tychsen in person. Moses signs the letter, hamitavek biafar raglekha.

גבר(א) דכולי() בי החכ(ם) הכולל המפורס(ם) שמו נודע בכל השערי(ם) הפרעפעסאר טיקסן

מרוב טרדות היום אין אוכל לתואר בתואר כראוי לגבר(א) כמותו ובאתי בלישנא קלילא אל תשים עלי חטאת שעדיין לא השיבני על כתב ידו הטהור מה שקבלתי ע”י ערל הבוח(ן) לבות יודע שהזמן גרמ(ה) לי רק זאת יהי(ה) לבו בטוח שהשבוע הבע” (?הא עלינו לטובה) או אכתוב לו או בנשיקת פא”פ (פה אל פה) אדבר בו[24] גם יקבל במתנה צורה של ר’ יהונת(ן) זצ”ל יותר אין לחדש כה המתאבק בעפר רגליו מרדכי מפב (?מפרשברג)ג

In the last line, Moses writes that Tychsen will also receive from him a gift of a portrait of Rav Yehonatan zt”l. Moses was obviously aware of the connection between Tychsen and Eybeshutz and believed this would be a meaningful gift. Eybeshutz died in 1764,[25] and his portrait was disseminated shortly thereafter. This is likely the portrait Moses purchased for Tychsen.[26]

As part of the requirements for the completion of a doctorate in medicine at most German universities, the student was required to engage in a public disputation on the topic of their dissertation. [27] The topic of Markus’ disputation was the analysis of a verse in Yehezkel which, according to Moses, reflects an ancient Jewish practice of placing salt of the skin of an infant as a prophylactic against disease. 

Moses engages in an expansive philological and grammatical analysis of the verse then posits that the Jews practiced this procedure and that it protected them from diseases like smallpox. The reason smallpox was prevalent during his time, Moses argues, is because people no longer routinely applied salt to the skin of infants. Moses is the only one of the Jewish medical students at Butzow who wrote his dissertation on a Jewish topic. 

Moses’ disputation was held on January 22, 1766 (11 Shevat, 5526). The event was held in a church, though Tychsen apparently noted that it was primarily a venue for non-ecclesiastic events. This may have been in deference to the halakhic concern about entering a church.[28] A number of Jewish families attended the event. Copies of the dissertation were sent to those invited to the public discourse, and additional copies were provided for the audience on the day of the event. The ceremony began with a Latin oration by the presiding professor, in Moses’ case, Professor Detharding, and was followed by the student’s reading of his dissertation. Upon completion of the reading, designated opponents presented their arguments and criticisms against the substance of the dissertation, with audience members occasionally allowed to participate. This was then followed by the candidate’s rebuttal. Tychsen served as one of the designated opponents for Moses’ disputation. 

On oath was also part of the graduation ceremony, and it typically involved avowing one’s belief in Christianity. Tychsen intervened with the Duke of Mecklenberg on Moses’ behalf to allow him to take his graduation oath invoking the name of the God of Israel as opposed to the Christian deity. He even publicly conversed with Moses in Yiddish at the graduation.[29] 

Below is the approbation of Tychsen appended to the published dissertation of Moses.

Tychsen’s freely inserts throughout allusions to rabbinic literature. He also uses a chronogram for the Hebrew year, typically done in Hebrew publications, and something Tychsen used frequently, as seen in his letters below. 

At the end of the approbation, Tychsen mentions the upcoming (second) wedding of Moses. Below is the handwritten wedding invitation of Moses to Tychsen.[30]

Both the title and signature of the invitation reflect the type of relationship they had. Moses also adds the clever pun of “hazmanah lav milsa,” assuming that Tychsen will appreciate it. 

The other letters appended to Moses’ published dissertation are also of great interest. In addition to Tychsen, another opponent at the disputation contributed a letter. Karl Leopold Carpov,[31] son of the Orientalist and professor at Butzow, Paul Theodore Carpov, who had written Moses’ letter of recommendation for admission (above). The older Carpov had died the previous year. The younger Carpov describes how beloved Markus was to his father, who considered him as another son, and, impressed by his brilliance, spent days and nights studying with him. Karl himself calls Markus his brother. While many focus on Markus’s close relationship with Tychsen, no mention has been made of his relationship with the other Orientalist, Carpov. 

The remaining letters were written by Judah Levi Strelitz,[32] the brother in law of Moses, and Meier (no other name is written), a fellow medical student. 

