The Emergence of a Jewish Nationalist Consciousness in Europe during the 1860s and 1870s

Author(s): Yosef Salmon

Source: AJS Review, Vol. 16, No. 1/2 (Spring - Autumn, 1991), pp. 107-132
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486988
Accessed: 20/10/2010 07:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE EMERGENCE OF
A JEWISH NATIONALIST CONSCIOUSNESS
IN EUROPE
DURING THE 1860s AND 1870s

by
YOSEF SALMON

A discussion of the emergence of a modern Jewish collective conscious-

ness in Eastern Europe does not require us to address the question of the
beginnings of a movement, which also has an organizational aspect. The
phenomenon under discussion-at least in its initial stages-was not orga-
nized; there were no membership cards, bylaws, or party conferences. It is
my contention, however, that the emergence of a Jewish nationalist move-
ment was connected to, and dependent upon, the prior emergence of a col-
lective consciousness. Thus, on the one hand, our discussion is not based
upon the phenomenological definition of nationalism, which is not a simple
matter, while, on the other hand, we view the institutionalized nationalist
movement as a consequence of a process of consciousness-building. Mine is
a syncretic approach, the advantage of which is that it does not observe a
historical process from an intellectual or theoretical point of reference for-
eign to the process.
It should be noted that the Jewish collective consciousness, as it devel-
oped in the second half of the nineteenth century in the circles we will
AJS Review 16 (1991): 107-132 107
 108 YOSEF SALMON

discuss, was not monolithic. Its values, expressions, and institutions were
pluralistic from the very beginning. Rabbi Zevi Hirsch Kalischer and Rabbi
Judah Alkalai did not have the same views, and both differed from David
Gordon, who, in turn, differed from Moses Hess. These four men were
active by the 1860s. Those who followed in the next decade, such as Perez
Smolenskin, Judah Leib Gordon, and Moses Leib Lilienblum, differed in
outlook from their predecessors and from one another. Nonetheless, despite
the great diversity of opinions and positions, there was a common denomi-
nator that united all of them in a single process that was channeled into the
Jewish nationalist movement as it took shape in the last two decades of the
nineteenth century.
The Jewish collective consciousness in Eastern Europe, however, was
not necessarily of local origin. It evolved, primarily, among Eastern Euro-
pean Jews who had been exposed to the Jewish culture of Western Europe
and had become aware of the problems of Jewish identity under the condi-
tions existing there.
Regarding periodization, The time before 1881 is divided into two
periods: 1830-1856, and 1856-1880. During the first period, a new collec-
tive consciousness took shape through the Haskalah movement, and not
merely to provide a solution for real problems, as Weinryb argues.' It came
about partly because Jewish ethnicity was being examined in the light of col-
lapsing traditional Jewish attitudes, and also because of romantic tendencies
and the emergence of new literary genres in Hebrew and Yiddish that exert-
ed a cumulative influence upon their readers.
This article will concentrate on the second period (1856-1880), during
which a militant nationalist platform evolved in Eastern Europe in reaction
to the assimilatory trends in Western and Central Europe. The historical cir-
cumstances of this era-the unification of Italy; Napoleon III's policy of
supporting downtrodden national minorities; the Jews finding themselves
caught in the middle in the Polish revolt of 1863; pressure and persecution in
Romania, starting in the mid-1860s; the rise of international Jewish organi-
zations in France, Austria, and England; the Odessa pogrom of 1871; the

This article is based on a lecture delivered at a seminar on Jewish nationalism sponsored by

the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem (November 1981).
1. D. Weinryb, "Yesodot ha-Ziyonut ve-Toldoteha" [The foundations and history of
Zionism], Tarbiz 8 (1937): 69-112.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 109

dissemination of anti-Jewish literature by apostates and Slavophiles; the

Russian-Turkish War of 1877; the rise of a new anti-Semitism in Western
Europe at the end of the 1870s-all served as the background for the conso-
lidation of a militant nationalist platform among the Jews of Eastern
Europe.

Two Types of Maskilim

A distinction should be made between two opposing types of modern

Jewish collective consciousness. Utilizing the term maskil, which refers to a
Jew who adopted-wholly or in part-modern values and thought processes
as opposed to traditional Jewish attitudes, we may denominate these two
categories as observant maskil and secular maskil. The first category
included rabbis like Kalischer, Mordecai Eliasberg, Mordecai-Gimpel
Jaffe, Samuel Mohilewer, and Joseph Zevi Hirsch Duenner, and the writers
Yehiel Michael Pines and Jehiel Brill. These men were moderately modern
in outlook, within a traditional framework. Even in a formal geographic
sense they lived in Western and Eastern Europe at one and the same time,
due to the frequent changes in Poland's boundaries in the period from the
partitions through the Congress of Vienna. In terms of Jewish culture, those
who lived in Germany were remnants of the traditional Ashkenazic Jewry of
the eighteenth centruy and the beginning of the nineteenth. In Western
Europe this Jewry became a conspicuous minority as early as the middle of
the nineteenth century, while in Eastern Europe it succeeded in maintaining
its majority position until the end of the century. The above-mentioned
individuals publicized their ideas in pamphlets and books, and in the
Hebrew press, chiefly Ha-Maggid and Ha-Levanon.
The second group included radical secular maskilim who took a
nationalist-maskil position: Moses Leib Lilienblum, Perez Smolenskin,
Judah Leib Gordon, Judah Leib Levin, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, and others.
They expressed themselves in the Hebrew press (Ha-Melitz, Ha-Shahar,
Ha-Zefirah) and in the Russian and Yiddish Jewish press. An intermediate
position between these poles was occupied by David Gordon, the acting
editor of Ha-Maggid, Samuel Joseph Fuenn, the editor of Ha-Karmel in
Vilna, and Joseph Kohen-Zedek, the editor of Ha-Mevaser in Galicia. All
of these groups were able to find common ground in the Hibbat Zion move-
ment. Their main literary activity on the subject of Jewish nationalism took
110 YOSEF SALMON

place during the 1870s and 1880s. We shall follow the development of the
collective consciousness among these groups chronologically.

Periodical Literatureas a Medium

The second half of the 1850s and the first half of the 1860s were marked
by the development of public political consciousness in all of Europe and
especially in Eastern Europe. The accession of Alexander II in Russia
aroused high hopes among both Jews and non-Jews. The end of the Cri-
mean War and the signing of the Paris peace treaty (March 30, 1856),
together with the Ottoman government's publication of reforms regarding
minorities within the empire (Hatt-i Humayun, February 18, 1856), made
emigration to Eretz Israel seem possible and feasible.
It was during this period that the press became a medium that
not only provided information but shaped public opinion. The rise of the
Hebrew press was part and parcel of this development. The first of the
Hebrew newspapers was Ha-Maggid in Lyck. Ostensibly it was meant to
provide its readers with information about what was happening in the wide
world; in practice, it constituted a forum for the discussion-and
creation-of Jewish political aspirations and the crystallization of Jewish
public opinion. The use of Hebrew was justified on the grounds that it is
the "main bond which joins all the dispersed of Israel together." The editor,
Eliezer Lipmann Silbermann, was apparently unaware of the quasi-
nationalist significance of this policy.
When David Gordon was appointed as deputy editor in 1858, he added a
new section to the paper, "Ha-Zofeh le-ha-Maggid," devoted to Jewish
scholarship. This might seem to have been a neutral area as far as collective
aspirations were concerned, but the renewed interest in this field was
motivated by a romantic desire to return to the past. Indeed, the establish-
ment of the Makizei Nirdamim ("Awakeners of the Sleepers") Society by
Silbermann in 1862 was a direct consequence of Gordon's venture. As
Silbermann wrote in his announcement of the society's founding: "In this
periodical [i.e., Ha-Maggid] I went forth for the honor of the holy tongue,
to revive and uplift it, for the glory and benefit of our brethren, the children
of Israel, living with us here. And now I desire to do something as well for
the honor of the Torah and wisdom specifically, and to act kindly with the
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 111

