Jewish Philanthropy and Enlightenment in Late-Tsarist Russia

Introduction

introduction O n January 29, 1906, with Russia still reeling from the revolution of the year before, the Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment among the Jews of Russia, known by its Russian acronym OPE (Obshchestvo dlia rasprostraneniia prosveshcheniia mezhdu evreiami v Rossii), held a meeting in St. Petersburg to discuss whether Yiddish should be recognized as one of the OPE’s official languages. For four decades the society had extended subsidies for materials published in Russian and Hebrew, categorically denying the same for Yiddish. In recent years, however , a number of young leaders had insisted that Yiddish be considered an official language of the society. The debate quickly became raucous, insults were thrown about, and tempers flared. Dr. I. Tuvim, a wellrespected expert on Hebrew, struck the face of Shaul Ginzburg, the editor of the Yiddish daily, Der Fraynd.1 The acting head of the OPE and the last Jewish official of the Ministry of Justice, Jacob Halpern, stopped the meeting , demanding that the assembly deliberate on a punishment for Dr. Tuvim. The supporters of Yiddish had to wait. At the next meeting on March 30, 1906, the assembly once again took up the proposal and passed it, thereby acknowledging Yiddish as a legitimate language of Russia’s Jews. The passions provoked by this incident stand in stark contrast to the OPE featured in encyclopedias and the history books, where it is portrayed as an effete organization of assimilating Russian Jews, cut off from the vital essence of Russian-Jewish life.2 Moreover, the vote signaled the relevance 3 of the organization, since the OPE’s decision to recognize Yiddish preceded the Chernowitz Language Conference by two years.3 The change of atmosphere reflected the influence of the liberal activists who had turned in favor of nationalism and become increasingly powerful in the OPE. The conflict between Hebrew and Yiddish, which at first glance might seem like a symbol of the rivalry between Zionism and Bundist radicalism, is actually something else completely. Although a Yiddishist, Shaul Ginzburg was not a political radical. Instead he stood in favor of a moderate nationalism and the promotion of an autonomous Jewish culture that 4 Introduction St. Petersburg Choral Synagogue. Photograph by William Brumfield. valorized Yiddish, the “native” language of the Jewish masses. Although Dr. Tuvim, a Hebraist, supported Zionism, he was more closely aligned with the conservative flank whose members considered Hebrew a sign of cultivation and intellectual superiority. Their personal collision therefore points less to a major ideological conflict than to a narrow language conflict—the choice between Hebrew and Yiddish. In fact, both men shared a common ideological space between liberalism and nationalism, between the ideal of full assimilation in Russian society as a solution for Russia’s Jews and that of absolute Jewish separatism. The two ideologies, liberalism and nationalism, are usually considered incompatible. Liberalism in a Jewish context in the middle of the nineteenth century was associated with integration and cosmopolitanism and was considered to have universal appeal. Liberalism spoke of Jews “merging, melding , uniting, acculturating, and integrating” with their environment.4 Nationalism, which emerged among Jews at the end of the nineteenth century , led to a politics of national separatism.5 By the end of the nineteenth century, the OPE had veered toward the latter, although, paradoxically, its programs often fused elements of liberalism and nationalism. The penetration of Jewish nationalism in the OPE did not eclipse the presence of liberalism. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to decide where liberalism ended and nationalism began. At the OPE elementary school in St. Petersburg, one professed goal was to train students in handicrafts in order to help them integrate into Russian society. At the same time, the school’s director, Leon Bramson, demanded that nearly half the hours of instruction be devoted to Jewish subjects, including the study of Hebrew. Even the Zionists in Odessa praised the curriculum, calling those who opposed it “assimilators.” In addition, OPE leaders in St. Petersburg envisioned training modern rabbis who would be fully acculturated to Russian life as well as capable of directing autonomous Jewish cultural institutions. Not only was the general orientation of the society characterized by this admixture, but there were also contradictory elements in the attitudes of the members themselves. Influential leaders such as Mikhail Kulisher, Leon Bramson, and Maxim Vinaver desired to strengthen Jewish ideals and simultaneously foster integration. Some individuals changed their attitudes in...