Moses was not the only Jewish student Tychsen took under his wings. Over the span of decades, throughout the short existence of the Butzow medical school, he endeared himself to a number of Jewish medical students.[33] He taught them, mentored them, and even financially supported them. They in turn sought his personal advice and recommendations, aided him in his intellectual quests, and invited him to their weddings.

Two Jewish medical students who matriculated in 1783 were also close with Tychsen, Isaac Salomonsen and Wulf Levinson. 

Matriculation record from University of Butzow November 24, 1783
Wulf Levinson and Isaacus Salomonsen[34]

Below is Tychsen’s letter to Levinsohn upon his graduation.[35]

Tychsen includes that the Butzow anatomist August Schaarschmidt and Professor Detharding, who had accepted Markus Moses some twenty years earlier, attest to the student’s qualifications.[36]

Below is the letter of Isaac Salomonsen presenting his dissertation to Tychsen.[37]

Below is Tychsen’s letter of approbation for Salomonsen’s dissertation in 1784. He mentions Isaac’s work in botany, which is in some form a continuation of the work of another Butzow medical student Tzadik de Meza, who died at the age of twenty-three.[38]

In another letter,[39] Salomonsen complained bitterly to Tychsen about his classmate Levinson, who had apparently been slandering him. He adds that the great personalities in the history of medicine, Aesculapius, Hygea and Hippocrates would be mourning and turning over in their graves if they knew how Levinson was misrepresenting and dishonoring them and the University of Butzow.

In the letter below dated 1784 from Salomonsen to Tychsen[40] we find a number of the elements common in Tychsen’s relationship with all the Jewish medical students. 

Salomonsen mentions the money he owes Tychsen and explains and apologizes for the delay in repayment. Tychsen routinely loaned money to the Jewish students. Salomonsen then reports that he was unable to obtain the sefer (shu”t Rabbi Moshe Alshikh) and Arabic coins Tychsen had requested. Tychsen was an avid bibliophile and his magnificent and important library was ultimately bequeathed to the University of Rostock, which absorbed the University of Butzow after its demise. It remains there to this day. Tychsen also collected Arabic coins and is considered the founding father of Islamic numismatics.[41] Salomonsen also mentions his acquaintance with a man named Mussafia[42] and his children, and how he enjoys spending time with them. Mussafia praised Tychsen and recalled something he had written on Tychsen’s behalf. He also possessed a work of Tychsen. Tychsen delighted in his name and reputation being spread throughout the Jewish community.

In sum, “Rabbi” Tychsen appears to have put his rabbinic degree to good use, at least from his perspective, cultivating an extremely devoted, loyal, and admiring, not to mention highly educated congregation. On the surface, he would be the envy of any modern rabbi, though much complexity lies beneath. While we did not focus on his proselytizing endeavors in this essay, perhaps this is one reason why Tychsen still remains to this day the only non-Jew to have received a form of rabbinic ordination. While Tychsen’s contributions to academia are vast, his tenure at the University of Butzow and his relationship with the Jewish students there represents one of the most unique, if lesser known, chapters in Jewish medical history. With the opening of the Rostock digital archives treasure trove we will certainly see further exploration of this topic. 

Edward Reichman

שנת וַתֵּעָצַ֖ר הַמַּגֵּפָֽה לפ”ק  

[1] Yitzhak Berger and Chaim Milikowsky, “Shnayer Leiman: In Appreciation,” (September 11, 2020).

[2] Moshe Haberman, “The Twice-Told Tale of R. Yonasan Eybeshutz and the Porger,” (September 15, 2020).

[3] For additional information on the semicha of Tychsen, see On the Main Line Blog, “On Non-Jews with Rabbinic Ordination, Real and Imagined: Some Notes on Dr. Leiman’s Post on Tychsen,” (September 20, 2011), http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-non-jews-with-rabbinic-ordination.html.

[4] David Wilk, “Markus Moses’ Doctoral Dissertation or Who Remembers Butzow,” Koroth 9:3-4 (1986), 408-426, esp. 413.

[5] For an overview of this chapter in medical history, see Jan Bondeson, Buried Alive (Norton Publishers, 2001).

[6] For the text of the letter, see Siegfried Silberstein, “Mendelssohn und Mecklenburg,” Zeitschrift fur die geschichte der Juden Heft 4 (1930), 275-290, esp. 278-279. For reference to Tychsen as a key player in the issue of delayed burial, see for example, Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter’s doctoral dissertation, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works (Harvard University, 1988), 669, 723-724.