dead, to revive them"2 The preoccupation with Jewish scholarship had

romantic rather than apologetic motives. For Lithuanian Jews, living in a
small Prussian town near the Russian border, this in itself is not surprising;
however, their paper was directed to a public who had for many years been
struggling against the Reform movement, which sought to eliminate
Hebrew, not only as an everyday language, but even as the language of
ritual.
This was also the time when the Hebrew novel was born. Abraham
Mapu's Ahavat Zion ("Love of Zion") appeared in 1853, and in 1857, the
first part of Ayit Zavu'a ("The Hypocrite"). From 1858 to 1861 Ha-Maggid
had been conducting an intense discussion on the revival of Hebrew as a liv-
ing, everyday language. In the course of this discussion, quasi-nationalistic
interpretations were given to Mapu's writings, and it was argued that the
revival of Hebrew as a literary language would strengthen romantic popular
sentiment: "which tens of thousands of Jews have enjoyed from generation
to generation, for they found the delights of 'days of yore,' the language of
the people, in it."' Thus the Haskalah and the nationalist movement were
linked by the fact that maskil authors, aided by the patrons of the Has-
kalah in Russia (Yusel and Horace Guenzburg, M. Weinstein of Kiev, Leon
Rosenthal of St. Petersburg),4were writing literary works that had quasi-
nationalist implications of which their benefactors were ignorant.

The Society for the Colonization of Palestine

The Society for the Colonization of Palestine (Colonisations-Verein fuer

Palaestina) was founded by Chaim Luria (Lorje) in Frankfurt on Oder in
1860, and that same year the Alliance Israelite Universelle was founded in
Paris. Luria's exact motives are unknown, but they were unquestionably
connected to developments in Western Europe, possibly including the
failure of the Revolution of 1848. The organization he founded had impor-

2. Ha-Maggid, 1861, no. 36, p. 225.

3. Y. Barzilai, "Ha-Maggid ve-Reshit ha-Tenu'a ha-Le'umit" [Ha-Maggid and the begin-
nings of the nationalist movement], Bitzaron 37 (1948): 84; he read into Mapu's statement more
than was there, apparently under the influence of J. Klausner.
4. See A. Mapu, "Zikaron Todah" [A memorial of thanks], Ashmat Shomeron [The guilt of
Samaria], in Kol Kitvei A. Mapu [Collected writings of A. Mapu] (Tel Aviv, 1951), p. 71.
112 YOSEFSALMON

tant repercussionsin EasternEuropebecauseRabbisKalischerand Natan

Friedlandused it as a vehiclefor propagatingtheir ideas. Luria'sinitiative
had the limited goal of making the Jews then living in Eretz Israel self-
sufficient.From the press reactionsto his proposals,however,one might
think that the society was a political movementaiming to colonize Eretz
IsraelwithJews.Any suchprojectwasrejectedon principleby thejournalof
GermanOrthodoxy,Der Israelit,and on practicalgroundsby Ha-Maggid,5
althougha year later its editorialboard reversedits position.6
RabbiKalischer'sideasprecededthe establishmentof the Colonisations-
Verein fuer Palaestina or the Alliance Israel1iteUniverselle. As
early as the 1830she had formulatedan interpretationof messianismthat
combinedhumaninitiativewith miraculousredemption,as is clearfrom his
letterto Rothschildin 1836.The Colonisations-Verein fuer Palaestinapub-
lished Kalischer'sDerishatZiyyon("For the Sake of Zion"), which suited
and even exceeded the thinking of the society's founders.7The passages
from DerishatZiyyon cited by Moses Hess, and the fact that the society
adopted Derishat Ziyyon and Rome and Jerusalem as its ideological plat-
form, indicatethe natureof the essays and the Colonisations-Verein.The
purposewas also clearlystatedby RabbiJudahAlkalai:"Theingatheringof
the exiles in a single companyin the land, one peoplein the belovedland."
At the same time, however,the supportgiven the Colonisations-Verein by
people like Akiva Lehren,the head of the Pekidimand Amarkalimof the
Holy Landin Amsterdam,shows that its modern,nationalistcharacterwas
not clearto everyone.At any rate, from the publicationof DerishatZiyyon
in 1862until his death in 1875Kalischerdevotedhimselfto the dissemina-
tion of his ideas, whichwereset forth in two editionsof the book, dozensof
essays in the Hebrewpress (mainly in Ha-Levanonand Ha-Maggid),and
hundredsof lettersto virtuallyeveryprominentcontemporaryJew. In light
of this it is naturalto ask how the public reactedto his ideas.

5. Der Israelit, year 1 (1860), no. 16, pp. 194-195; Ha-Maggid, 1860, no. 33, pp. 129-130.
In our opinion, Kressel erred in his evaluation that the response of Ha-Maggid was stronger
than that of Der Israelit. See G. Kressel, "Ha-Hevrah ha-Rishonah la-Yishuv Eretz Yisrael"
[The first society for the settlement of Eretz Israel], Zion 7 (1942): p. 199.
6. Ha-Maggid, 1861, no. 36, p. 226.
7. See ibid.; see also Kressel, "Ha-Hevrah ha-Rishonah," p. 201; Y. Salmon, "Masoret
u-Moderniyut ba-Mahahshavah ha-Tziyonit Datit be-Reshitah" [Tradition and modernity in
the beginnings of Religious Zionist thought], in Ideologiyah u-Mediniyut Tziyonit [Zionist
ideology and policy], ed. B. Z. Yehoshua and A. Kedar (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 21-37.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 113

Several important rabbinical authorities-among them Rabbi Jacob

Mecklenburg,the rabbiof Koenigsberg,RabbiSimhah,the headof the rab-
binical court of Lubraniec,and Rabbi Elijah Guttmacherof Grodzisk
Wielkopolskis-gave writs of approval(haskamot)to DerishatZiyyonbut
did not accept Kalischer'snationalistideas. Similarly,at least some of the
supportersof the Colonisations-Verein fuer Palaestinawereconcernedonly
with the society'sminimalistprogramof settlingJewsalreadyin EretzIsrael
in agriculturalcolonies and thereforecan hardlybe considerednationalists.
Rabbi GuttmacherfluctuatedbetweenKalischer'sviewsand the traditional
positionbut had the samereservationas AzrielHildesheimerand otherGer-
man rabbis-the fear that EretzIsrael might be resettledby nonobservant
Jews.
At that time two programsconnectedwith EretzIsraelwere competing
for the supportof traditionalJewsin Westernand CentralEurope.The first
was the Batei Mahase("Shelters")Society, foundedin 1858and headedby
RabbisMichaelSachs,AzrielHildesheimer,Jacob Ettlinger,and IsaacDov
Bamberger,all of whom were leadersof traditionalJewry in Centraland
WesternEurope. The other was the Hevrat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (as the
Society for the Colonizationof Palestinewas called in Hebrew).The Batei
Mahase receivedgeneral support, unlike the HevratYishuv EretzYisrael,
becauseit was neutralon the nationalquestion.ModerateOrthodoxysup-
ported the Batei Mahasebut not the HevratYishuv EretzYisrael. Radical
Orthodoxy,in contrast,supportedneithersociety. LudwigPhilippson,the
editor of the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums,and other moderate mem-
bers of the Reform movement were potential supporters of the Batei
MahaseSociety but not of the HevratYishuvEretzYisrael;radicalreform-
ers like AbrahamGeiger rejectedboth.
In EasternEuropethe Hevrat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael was supportedby
Samuel Joseph Fuenn of Vilna, Rabbi David Freidmanof Karlin, Israel
JoshuaTrunkof Kutno, and Rabbi IsaacElhananSpektorof Kovno. They
were not Jewish nationalists in the modern sense. At most, they were
backingwhat they saw as a constructiveenterpriseon behalfof the Jews in
EretzIsrael.Theirsenseof pan-Jewishresponsibilityis beyonddoubt, but it
was totally devoid of anythingresemblingthe modernnationalistideology.
Althoughthese samemen werelateractivein the HibbatZion movement,of

8. Ha-Maggid, 1862, no. 32, pp. 250-251.

114 YOSEFSALMON

which Fuenn was one of the pillars, it is debatable whether, even at that later
stage, they possessed a religious-nationalist outlook comparable to that of
Rabbis Kalischer, Mohilewer, and Reines. At any rate, it is clear that during
this period Ha-Karmel, Fuenn's periodical, reflected a typically maskil
approach, meaning that it was focused inward, concentrating solely upon
improving the way of life and educational level of Russian Jewry.
It should be noted that the later Eastern European Orthodox opposition
to pan-Jewish initiatives with a modern, nationalist coloration was already
evident in the 1860s, mainly on the part of German Orthodoxy and the
Jewish leadership in Eretz Israel. Such opposition found expression in Der
Israelit, Ha-Maggid, and Ha-Levanon, and its slogan was the verse "Unless
the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it" (Ps. 127:1)-in
other words, the restoration of Eretz Israel should be by an act of God;
human initiative constituted a rebellion against the divine will. A generation
would have to pass, however, before these reservations were translated into
operative measures: in Galicia and in Hungary by the first half of the 1890s,
in Russia and Poland only at the end of that decade.

David Gordonand Ha-Maggid

It was Ha-Maggid, the most widely distributed Hebrew newspaper of

the time, which gave momentum to the nationalist ideas, and the person
who formulated them was David Gordon. In this article we will not analyze
Gordon's ideology.9 Gordon lived on the border of Western and Eastern
Europe; he had had a general education, and could read Russian, English,
and German. He was thus both equipped and located to observe the whole
Jewish world. An eclectic, he absorbed the different trends and combined
them, integrating the ideas of Hess and Kalischer in his arguments. He was
also aware of political and millenarian Christian statements favoring the
return of the Jews to Eretz Israel, such as that of Ernest Laharanne.
Gordon was an Eastern European Jew with a traditional education who
was exposed to Western trends, both Jewish and general. He believed that

9. See Y. Salmon, "David Gordon ve-Iton Ha-Maggid: Hilufei Emdot la-Le'umiyut ha-
Yehudit 1860-1882" [David Gordon and the Ha-Maggid newspaper: His changing positions
toward Jewish nationalism, 1860-1882], Zion 47 (1982): 145-164.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 115

the nationalist drive to build a Jewish state in Eretz Israel was the only pos-
sible means of unifying the Jewish world's many different streams into a
comprehensive, functioning unit. It would also reconcile what he called "the
righteous and the enlightened." On the intellectual plane as well, Gordon
integrated the traditional Jewish way of life (albeit with a willingness to
introduce social reforms in the spirit of the Haskalah) with aspirations for
political modernization. In his words, "The Jewish mission is to proceed
forward on the political issues and in the knowledge necessary for man qua
man, but to be on guard ... in everything pertaining to our holy religion."
He defined himself as an intermediary between Reform and Orthodoxy, a
definition that would also apply to Moses Hess and Joseph Natonek, and to
some degree to Rabbi Kalischer. In Gordon's view, the traditionalists were
sealing themselves off from the outside world, while the reformers were
abandoning all that was distinctive in the Jewish experience; thus each
group was endangering the Jewish aspiration "to be a unique nation on
earth, as in ancient times and days of yore." Gordon did not negate the
emancipation, but he was convinced that its achievements were a "tem-
porary success" limited to specific countries.'0
On the one hand, Gordon's thinking took on this pessimistic cast when
the Jews were caught in the crossfire in the Polish revolt of 1863.1 On the
other hand, he was borne along by an optimistic confidence that France
would assist in the building of the Jewish state in Eretz Israel, a confidence
inspired by the pamphlet published by Ernest Laharanne in 1860.12

Ha-Mevaser in Galicia

The Galician Ha-Mevaser was a Hebrew newspaper similar to Ha-

Maggid. It too stood between traditional circles and the radical Haskalah.
In its first issues Hebrew served merely as a vehicle for disseminating
modernism; later on, however, the romantic attitude toward Hebrew was
conspicuous, in an attempt to restore the language's pristine splendor.
Hebrew was the "heritage of our forefathers," a remnant of earthly Jewish

10. According to Gordon. See Ha-Maggid, 1863, no. 14, p. 106.

11. See his essay "Hegyonei ha-Maggid" [The thoughts of Ha-Maggid], Ha-Maggid, 1863,
nos. 12, 13.
12. E. Laharanne, La nouvelle question d'Orient (Paris, 1860).
116 YOSEFSALMON

nationalism.'3 The romantic approach was also apparent in the prominence

the paper gave to news items regarding Jewish communities in remote places
and in its interest in the geography of Eretz Israel. The synthesis of Torah
and modernism, of the observance of the commandments and the nurturing
of national pride, was expressed in Ha-Mevaser's masthead motto: "To
strengthen religion and exalt the Torah, to glorify the honor of the Jewish
nation to the greatest extent possible, to make the holy tongue beloved by its
readers." Ha-Mevaser, unlike Ha-Maggid, was not pessimistic about
emancipation. It evaluated the outbreaks in Germany as having been
brought about by "the remnants of our enemies." Ha-Mevaser can also be
categorized as a conservative maskil journal, however, for its interest in such
values as the revival of Hebrew, Wissenschaft des Judentums, and Eretz
Israel placed it on the border of national romanticism. Ha-Mevaser's posi-
tion on the settlement of Eretz Israel was minimalist, and the paper mainly
focused on aid to Jews already living there. The social ascent of Western
European Jewry, as exemplified by outstanding families like the Rothschilds
and the Camondos and by individuals like Montefiore and Cremieux, and
the establishment of organizations like the Alliance Israelite Universelle,
made a strong impression upon Ha-Mevaser. It saw these achievements as
signs of the success of the emancipation, in the sense of international recog-
nition that "Israel will be considered as one of the nations." This recognition
was not, however, to be translated into concrete nationalist activity in the
historical homeland.'4

Ha-Karmel in Viennaand Ha-Melitz in Odessa

What echoes did the mood of national awakening in Prussia and Galicia
produce in the Hebrew press in Russia? Ha-Karmel in Vilna, published and
edited by Samuel Joseph Fuenn, did not support the Hevrat Yishuv Eretz
Israel at all, but was entirely devoted to the encouragement of moderniza-
tion and productivization. The Hevrat Marbei ha-Haskalah ("Society of the
Increasers of Enlightenment"), founded in Odessa in 1862, completely occu-
pied Fuenn, and satisfied his aspirations. Animated by the same optimism

13. Ha-Mevaser, 1861, no. 9, p. 65.

14. Ibid., 1864, no. 5, pp. 33, 36; 1866, no. 13, pp. 97, 99; 1864, no. 33, p. 34.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 117

as Ha-Karmel, Ha-Melitz, which appeared in Odessa from 1861 on,

espousedthe view that the Jews of Russia would attain completecivil inte-
gration without having to give up their tradition,messianicbelief,or iden-
tity as a religiousgroup. Strainsof the mission of Israel idea, which was
morecharacteristicof WesternEuropeanJewry,wereechoedin the pagesof
Ha-Melitz in such formulationsas "to proclaimthe name of God in the
world" and "so that all inhabitantsof the land will learn how to rule the
passions of the flesh." On the other hand, Ha-Melitz championed the
developmentof Jewish national pride and, in the name of Israel'sdivine
mission, was totally opposed to assimilation. The two journals treated
Hebrewsolely as an educationaltool. On suchmatterstherewas a largegap
betweenHa-Melitzand Ha-Maggid.Ha-Melitzhad no position on practi-
cal questionsor on the nationalistprogramswhichfound theirexpressionin
Ha-Maggid.Regardingsuch issuesit madedo with reportsof the opposing
views and did not itself take a stand.