[7] For a comprehensive review of this historical chapter, see Moshe Samet, “Delaying Burial: The History of the Polemic on the Determination of the Time of Death,” (Hebrew) Asufot 3 (1989/1990), 613-665.

[8] For what follows see the comprehensive review of Oppenheim and his library by Joshua Teplitsky, Prince of the Press (Yale University Press: New Haven, 2019), 198.

[9] See Rebecca Abrams and Cesar Merchan-Hamann, eds., Jewish Treasures from Oxford Libraries (Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, 2020), and review of Paul Shaviv, Seforim Blog (July 14, 2020).

[10] The University of Butzow was an offshoot of the University of Rostock and later recombined with Rostock upon its demise. In addition, in 1817, Rostock University acquired the private library, including the manuscript legacy, of Tychsen, which included his significant Judaica and Hebraica collection. Over the last few years, the University of Rostock has devoted research efforts to explore the history of the Jewish students at the university with particular focus on their relationship with Tychsen. See Gisela Boeck und Hans-Uwe Lammel, eds., Jüdische kulturelle und religiöse Einflüsse auf die Stadt Rostock und ihre Universität (Jewish cultural and religious influences on the city of Rostock and its university) (Rostocker Studien zur Universitätsgeschichte, Band 28: Rostock 2014); Rafael Arnold, et. al., eds., Der Rostocker Gelehrte Oluf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815) und seine Internationalen Netzwerke (Wehrhahn Verlag, 2019). In the latter volume, see especially, Malgorzata Anna Maksymiak and Hans-Uwe Lammel, “Die Bützower Jüdischen Doctores Medicinae und der Orientalist O. G. Tychsen,” 115-133. I thank Malgorzata Maksymiak for her assistance and for providing me access to the Tychsen archives.

[11] See Wilk, op. cit. and Maksymiak, op. cit.

[12] Nimrod Zinger notes that the universities under Protestant auspices, in particular those affiliated with the Pietistic Movement, were more inclined to admit Jews, as they were interested in the possibility of converting them. He mentions as examples Yitzhak Isaac Wallich and his close relationship with Professor Hoffman at Halle, and that the student Avraham Hyman was admitted to Geissen with the intervention of the head of faculty, who was a Pietist. See his Ba’al Shem vihaRofeh (Haifa University, 2017), 263. Tychsen would certainly align with this theory.

[13] Bernhard Mandl, “Egy Magyar Zsido Orvos Nemet- Orszagban (1763-1782): Dr. Markus Moses, a Pozsonyi forabbi fia,” Evkőnyv Kiadja Az Izr. Magyar Irodalmi Tarsulat (1913), 145-165; Idem, Med. Dr. Markus Moses, Sohn der Pressburger Oberrabbiners R. Mosche Charif, praktischer Arzt in Deutschland von 1776 bis 1786: eine Lebensskizze (J. Pollak: Vienna, 1928); Wilk, op. cit.

[14] Die Juden und Judengemeinde Bratislava in Vergangen heit und Gegenwart (Brunn, 1932), 17-18, 85, cited in N. M. Gelber, “History of Jewish Physicians in Poland in the Eighteenth Century,” (Hebrew) in Y. Tirosh, ed., Shai LeYeshayahu: Sefer Yovel LeRav Yehoshua Wolfsberg (HaMercaz LeTarbut shel HaPoel HaMizrachi; Tel Aviv, 5716), 347-371, esp. 360.