Ha-Levanonin Mainz

Most of the readersof Ha-Levanon,whichwas publishedin Jerusalemin

1863-64 and afterwardsmoved to Paris and Mainz, were concentratedin
EasternEurope. During its Jerusalemperiod, Ha-Levanongave extensive
coverage to the local Ashkenazic community'sreaction to the ideas of
Kalischerand the HevratYishuv EretzIsrael.Headedby RabbiMeirAuer-
bach, Jerusalem'sEasternEuropeancommunityrejectedthe proposalson
practicalgrounds and also because of the principlethat condemnedany
humaneffort to bringaboutthe redemption.In time, however,the editorial
board was so impressedby the activitiesin Europeon behalfof agricultural
colonization that it promisedto publicizethe activitiesof Hevrat Yishuv
EretzIsrael, and even supportedthe settlementin Moza, a villagejust out-
side Jerusalem.Ha-Levanonwas similarlyimpressedby the interestChris-
tians weretakingin the returnof the Jewsto EretzIsrael:"Thisvisionshows
us the fingerof God, hintingto the peopleof the Lordthat its salvationshall
not tarry;the days aredrawingnearwhenit shallbe said to Zion: 'Arise!'"'5
Ha-Levanonalso providedKalischerwith a platformfrom which he could

15. Ha-Levanon, 1863, no. 7, p. 44 n.

118 YOSEFSALMON

confront traditional Eastern European Jewry. Hevrat Yishuv Eretz Israel

and Rabbi Kalischer disagreed with the supporters of the Yishuv Yashan
(the old, pre-ZionistJewishcommunityin EretzIsrael)on suchdecisive
of charitable
questionsas theideologicalbasisof theHalukah(distribution
fundsfromabroadto the Jewslivingin EretzIsrael),as opposedto the
modernnationalapproach,whichrejectedit, or limitedits importance. As
timewenton it provedimpossibleto restrictthediscussionto thequestion
By the summerof 1863positionswereclearlydefined,
of productivization.
as a
and, result, Hevrat YishuvEretzIsraelbeganlosingsupporters.It final-
for
ly disintegrated this reasonand also of
because leadership
problems.

NewIntiatives
toSettletheLandofIsrael

AfterHevratYishuvEretzIsraelcollapsed,severalgroupsarosethat
wereprepared to carryoutits program-groupsof Jewsin distress,bothin
EretzIsraelandabroad,who wantedto settleon the landin EretzIsrael.
Butno onewaswillingto backthem.TheAllianceIsraeliteUniverselle con-
sistentlyrefusedto aidgroupsthatwantedto emigrate to Eretz
Israel. At the
sametime,however,it shouldbe notedthattheHevratYishuvEretzIsrael
in Frankfurt wasnot merelyan isolatedepisode.Otherorganizations were
foundedin its wake-in Frankfurt on Mainin 1865,in Berlinin 1870,the
AhavatZion Societyin Bamberg,and others.All of these constituted
attemptsto revivethe moodwhichhadprevailedat the beginningof the
1860sand thenfadedout.
Thedebateregarding the settlementof EretzIsraelwasrenewedin the
years1866to 1868,energized byhopesthattheAllianceIsraeliteUniverselle
wouldmakeit possiblefor the HevratYishuvEretzIsraelprogramto be
actualized.As a resultof pressure-andappeals-fromJews in Serbia,
Lithuania, andEretzIsrael,theAlliance,in 1866,agreedin principle to sup-
portagricultural colonization.Althoughthe decision was limited in scope,
the interestedpartiesnow hadmorethantheirmeredesiresto relyupon.
Hopeswerefurtherraisedby the distressedsituationof RomanianJewry
aftertheunification of WallachiaandMoldaviaintoa singlestate(1859-64)
andtheassumption of powerbyKingCarolI. RabbiJosephNatonek'smis-
sionto theOttomangovernment in thesummerof 1867,afterhisvisitto the
AllianceIsraeliteUniverselle centerin Paris,also contributedto the opti-
misticatmosphere, asdidreportsfromEretzIsraelthatinternalsecurityhad
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 119

improved. These hopes quickly faded, however, when, on January 15, 1866,
the Alliance turned down a request by the Jews of Sabac (Serbia) that it help
them emigrate to Eretz Israel and settle there. The Alliance encouraged
them instead to go to America. A similar request from Ponevezh (Pane-
vezys) was also rejected in the summer of 1867. Charles Netter's visit to
Eretz Israel in the summer of 1868 concluded with the decision to establish
Mikveh Israel (March 1869), a disappointing decision even when compared
with the modest hope of settling the Jews of Eretz Israel on the land. The
Board of Deputies of British Jews, which sent its president, Moses Monte-
fiore, to visit Eretz Israel in March-April 1866, adopted an approach simi-
lar to that of the Alliance Israel1ite Universelle. Montefiore's reports
indicated that the Jews of Eretz Israel were willing to take up agricultural
work, but he did not address himself to the idea in its entirety, as had the
Hevrat Yishuv Eretz Israel. Montefiore advocated helping Jews who were
not happy in Eretz Israel to return to Europe; as for those who were willing
to remain there, he proposed building houses and farming colonies for
them-"to act beneficently with our brethren the children of Israel in the
Holy Land." Ha-Maggid was occupied during these years with the struggle
to solidify the gains of emancipation and with refuting the argument that
Orthodoxy had ideological reasons for opposing emancipation. Regarding
the national idea, "The vision is still for the appointed time [i.e., it is too
soon] to speak of this matter [even] among ourselves."'6

Reactions to the Reform Conventions

The "appointed time" came with the conferences of the Reform move-
ment in Kassel, Leipzig, and Augsburg in the years 1868-1871. By revitaliz-
ing the positions Reform Judaism had taken in the 1840s, these conferences
provoked a forceful Orthodox response. Kalisher and his German Ortho-
dox opponents blamed each other for Reform's achievements. Since
Kalischer viewed all events through a messianic-nationalist prism, the
Reform victories were, in his eyes, a sign that his was the generation of the
Messiah, in accordance with the midrash that "in the messianic age, inso-
lence will prevail" and "before the Redeemer comes the lawless will out-