[15] By this time, Jews were able to attend medical schools in Germany. Other German universities with Jewish graduates included Frankfurt on Oder, Duisberg, Halle, Geisen and Heidelberg. On the Jews in German medical schools, see Louis Lewin, “Die Judischen Studenten an der Universitat Frankfurt an der Oder,” Jahrbuch der Judisch Literarischen Gesellschaft 14 (1921), 217-238; Idem, “Die Judischen Studenten an der Universitat Frankfurt an der Oder,” Jahrbuch der Judisch Literarischen Gesellschaft 15 (1923), 59-96; Idem, “Die Judischen Studenten an der Universitat Frankfurt an der Oder,” Jahrbuch der Judisch Literarischen Gesellschaft 16 (1924), 43-87; Adolf Kober, “Rheinische Judendoktoren, Vornehmlich des 17 und 18 Jahrhunderts,” Festschrift zum 75 Jährigen Bestehen des Jüdisch-Theologischen Seminars Fraenckelscher Stiftung, Volume II, (Breslau: Verlag M. & H. Marcus, 1929), 173-236; Idem, “Judische Studenten und Doktoranden der Universitat Duisberg im 18 Jahrhundert,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Jahrg. 75 (N. F. 39), H. 3/4 (March/April 1931), 118-127; Monika Richarz, Der Eintritt der Juden in die akademischen Berufe: Judische Studenten Und Akademiker in Deutschland 1678-1848 (Schriftenreihe Wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen Des Leo Baeck: Tubingen, 1974); Wolfram Kaiser and Arina Volker, Judaica Medica des 18 und des Fruhen 19 Jahrhunderts in den Bestanden des Halleschen Universitatsarchivs (Wissenschaftliche Beitrage der Martin Luther Universitat Halle-Wittenberg: Halle, 1979); M. Komorowski, Bio-bibliographisches Verzeichnis jüdischer Doktoren im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (K. G. Saur Verlag: Munchen, 1991); Eberhard Wolff, “Between Jewish and Professional identity: Jewish Physicians in Early 19th Century Germany- The Case of Phoebus Philippson,” Jewish Studies 39 (5759), 23-34. John Efron, Medicine and the German Jews (Yale University Press: New Haven, 2001); Wolfram Kaiser, “L’Enseignement Medical et les Juifs a L’Universite de Halle au XVIII Siecle” in Gad Freudenthal and Samuel Kottek, Melanges d’Histoire de la Medicine Hebraique (Brill: Leiden, 2003), 347-370; ) Petra Schaffrodt, Heidelberg- Juden an der Universitat Heidelberg: Dokumente aus Sieben Jahrhunderten (Ruprecht Karls Universitat Heidelberg Universitatsbibliothek, August, 2012).

Below is a chart from Richarz of Jewish medical students in Germany at this time. The University of Butzow is not on this list.

[16] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn859752100/iview2/phys_0007.iview2.

[17] For the history of Moses prior to attending Butzow, see Mandl, op. cit., and Wilk, op. cit.

[18] E. Reichman, “The History of the Jewish Medical Student Dissertation: An Evolving Jewish Tradition,” in J. Karp and M. Schaikewitz, eds., Sacred Training: A Halakhic Guidebook for Medical Students and Residents (Ammud Press: New York, 2018), xvii- xxxvii.

[19] While the first two essays are housed in the Rostock Library, I have not found a copy of this essay.

[20] http://opac.lbs-rostock.gbv.de/DB=1/XMLPRS=N/PPN?PPN=720262623.

[21] http://opac.lbs-rostock.gbv.de/DB=1/XMLPRS=N/PPN?PPN=304865346.

[22] For the letters in the archive just between Markus Moses and Tychsen, see here.

[23] http://purl.uni-rostock.de/rosdok/ppn860182010/phys_0027.

[24] This is an expression of endearment. See another example of a letter to Tychsen, from a Yehoshua Lifshutz of Apta, where the same expressions, peh el peh acronym and nishikat pihu, are used. http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn859752100/iview2/phys_0019.iview2.

[25] While we have no record of R. Eybeshutz himself communicating with Tychsen at the University of Butzow Medical School, he did send a letter to the faculty of medicine at another German medical school, the University of Halle. This letter related to the famous “heartless” chicken question initially posed to Hakham Tzvi. For more on this letter, its record in the Halle University archives, and its impact on the Emden Eybeschutz controversy, see E. Reichman, “A Letter from a Torah Sage of the 18th Century to the Medical Faculty of the University of Halle (January, 1763): The Selective Deference of Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz to Medical Expertise,”Verapo Yerapei: Journal of Torah and Medicine of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Synagogue 6 (2015), 89-112.

[26] National Library of Israel, NLI 997003186660405171. See also Richard I. Cohen, “’And Your Eyes Shall See Your Teachers’: The Rabbi as Icon,” (Hebrew) Zion (1993), 407-452, esp. 418. The artist is Elimelech Polta ben Shimshon. I have as yet been unable to identify this physician. His name is not found among the Jewish medical students in German universities mentioned above.

[27] T. Broman, The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 1750-1820 (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 32ff.

[28] See Maksymiak, op. cit.

[29] See Wilk, op.cit., 417.

[30] http://purl.uni-rostock.de/rosdok/ppn859752100/phys_0081.

[31] Carpov trained at the University of Rostock before the formation of the University of Butzow. See his matriculation record, here.

[32] Strelitz, also known as Levin Hirsch Levi, lived in Altstrelitz and authored a treatise on resurrection (http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/resolve/id/rosdok_document_0000014475) which was translated into German by Tychsen under the title,”Die Auferstehung der Todten aus dem Gesetze Mosis Bewiesen,” (1766) (http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/resolve/id/rosdok_document_0000014215). Strelitz later became rabbi of Birnbaum, and then the first rabbi of Stockholm and Chief Rabbi of Sweden. The Jewish community of Stockholm had been founded only a few years before his arrival by Aron Isak, the sponsor of Markus Moses, Levi’s brother-in-law, and the shadchan for Moses and Levi’s sister. See Wilk, 419-420.

[33] Markus Moses (1764), Israel Joseph Meyer (1765), Justus Zadig de Meza, Isaac Heinrich Salomonsen (1783),Wolff Levinsohn (1783), Abraham Levin Spira (? Benjamin Levin, 1773), Simon Marcus (1771) and Moses Marcus(1785, son of Markus Moses). All of them-with one exception-received their doctorate in medicine in the twenty-nine years of existence of the University of Bützow.See Maksymiak,op.cit., which also addresses the emotional aspect of the ties of Tychsen with his students.

[34] http://dfg-viewer.de/show?set%5bmets%5d=http%3A%2F%2Frosdok.uni-rostock.de%2Ffile%2Frosdok_document_0000000177%2Frosdok_derivate_0000004407%2Fmatrikel1760ws-1788ws-Buetzow.mets.xml&set%5bimage%5d=54. Note that word “Judeus” appears after both of their names. It was common to identify students as Jews in university archives. For example, starting in the 1500s, Jewish students at the University of Padua were identified as“Hebrei.” There does not appear to have been any anti-Semitic associations with this identifier.

[35] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn835297578/iview2/phys_0168.iview2. For Levinsohn’s dissertation, see http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/resolve/id/rosdok_document_0000016729?_search=23e52c72-2882-421d-bfd5-16b218d11ae3&_hit=0. The letter was not published with the dissertation.

[36] Tychsen appears to make disparaging remarks against the work Shevilei Emunah, by Meir Aldabi. This work,written in the fourteenth century, was a primary reference on medicine in rabbinic literature for many centuries.

[37] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn835297578/iview2/phys_0166.iview2.

[38] The Rostock archives contains a number of letters between Tychsen and de Meza.

[39] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn835297578/iview2/phys_0176.iview2.

[40] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn835297578/iview2/phys_0180.iview2.

[41] Rafael Arnold, et. al., eds., Der Rostocker Gelehrte  Oluf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815) und seine Internationalen Netzwerke (Wehrhahn Verlag, 2019); Ursula Kampmann, Maike Mebmann, trans., “Oluf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815), https://coinsweekly.com/oluf-gerhard-tychsen-1734-1815/(July 18, 2019).

[42] This was perhaps a relative of Binyamin Mussafia, a famous graduate of the University of Padua in 1625, and author of Musaf HaArukh, a commentary of the Sefer HaArukh.

 Identity of the Unknown Tomb.
Who is buried in the unmarked grave next to the Vilna Gaon?

Ariel Fuss & Yoel Kabalkin

Prologue

Among the seven graves in the Ohel of the Vilna Gaon (R’ Eliyahu M’vilna) there is one without an identifying headstone. The sign above the entrance to the Ohel identifies this grave as the resting place for the ashes of the Ger Tzedek of Vilna, Avraham ben Avraham Potocki[1] This identification is accepted without questioning by many books and articles written about the Gaon when the origins of this theory and its veracity are suspect. This article will investigate how this theory came about and the issues with it and will then put forth a new theory as to who the occupant of this grave is.