16. Ha-Maggid, 1867, no. 2, p. 12.

120 YOSEFSALMON

numberthe steadfast."Here,for the first time, Kalischerpubliclycriticized

German Orthodoxy, claiming that "many of the geonim [great rabbinic
scholars]in Russia" supportedhim.'7
Duringthe courseof the debate,all activitiesnot identifiedwiththe Hev-
rat YishuvEretzIsraelcameunderattack,includingthose of BateiMahase,
the Alliance IsraeliteUniverselle,and the HevratDorshei Zion Society in
Paris, founded by Joseph Blumenthal.The differencebetween nationalist
propagandaand charitableandphilanthropicwork,whichhad beenblurred
for some time,was now increasinglystressed.The spokesmanfor the Ortho-
dox of Russiain this debatewas RabbiAlexanderMosesLapidot,who later
becameone of the most vigoroussupportersof the HibbatZion movement
until the crisisof the mid-1890s.He statedin an essay in Ha-Levanon:"We
shall not yield on the question of emigrationto the Holy Land; only the
pious and the men of deeds [i.e., OrthodoxJews] shall go up to serve the
Lord, and to pray for the welfareof their dispersedbrethrenand for the
entire world."Accordingto Lapidot,the Haskalahhad failed becausethe
Orthodox,identifyingit with the Reformmovement,had concludedthat it
posed a threat to traditionalhalakhicobservance.The damagecaused by
Reformwould be corrected,not by emigrationto EretzIsrael,he said, but
by waiting faithfullyfor "the son of David, our righteousMessiah."'8An
anonymous writer in Ha-Levanoncharged that the Hevrat Yishuv Eretz
Israel'splanfor Jewsto becomefarmerswouldcause"thetotal uprootingof
our religion,"since agriculturecould not provideobservantJews with an
adequatelivelihood, especiallyin Eretz Israel, where they would have to
observe agriculturalcommandmentswhich are applicableonly there. The
reply to Reformis "to increasethe yeshivot [talmudicacademies],and to
support those studying Torah and Torah scholars, and they will oppose
them [i.e., the reformers]with the wisdomof the Torah."'9The debateover
the Reformconferencescauseda clearpolarizationbetweenthe nationalists
and their opponentsof all camps.

17. "Mikhtav me-Tehorn (Thorn)" [Letter from Tehorn], Ha-Levanon, 1868, no. 34, p.
541. For the place of messianism in Kalischer's nationalist ideology, see Y. Salmon, "Aliyatah
shel ha-Le'umiyut ha-Yehudit be-Merkaz Eropah u-be-Ma'aravah" [The rise of Jewish
nationalism in Central and Western Europe), Ha-Tziyonut 11, pp. 7-11.
18. Ha-Levanon, 1868, no. 40, p. 638.
19. "Migdal ha-Levanon Zofeh Penei Yerushalayim" [The Lebanon tower that faces Jeru-
salem], Ha-Levanon, 1868, no. 41, pp. 653-656.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 121

Reactions to the Famine in WhiteRussia

In the aftermath of the famine in Russia in 1867-69 and the continuing

pressure on Romanian Jewry, emigration from Eastern Europe to America
began, with the support of the Alliance Israel1iteUniverselle. Several options
were considered in the months that followed: productivization in Russia,
emigration to America, emigration to Eretz Israel. The latter option had few
supporters. Ha-Maggid served as a forum for the discussion of the other
two. In Prussia a number of societies named Tomkhei Dalim be-Russia
u-be-Polin ("Supporters of the Poor in Russia and in Poland") were found-
ed, on the initiative of the editorial board of Ha-Maggid, which gave its
support to Jews who desired productivization in Russia. The paper criti-
cized the traditional leaders in Russia for having failed to take significant
steps to correct the situation, thereby adding its voice to Fuenn's recommen-
dation that societies for agricultural colonization and vocational training be
established in Russia. Ha-Maggid's extreme criticism left the journal open
to charges of noncredibility, not only among extreme traditionalists, but
even among traditional maskilim. Ha-Maggid also endorsed the Le-Ezrat
Aheinu Benei Yisrael be-Rusland ("For the Assistance of Our Brethren the
Children of Israel in Russia") Society, which was founded in Berlin by
Reform circles, with the aid of the Alliance Israel1iteUniverselle. When
traditional Jews became suspicious of this new organization, for fear that it
would be a means of introducing religious reforms, Ha-Maggid was forced
to withdraw its support. Even in its most trying hours, Russian Jewry reject-
ed all efforts by Western Jewry to interfere with its internal life. Kalischer,
for instance, was willing to cooperate with Moses Hess but strenuously
opposed any cooperation with the Reform movement. In Kalischer's words:
"A person cannot live together with a snake."

ObservantMaskilim in Russia
in the late 1860s and early 1870s

In the midst of this controversy, the only voice in Eastern Europe to call
for a revival of the work done by the Hevrat Yishuv Eretz Israel was that of
Yehiel Michael Pines, who played a central role in the Hibbat Zion move-
ment until he left it in the mid-1890s. Typologically, he was what we have
called an observant maskil. This group accepted the Haskalah's critique of
 122 YOSEF SALMON

East European Jewry's way of life and communal leadership, especially after
it was reinforced by the economic crisis at the end of the 1860s. As we have
seen, the spokesmen for the Hevrat Yishuv Eretz Israel in the West had
assigned various Jewish communities to be the bearers of the national
redemption in accordance with contemporary circumstances. From the end
of the 1860s these were the Jews of Eastern Europe. Pines, unlike Lapidot,
took up the challenge, for he was cognizant of Russian Jewry's need for
productivization-in Russia itself, in America, or in Eretz Israel. Emotion-
ally, he preferred Eretz Israel "for the feeling of love for the land of our
fathers"; practically, however, he was willing to accept any framework that
would be able to provide "bread for the thousands afflicted by the
period, and lift the honor and situation of Israel."20
What was new about this trend, in comparison with its predecessor, was
its awareness of the social predicament of Russian Jewry; and, as a result, its
nationalist program included social elements. Productivization was advo-
cated not merely because it would enable people to live in dignity, but also
as a prerequisite for national existence: "The land is the basis and the foun-
dation upon which a political society and the national sanctuary will be
brought together." In Pines's view, the spiritual crisis of East European
Jewry ("the honor of the Torah and wisdom have been exiled from Israel")
was a consequence of socioeconomic conditions. Thus he was able to make a
distinction between philanthropic activities on behalf of Eretz Israel, such as
those of the Alliance Israel1iteUniverselle ("feeling compassion [and] mercy
for their tortured and oppressed brethren"), and the initiatives of the Hevrat
Yishuv Eretz Israel, which sprang from a "feeling of love and piety for the
land of our fathers." According to Pines, the answer to the national question
was also the solution to the spiritual crisis; were the Jewish people
once again to work the soil in Eretz Israel, the nation's pristine splendor
would be restored, and it would be an era in which "the honor of the Torah
and wisdom will not be exiled from Israel." These ideas were later developed
by Rabbis I. J. Reines and M. Eliasberg, demonstrating that their circle's
nationalist conversion was not one-dimensional.21
The Reform conferences and the discussion on the future of Russian

20. Ha-Maggid, 1869, no. 13, pp. 98-99; Ha-Levanon, 1869, no.
13, pp. 97-101.
21. Ha-Maggid, loc. cit.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 123

Jewryled David Gordon to once againwritea seriesof essays.22He opened

with an attackon Geigerfor negatingthe basis,both practicaland theoreti-
cal, of a returnto Zion and a Jewishnationalrevival,and for urgingthatthe
last remnantsof this ideabe deletedfromthe prayerbook.Gordonwas quite
candid.Statingunequivocallythat the nationalrevivalin EretzIsraelwould
consist of the ingatheringof the exiles, he chargedGeiger with aiding the
enemiesof the Jewsto destroythem as a nationalentity. Pines arguedthat
Jewish nationalistaspirationswere consistentwith the generalnationalist
awakeningin Europe,"for the hope and desireof our nation to be a special
independentpeopleis not againstthe spiritof the time,but ratheris founded
on it."23 Similarly,he said, the claim of a Jewishmission in the world was
groundless,for in the modern world it was France, and not the Jewish
people, whichwas the torchbearerof a universalcivilizingmission.Gordon
called upon the AllianceIsrael1ite Universelleto abandonphilanthropyand
harnessitself to the national movement("nationalbase"), i.e., to act on
behalfof "theingatheringof our dispersedones to the landof ourfathers."24