Introduction

The Vilna Gaon was originally buried in the old cemetery in Shnipishok located in the northern part of Vilna in 1797 (תקנ”ח). Probably sometime in 1949/1950 the soviet government gave notice to the community that they intended to level the cemetery. The Jewish community received permission to move a few graves and chose to move the Vilna Gaon and a few others to the new cemetery in Vilna.[2] Due to Vilna being behind the iron curtain and information being hard to come by, the exact details of this transfer, who was taken, by whom, and to which cemetery was not known. There were conflicting reports about who was moved together with the Gaon until Prof Shnayer Leiman in an article in Jewish Action proved that most of the speculation was for naught.[3] Since most of the graves had been moved along with their headstones, all one needed to do was read them. The Gaon lay among 6 other graves in the newest cemetery in Vilna and contrary to all the different theories on who was worthy of being moved, there was no effort to traverse the cemetery and take other important people that had been buried there. It turns out that those that transferred the Gaon had just taken a part of the row he was buried on and moved everyone together. They clearly wanted to move the Vilna Gaon given his enormous profile and while doing so moved his neighbors. The identities of the graves in order from left to right are,

1. R Zvi Hersh Pesseles

2. R Yissachar Ber – The Gaon’s brother

3. Vilna Gaon – Prof Leiman wrote a convincing article on the Seforim Blog[4] that the headstone is backwards and this is the Gaon’s true grave.

4. R Noach (Mindes) Lipshutz – The Gaon’s Mechutan. He shares a headstone with his predecessor.

5. Minda Lipshutz – R Noach’s wife

6. Devora Pesseles – Tzi Hersh’s mother

7. Unknown/Ger Tzedek

Thanks to Prof Leiman we now know the identity of six of the graves, but we are still left with 3 unanswered questions.

1. Who is in the 7th grave?

2. Why is there no identifying headstone?

3. Why was R Zvi Hersh’s grave moved to a different location within the group?

Theory

There are many articles and books that mention the Ger Tzedek being buried in the Ohel. As early as 1956 a report in Ha-tzofe discussing moving the Vilna Gaon to Israel mentions that the Ger Tzedek was moved and is buried alongside the Gaon.[5] A 1983 report in the newspaper Davar about the Gaon’s Ohel asserts the same.[6]

This identification is now common knowledge to the extent that tour guides will tell you so and it even states as much on the sign outside the Ohel. There are two reasons for why people have assumed that the community moved the Ger Tzedek.[7] One being that he was an integral component of Vilna’s history and therefore it stands to reason that they would have moved him.[8] Secondly and possibly the main reason for why the theory has such staying power is the lack of a headstone. Since every other grave in the Ohel has a headstone the only reason the last one would not have one is because it lacked one to begin with. The sign outside the Ohel should not be used as proof positive of this identification because it is a late addition and on the same sign it also states that the Gaon is buried with his family which we know to be false. Although this theory is possible, there are many issues with it. Some of these issues are as follows:

1. Those very same articles which propound this theory are riddled with other factual errors. For example, in the the Ha-zofe article they include R’ Shmuel ben Avigdor; the Gaon’s father; and son R Avrohom, among those that were moved. Just a quick glance at the headstones in the present day Ohel will tell you that this claim is false. This error occurred because as we have stated previously, accurate information from inside the iron curtain was hard to come by. Surprisingly, although we know today that these reports were false, the inclusion of the Ger Tzedek persists.

2. Since Prof Leiman has shown that those who moved the graves just transferred those that were in the Ohel, it seems odd that they would specifically take the Ger Tzedek and not for example, R’ Moshe Rivkes (the Beer Hagolah), or R Avraham Danzig (the Chayei Adam), and many other important figures that were buried in the same cemetery and warranted preservation too.[9]

3. There are accounts that contradict this theory. Dr Henry Shoshkes, a renowned Jewish writer and traveling reporter for “Der Tag Morgen Journal”, traveled to Vilna in 1956. While there he went to visit the new kever of the Vilna Gaon. He describes being told by the secretary of the community, one Leib Sarapej,[10] who claimed to have been involved in moving the bodies, that there was nothing of the Ger Tzedek to move. This was because what was buried of him originally was only the ashes of his body and it had dissipated over time.[11] R Yitzchak Zilber who visited Vilna while still behind the iron curtain, spoke with the lay leader of the community at the time of the transfer, a man called Heshel Kab, who was involved in the transfer of the Gaon. He stated that while they searched for the Ger Tzedek’s grave, they could not find his ashes and therefor did not move him.[12]

These issues lead us to question this theory and to try to come up with a better explanation, especially as there doesn’t seem to be a strong basis to this belief to begin with. 

In order to offer up a novel theory we must deal with a greater question first. When looking at the map of the cemetery in Israel Klausner’s book on the Vilna cemetery[13] you will notice that there were 11 people buried in the main sanctuary of the original Ohel, starting from number 20, and ending at 27 (there are 3 joint tombstones). Their identities are detailed in Klausner’s list below:

Out of the said 11 people buried in the original Ohel we know of 6 people who are now interred in the new Ohel. In Bold and in Green I have highlighted which gravestones are today in the new Ohel.

So, once we know who was buried in the same Ohel, several questions immediately come to mind: Why did they move only these six graves and not the other ones from the same Ohel?

Why did they only start from R Zvi Hersh (22) and stop after R Yissachar Ber (26) and leave out R Yehoshua Heshel (27)? Why not move the Gaon’s father (20)? Why not move the YESOD (21), a very central and known figure in Vilna history? To answer these questions, we need to examine the original Ohel a bit closer. In the picture of the Ohel that appears in Klausner’s book we can see that there is a space between the Yesod and his wife (jointly number 21), and R Tzvi Hersh (22).

Why is there an empty wall between the Yesod and R Zvi Hirsch?

If we look at the picture below, taken at a different (probably earlier) time, one can see that in this area instead of a wall there is a shape of a door!

It is possible that when they made the main entrance to the Ohel on the opposite side, this door was closed. In any event, this gap can explain why the first four graves were not moved; they only took those that were to the right of the door![14] Now that we addressed the first half of our question, we are left with the second: If they took the entire row starting by the door why did they stop by R Yissachar Ber (26) and not take also R Yehoshua Heshel (27)? The evidence points us to the simplest conclusion, that in fact they did transfer him although without his headstone! In other words, of the 11 graves in the Ohel there were 4 to the left of the door and 7 to the right and they moved the entire batch from the door to the wall to the new cemetery, and thus unsurprisingly there are exactly seven graves in the new Ohel of the Gaon.

Thus, I am proposing that the additional grave with no headstone in the Gaon’s Ohel today is not the Ger Tzedek and is not the Chayeh Adam, but Simply Reb Yehoshua Heshel who was originally in the Gaon’s proximity.

This possibility has been generally ignored until now[15] for 2 reasons,

1.Since there were a few others in the Ohel that were not transferred it never struck people as odd why Reb Yehoshua Heshel was not either. However, since we’ve established an explanation for why the other 4 were not moved, it behooves us to find an explanation for why he wasn’t included.

2. The fact that there was no headstone led people to associate the grave with someone who would not have had a headstone to begin with, namely the Ger Tzedek.

Looking at Klausner’s description of Reb Yehoshua Heshel’s tombstone leads us to a possible solution to this second issue. His description is as follows: “the tombstone on the grave of the rav is made of wood and is preserved nicely”;[16] he even provides a picture of it on the next page. This fact, that the tombstone was made of wood as opposed to stone like the others in the Ohel, gives us a possible explanation for why it was not moved along with his body. It is possible that the wood was harder to move or that it possibly broke in the process.

In conclusion, the identification of the 7th grave with the Ger Tzedek doesn’t have much historical basis and is flawed for a few reasons, therefore we offer a new theory. The identity is none other than R Yehoshua Heshel who was buried in the original Ohel together with the rest of the row. This is the most plausible explanation which until now was ignored due to there not being a headstone, and not having an explanation for why these specific 7 graves were chosen as opposed to the others. We showed that a door was added to the Ohel and those that were involved in the transfer moved everyone from the right of the door until the end of the row including R Yehoshua Heshel. The reason his headstone was not moved was because it was made of material that was not conducive to transfer and possibly might have broken along the way.

B.

Essentially, we are left with one remaining question – Why was Rabbi Zvi Hersh moved from the extreme right to the extreme left in the order of the graves?

To propose an answer to this question, we need to go on a long detour. As previously mentioned, in 1956, Dr. Henry Shoshkes, visited the Soviet Union and Vilna, and then reported about his travels in the Tag, a Yiddish newspaper in New York. This was one of the first documented visits to the Jewish cemetery in Vilna after the transfer of the Gaon’s grave and is indirectly the source of many of the rumors surrounding the Vilna Gaon’s grave. In one of the articles describing his visit to the grave there is also a picture of the grave and a better one is published in Dr. Shoshkes’s book[17] – מהקרמלין עד הפרמידות. What is unique about the picture is that it is one of only two pictures that I know of, of the Gaon’s grave after it was transferred but before a new Ohel was erected.[18]

One can see several tombstones one next to the other but clearly there is no tombstone to the right of the Gaon’s headstone. Shoshkes writes that this grave without a headstone is the grave of the Chaye Adam – Rav Avraham Danzig. I believe otherwise.