Alliance and the Settlement of the Land of Israel

The Alliance Israel1iteUniverselle'sdecision to found Mikveh Israel

(1870) further nourished the nationalist awakening. With this decision,
whichmaintainedMikvehIsraelas an agriculturalschool for the Jewsof the
East,the Alliancesatisfiedthose who werepressingit to help Jewsin distress
emigrateto Eretz Israel,therebyfreeingitself of any hint of nationalism.
Ha-Levanon,which in the meantimehad moved from Paristo Mainz, now
beganto changeits position.Underthe editorshipof JehielBrill,who would
later bringto EretzIsraelthe groupof farmerswho foundedthe settlement
of Ekron, the journal moved closer to Ha-Maggid,despite the supportit
receivedfromGermanOrthodoxy.The latterapparentlydid not opposethe

22. "Davar be-Ito-al Devar ha-Ye'ud ha-Le'umi shel ha-Umah ha-Yisraelit" [A word
in its right time-regarding the national mission of the Jewish nation], Ha-Maggid, 1869, nos.
27-34.
23. Ibid., no. 29, p. 221.
24. Ibid., no. 34, p. 269.
124 YOSEF SALMON

colonization of Eretz Israel as long as Jews from Eastern Europe were the
colonists. The founding of agricultural colonies in Eretz Israel accorded
with humanitarian principles, in that those working the land lived by their
own labor, and created an opportunity for redemption; as Brill wrote: "The
truth will be seen in this, that we please its [Eretz Israel's] stones and find
favor in its soil." He also scathingly criticized the Halukah and interpreted
the emancipation as a sign that the time to return to Zion had come.25

The Nationalist Awareness in Russia in the 1870s

Around the beginning of the 1870s the center of the national awakening
moved from Posen and eastern Prussia to Russia-mainly to Lithuania,
Byelorussia, and Odessa. Three Hebrew journals brought the nationalist
idea to the public: Ha-Shahar in Vienna, Ha-Maggid in Lyck, and Ha-
Levanon in Paris and Mainz. Ha-Maggid and Ha-Levanon reflected the
opinions of traditional maskilic circles, while Ha-Shahar represented a new
breed of radical maskilim who been converted to Jewish nationalism. The
former two journals served as a platform for Jews from Eastern Europe and
were read mainly in Russia and Poland.
The young author Reuben Asher Braudes described the emancipation of
Western and Central European Jewry as the beginning of a national Jewish
revival. "And now we too shall arise and awaken, we too are alive and exist,
we too are a nationality in the inhabited world, and if even now we are not
for ourselves, who will be for us?" Braudes saw the Alliance and the British
Board of Deputies as harbingers of the Jewish national revival. Reproaching
the Jews of the Ukraine for not coming to the aid of Lithuanian and Byelo-
russian Jewry during the famine years, he compared their failure to respond
with the response of the Jews of Western Europe: "The time has come for
you [Ukrainian Jews] too to be concerned about the community, and for
you too to awaken, to be of one mind, and to be infused with the fraternal
spirit."26
ideologyof
withthe othertrends,the traditional-maskil
In comparison
Rabbis Kalischer and Alkalai was distinguished by its straightforward,

25. Ha-Levanon, 1869, no. 25, pp. 193-195.

26. Ibid., p. 198; no. 26, p. 204.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 125

unconvoluteddevelopmentof a nationalistposition, at least fromthe 1860s.

Since these two men had become nationalistsnot in reaction to external
pressures,contemporaryevents influencedthem only tactically,as indica-
tions that the chances for realizingtheir aspirationshad improved.Thus
Kalischerhad no qualmsabout passingthe bannerof his vision from one
group to anotheras currentcircumstancesand needswarranted.By way of
contrast,Gordon and Pines did not have a well-formulatedprogram,since
they had not yet abandonedtheir modernisthope for emancipationand
productivization.In other words,while Kalischerhad a post-emancipatory
approach, Gordon and Pines were still in the pre-emancipatoryworld
(Gordon's ambivalencebetweenWest and East is evidentin his writings).
This ambivalencewas most prominentamongradicalmaskilim.If we follow
the developmentof JudahLeibGordon, PerezSmolenskin,and Moses Leib
Lilienblumuntil the pogromsof the 1880s,we find manyconvolutions:sup-
port for the old maskilicdreamof integrationwithin the Russianstate, or
desperationand disappointmentwhichfound a shelterin nationalisthopes,
either within or outside a Europeancontext. Smolenskinand Judah Leib
Gordoncontinuedto havemixedfeelingseven afterthe pogroms,whichwas
not the case with Lilienblum,who crossedthe Rubicon.At the sametime it
is difficultto avoid the impressionthat Smolenskinand Lilienblumfelt that
their willingnessto respondto the demandsof the gentileworld would not
receive a favorableresponse.
The maskilim of the period had already analyzed this ambivalence.
Smolenskin,for example,distinguishedbetweenbelleslettresand publicistic
writing.Belleslettresdealt with internalJewishlife, whilepublicisticwriting
confrontedthe surroundingsociety's attitudetoward the Jews, and it was
this form of writing which expressedhis nationalist position. Similarly,
Judah Leib Gordon's Russian essays confrontedthe attitudes about the
Jewsfound in society at largewhilehis Hebrewessayscalledfor an internal
Jewish reform.

Judah Leib Gordon

Some of the milestonesin the lives of centralfiguresin this groupareger-

mane to our discussion.Throughoutthe 1860sJudahLeib Gordon unequi-
vocallyjustified Russianattitudestowardthe Jews and was alwaysreadyto
cooperatewith governmentefforts to force modernizationupon them. His
126 YOSEFSALMON

famous poem "Ashka de-Rispak" ("The Shaft of a Litter"; 1867) includes

the line: "Foreigners will no longer persecute us-we are our own persecu-
tors; our hands are not bound-the iron is in our own souls." The same
position was expressed in two earlier poems, "Hekizah Ami" ("Awake, My
People"; 1863), in which he coined the aphorism "Be a man when you go
forth, and a Jew in your home," which became the slogan of the Haskalah
movement in Russia,27and "Derekh Bat Ami" ("The Way of My People";
1865). Gordon's unwillingness to give up the messianic dream found expres-
sion in a Ha-Melitz article entitled "Binah le-To'ei Ru'ah" ("Wisdom for
Those Erring in Spirit"),28 a polemic against the society Mazdirei-Ha-
Rabim "those who justify the majority." In this essay he unwaveringly main-
tained that Jewish national redemption in Eretz Israel was contingent upon
internal reforms along maskil lines. The details of the reforms he demanded
are not relevant to our discussion, but it is important to realize that his stand
amounted to "conditional nationalism."29Against this background, there
was a lengthy debate between Lilienblum and Gordon after the pogroms of
the 1880s,30with Lilienblum rejecting Gordon's reservations and conditions
for a nationalist solution.
Of chief interest to us is the debate conducted by Judah Leib Gordon in
1870. It was opened by Lilienblum with two essays in Ha-Melitz, "Orhot
ha-Talmud" ("The Ways of the Talmud") and "Nosafot le-ha-Ma'amar
Orhot ha-Talmud" ("Addenda to the Essay 'The Ways of the Talmud'"),
and included other writings published between 1868 and 1870.3~ The
demand for a reformation of Jewish law by men who had been educated in
yeshivot and used arguments based on rabbinic sources prompted observant

27. For a comprehensive study of the interpretations of this slogan, see M. Stanislowski,
For Whom Do I Toil? (Oxford, 1988), pp. 50-52.
28. J. L. Gordon, "Binah la-To'ei Ru'ah" [Wisdom for the erring in spirit], Ha-Melitz,
1870, no. 30, pp. 224-225, and in the following issues. For the citation from "Ashka de-
Rispak," see Kol Kitvey Y L. Gordon [Collected writings of Y. L. Gordon], vol. 4 (Tel Aviv,
1936), p. 41. The poem "Hekizah Ami" was printed in Ha-Karmel, 1866, no. 1; "Derekh Bat
Ami" was printed in the collection Kokhvei Yizhak [The stars of Isaac], ed. M. M. Stern (Vien-
na, 1861), no. 26, pp. 55-57.
29. Stanislowski, For WhomDo I Toil?pp. 100-192.
30. See J. L. Gordon to Dolitzki, Kislev 5642 (1881), in Igrot YehudahLeib Gordon[Letters
of Judah Leib Gordon] (Warsaw, 1894), vol. 2 pt. 4, pp. 9-10.
31. M. L. Lilienblum, "Orhot ha-Talmud," Ha-Melitz, 1868, no. 13, pp. 99-100 (signed
"Moshe Leib Herlikhtzahn"), passim at intervals to no. 29, pp. 215-217. "Nosafot le-ha-
Ma'amar Orhot ha-Talmud," Ha-Melitz, 1869, no. 8, pp. 63-68, until no. 12, pp. 91-92.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 127

maskilim to defend the Halakhah. The demand for halakhic reform,

which was first presented systematicallyin Russia, fitted in with the
programproposedin WesternEuropeat the Reformconferencesin Leipzig,
Augsburg,and Kassel. The parties to the dispute both rejectedWestern
Reform in everythingconnected with Jewish national aspirations.Judah
Leib Gordon, in "Binahle-To'ei Ru'ah,"and especiallyin the "Hashma-
tah" which was publishedin Ha-Shaharin 1871,32identifiedcompletely
with David Gordon'sessay "Davarbe-Ito"("A Wordin Its Right Time").
The mainthrustof this essay,however,was a scathingcriticismof the tradi-
tionaliststhat heldthemresponsiblefor everythingthatwas wrongin Jewish
society. Judah Leib Gordon did not feel that Jewish national aspirations
would be realizedsoon or even in his lifetime.After the pogromshe stilljus-
tified the anti-Jewishclaimsof lack of productivity,religiousfanaticismand
backwardness;but in his estimationthe Russiangovernmenthadreconciled
itselfto the pogroms,and thereforehe beganto favoremigration.At firsthe
recommendedAmericaas the destination,then he beganto advocateEretz
Israel. A few months later, however,he returnedto his formerbelief that
Jews should build a futurein Russia.

Perez Smolenskin

Perez Smolenskin took an entirely different route. Smolenskin had

painteda pessimisticpictureof the futureof the Jewishpeople in exile after
the Polish revolt of 1863. There is no doubt, however,that his encounter
with WesternJewry,when he settledin Viennain 1868,is what determined
his approachto these issues.
In the opening piece in Ha-Shahar,Smolenskinrelates how he once
heard a liberalrabbi declare,"I wish that I had the ability to uproot the
Hebrew tongue," and then had said to himself, "Those who despise the
Hebrewtonguewill despisethe Hebrewpeople.Theywill haveneithername
nor remembranceamong Israel.They are traitorsto theirpeople and their
faith."As this earlyessay shows, Smolenskin'snationalview was primarily
cultural, concentrating on the preservation of the national language,
Hebrew.Our language,he wrote, will "giveus glory and strength,it will tie

32. J. L. Gordon, "Hashmatah" [Deletion], Ha-Shahar, year 2 (1871), pp. 154-156.

128 YOSEFSALMON

us with cords to be called by the name of Israel."A programof this kind,

however,wouldnot solve the social problemsafflictingthe Jews,he said, for
it was entirely romantic, Hebrew being "the sole monument, the sole
memory left to us from the culture of our Temple."Smolenskindid not
abandonthe aspirationsof the Haskalah:"Weshallbe like all the nationsto
pursueand attain knowledge,to abandonthe evil path of ignorance,to be
loyal inhabitants in the lands of our dispersion." His nationalism was
romantic,since it concentratedon symbolsand memories.It had a limited
culturalelement,and was infusedwith abstractaspirations:"Thebeliefthat
an end to our exilewill come, thatthe day will comewhenthe monarchywill
returnto the House of Israel, is neithera shame nor a disgracefor us."33
A differentdirectionwas apparentin Smolenskin'sfirst programmatic
essay, "Even Yisrael"("The Rock of Israel"),a critiqueof an apologetic
work by Dr. Adolf Jellinek.34Smolenskin'sanalysisof anti-Semitismin this
essay added a new dimensionto his nationalistviews:"It was not religion
alone, nor envy alone, nor the love of wisdom alone, nor even the three
together which kindled the fire of this hatred. . . . The reason is because the
Jews' situation is bad, success has abandonedthem, thereforethey have
become an object of mockeryand scorn among the nations."It cannot be
denied,he wrote,that "thereis one peoplefrom one end of the worldto the
other whichwill be gatheredby the name Israel,and unitedby the spiritof
their faith." Smolenskinrejectedthe mission of Israel idea so beloved by
ReformJudaismand citedfact afterfact to provethat the Jewsdid not have
the superiorqualitiesattributedto them by reformersand liberals."It will
entirelysufficeus to be consideredas one of the peoples,and not to aggran-
dize ourselvesabove all the nations;we shall gird our loins with strengthto
make it one people in the land, and figureslike Shylockwill aid us much
more than figureslike Nathan the Wise to effect this thing."35
In his HebrewwritingsSmolenskinwas the first to cite anti-Semitismas
an element in nationalistideology. He did not perseverein this position,
however,but waveredbetweenstressingpositivenationalistmotifs (mainly
romantic),and arguingthat the properresponseto anti-Semitismwas for

33. P. Smolenskin, "Petah Davar" (Preface), Ha-Shahar, year 1, pt. 1 (1868), pp. iii-iv.
34. A. Jellinek, Der juedische Stamm (Vienna, 1869).
35. P. Smolenskin, "Even Yisrael" [The rock of Israel], Ha-Shahar, year 1, pt. 2 (1869),
nos. 9-10, p. 91.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 129

the Jews to entrenchthemselvesin their lands of residence.This national

entrenchmentis to be understoodonly in the sense of buildingup strength.
In "Even Yisrael"sensitivityto the social predicamentof the Jews pushes
aside any proposalfor halakhicreformor for integrationin the surrounding
society, althoughthe national responseis not essentiallya social response.
To the aspirationsof the "renewers,"Smolenskin replies with derision:
"They will first removethe chains their enemieshave placedon them, and
the reins which they have placed on their souls they will removewith their
own hands,they will revivethose envelopedby faminein the land of Russia,
they will hold back those aboutto kill in the land of Romaniaif they extend
their handto them, and then they will preachwordsof love and fraternityto
all the peoples."36
Like his predecessors,Smolenskinstood in the middlegroundbetween
the Jews of WesternEurope,both Reformand Orthodox,"the way of the
renewerswhichdoes not pleaseme,"'37and the Orthodoxof EasternEurope.
His encounterwith WesternEuropeanJewrydrove him to defendEastern
EuropeanOrthodoxymore and more. In this he differedwith Judah Leib
Gordon, who continuedto attack EasternEuropeanOrthodoxyall his life
and refusedto endorseHibbatZion becauseof the role playedby the Ortho-
dox in EretzIsrael.Smolenskinwas the firstto turnthe Jewishreligioninto
a national institution. Since the 1870s he had not championed earthly
nationalism,for "the religionof Israel is one society whichjoins together
and unitesthe heartsof Jewswhereverthey are, thereforewe mustregardit
not only as the religionof faith,but as a kingdomand languageand all other
institutionswhich will drawcloser the heartsof the other peoples, to make
them one people." His approachto religion was national-functional,and
thereforehe urged that Jews relate to it by criteriaresting on this basis:
"Heavenforbid that we touch one of its elements,lest the entirebuildingbe
entirelyundermined,leavingno remainderand namefor this people,and we
be as traitors, not only to the faith, but to the people as a whole.""38
Smolenskinspoke in operativetermsof internationalrecognitionof Jews
as a national minority, thereby anticipatingby many years the national
claims that Jews would make in their countriesof residence.He also spoke