I am assuming that this picture is taken facing south, with the headstones positioned at the head of the graves.[19] In other words, the headstones are arranged as they were on the outside wall of the Ohel in the old cemetery, but in the opposite direction compared to their current setup in the new Ohel. If we consider the old Ohel’s arrangement, the gravestone that should be to the right of the Gaon is the tombstone of his brother Rav Yissachar Ber. This of course raises the question – Why is it not there?

Let us return to Klausner’s picture and accompanying numbers. We observe that the numbers are in sequential order from left to right but one number is missing – number 26. That number corresponds to R. Yissachar Ber the Gaon’s brother. It is quite peculiar – why is the Gaon’s brother not listed beneath the picture?

For that we must go back to the wider picture of the old Ohel.

And then zoom in on the right upper corner of the Ohel:

What is that sign? We can see and understand it better by looking at an illustration made of the Gaon’s old Ohel. It is not exact but gives a very good idea.

In this illustration we can observe that beneath the plaque in the upper right corner there is a gravestone. By counting the number of gravestones to the right of the door, we reach an undeniable conclusion: there are two separate headstones, that to the right of the Gaon’s gravestone, positioned one on top of the other. The one adjacent to the Gaon corresponds to Klausner’s number 27, which is R. Yehoshua Heshel. On top of that, in the right upper corner, we find the headstone of Reb Yissachar Ber, that Gaon’s brother [26].

To fully comprehend this, we must recall the sequence of events. Initially, R. Yehoshua Heshel passed away, followed by the Gaon, much later. A few months after the Gaon’s burial, his Mechutan, Reb Noach Mindes, passed away and was interned to the left of the Gaon, sharing a joint gravestone. Several years later, when the Gaon’s brother died, there was a desire to bury him next to his brother, resulting in him being “squeezed” in between the Gaon and R. Yehoshua Heshel. Evidently there was sufficient space to accommodate the body, but during placement of the headstones on the outside of the Ohel, there was insufficient space. Consequently, R. Yissachar Ber’s headstone was positioned on top of R Yehoshua Heshel’s headstone.

Therefore, the key point of this story is that although R. Yissachar Ber was buried right next to the Gaon in the old Ohel, the headstone closest to the Gaon on the right side belonged to R Yehoshua Heshel. Based on this observation, I would propose that since, as mentioned, R. Yehoshua Heshel’s wooden headstone was never transferred, those responsible for arranging the headstones in the new cemetery left the grave next to the Gaon without a headstone, aligning it with their understanding of the headstones arrangement in the old Ohel.

We have one final question regarding Shoshkes’s picture: On the left side of the Gaon’s headstone, we can observe two additional headstones. The inscriptions are illegible, but judging by the size and shape of the gravestones, it would be reasonable to assume that the first one belongs to Mindel [24], the wife of Reb Noach. However, the issue lies with the second one. It should be Devorah’s grave [23], but it appears more similar to the gravestone of her son, Reb Zvi Hersch [22]. Why is Devorah’s gravestone missing?

If we examine the gravestones inside the Ohel, it becomes evident that Devorah’s gravestone is significantly taller than the others. It is possible that it was too challenging to set up without the support of an Ohel wall. Indeed, if we observe the current picture of Devorah’s gravestone inside the Ohel, it is clearly seen to be broken into two parts.

Now, let us consider the thesis proposed. I suggest that during the construction of the new Ohel, they reconnected the broken parts of Devorah’s headstone and returned her to her original position in the line-up. However, due to the need to relocate Reb Zvi Hersch, he was placed next to Reb Yissachar Ber instead of being positioned beside his mother, Devorah, where he rightfully belongs.[20]

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the order of the bodies has never been altered, and they are positioned precisely as they were in the old Ohel. However, there seems to have been a mix-up in arranging the headstones. Below, I present a summary outlining my understanding of the arrangement of the bodies in relation to the current placement of the headstones:

In a forthcoming article, I will delve into an in-depth analysis and present fresh evidence and explanations regarding the numerous rumors surrounding the relocation of the Gaon. I will explore questions such as who was responsible for moving him, the timing of the transfers, the frequency of the relocations, the fate of those involved in the process, and the condition of the Gaon’s body.