36. Ibid.
37. P. Smolenskin, "Am Olam" [Eternal people], ibid., year 3 (1872), p. 5.
38. Ibid., p. 81.
130 YOSEFSALMON

of the need for a nationalJewishorganizationwhichwouldlead the people,

"the teachers of the generation."The details of Smolenskin'snational
theory are not relevantto our discussion;it is repletewith contradictions
and unexplainedtwists;he both negatedthe idea of a Jewishmission and
approvedof it; he offereddifferentexplanationsfor anti-Semitism.We must
note, however,that Smolenskinwas the teacherandguidefor nationaliden-
tificationthroughoutthe 1870s.It was he who discoveredand encouraged
EliezerBen-Yehuda.Not surprisingly,therefore,when he arrivedin Russia
at the beginningof the pogroms,he was greetedby theyoung as the prophet
of the generation.Nor is it surprisingthat even after he withdrewhis sup-
port for the idea of the earthlyredemption,sometimeafterthe pogroms,the
young, includingthe BILU pioneerswho wentto EretzIsrael,still turnedto
him as the spiritualteacherof the renewednational movement.

Moses Leib Lilienblum

As for Moses Leib Lilienblum,who saw himselfas a discipleof Judah

Leib Gordon, his writingsreveala clearerand more logical line than those
of his predecessors.The optimismof the 1860srunsthroughhis essaysuntil
1871.He knewthe Slavophilicliteratureand its anti-Semitismfrom the out-
set, but attributedthis to "a few darkspots that will not cast a pall overthe
gold of the land of Russia,whichis full of justice and love of man, and will
not revolvearoundtheirshame.""39 He was impelledto publishhis essaysin
favorof religiousreformby his confidencethat thegovernmentintended"to
give us the same law as that of all the peoples, if only we will improveour
ways,"40and that "now betterdayswill come to us and our children,yearn-
ing for the life of the land, to be like everyman."41Subjectedto criticismby
traditionalmaskilim,he declared in "Devar ha-Tikunimba-Dat" ("The
Matterof Religious Reforms")that his position on a reformof the Hala-
khah was basically differentfrom that of Geiger and his associates. He
wanteda reformspringing"fromthe needsof life,"he said, but the Reform

39. M. L. Lilienblum (Herlikhtzahn), "Vilkamir," Ha-Karmel, 1866, no. 23, p. 178.

40. See above, n. 30, and esp. Ha-Melitz, 1868, no. 29, pp. 215-217.
41. Kol Kitvei M. L. Lilienblum [Collected writings of M. L. Lilienblum], vol.1 (Cracow,
1910), p. 27.
JEWISH COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IN EASTERN EUROPE 131

movement'seffort to abrogatethe idea of the Returnto Zion did not spring

from any such need. Lilienblumclearlyinsistedthat therewas no basis for
givingup the traditionalbeliefin the returnand also rejectedthe idea of the
mission of Israel embracedin the West.
The pogrom in Odessa in 1871underminedLilienblum'sconfidencein
the future of the Jews in Russia and intensified his feeling that anti-
Semitismwas a permanentphenomenonover which the Jews had no con-
trol;42from then on he supportedearthlynationalism.Lilienblumopposed
Mapu'sRussianpatriotism,43 demanded"a smallpieceof land in Turkey,"44
and supportedthe programof H. Gedaliahfor the purchaseof EretzIsrael
(1876).45It was only duringthe years 1878-81 that he againbecameoptimis-
tic about the futureof the Jews in Russia, stating that this would depend
upon how the Jewishproblemwas explainedto the authorities.46 In 1881he
returnedto the Haskalahslogans of the 1860s.47On February20, 1881,he
belittled the rumorsof an impendingattack on the Jews planned for the
approachingEasterholiday,claimingthat the MiddleAges were over.48In
the summer of the same year he called for political independence,not
because of the new anti-Semitism,but becauseof the inner longing of the
Jewish people. Israel, he said, was a naturalnation, and deservedto be a
political nation.49Only in Septemberdid Lilienblum come to see the
pogromsas the negationof the Haskalahand emancipation.Now convinced
that anti-Semitismwas a productof the Jews' aliennessin their surround-

42. Igrot M. L. Lilienblum (Letters of M. L. Lilienblum), ed. S. Breiman (Jerusalem, 1968),

letter 16, pp. 116-119.
43. M. L. Lilienblum, "Olam ha-Tohu" [The world of chaos], in Kol Kitvei M. L. Lilien-
blum, vol. 2 (Cracow, 1912), pp. 49-112.
44. Odeskiy Veistenik, 1874, no. 185. For a summary, see N. Horowitz, Ha-Maggid, 1874,
no. 49, p. 438.
45. See S. Breiman, "Ha-Mifneh ba-Mahashavah ha-Ziburit ha-Yehudit be-Reshit
Shenot ha-80" [The turning point in Jewish public thought at the beginning of the [18180s],
Shivat Ziyyon, 2-3 (Jerusalem, 1953), pp. 95-96.
46. M. L. Lilienblum, "Petah Tikvah" [A door of hope], Ha-Kol, 1878, no. 14, p. 22; see
also Kol Kitvei M. L. Lilienblum, 1:140-167.
47. M. L. Lilienblum, "Tzorkhei Ameinu ve-Da'at Soferav" [The needs of our people and
the opinion of its writers], Kohelet (St. Petersburg, 1881); see Kol Kitvei M. L. Lilienblum,
2:161-170.
48. M. L. Lilienblum, Ketavim Otobiografiyim [Autobiographical writings], ed. S. Breiman
(Jerusalem, 1970), 2:188, p. 188.
49. M. L. Lilienblum, "Al Yisrael ve-al Arzo" [On Israel and its land], Ha-Shahar, vol. 10,
1881, pp. 395-403.
 132 YOSEF SALMON

ings, and that the solutionwas for them to be concentratedin a territoryof

theirown, he devotedhimselfto HibbatZion. FromMarch1882he engaged
in a protractedand bitterdebatewith JudahLeib Gordon, counteringthe
latter's "maskilic"argumentsagainst Hibbat Zion.
There are parallelsbetween the views of David Gordon and those of
Judah Leib Gordon, Smolenskin,and Lilienblum,as well as those of Pines
and his colleagues.The sharedelementsoutnumberthe disputedones: all of
them rejectedthe variouscoursestakenby WesternJewry,includingOrtho-
doxy; similarly,they all rejectedthe entrenchedinsularityof EasternEuro-
peanOrthodoxJewry.The differencesbetweenthemarosefromtheirdiffer-
ent points of reference.Closest to the Westernposition was Smolenskinin
Vienna,who was intimatelyinvolvedin the Haskalahbut nonthelesscriti-
cizednot only WesternJewrybut also the harbingerof the Haskalah,Moses
Mendelssohn.The closersomeone'spoint of referenceto the West,the more
sympathetiche was towardthe worldhe had previouslycriticized,the world
he had left. David Gordon stood on the boundarybetweenthe two worlds,
and his criticismof both balancesout. Lilienblumlived in Odessa and was
mainlyconcernedabout the Jewsof Russiaand theirrelationswith the sur-
roundingsociety;the variousmanifestationsof WesternJewryare reflected
in his writingsonly as a distantecho. As for Pinesand his circle,they livedin
the very heartof the Pale of Settlement,in Lithuaniaand Byelorussia.The
threat they felt came more from the radical maskilimof Odessa and St.
Petersburgthan from Geiger and his colleaguesin Berlin.Their sense of
obligationto their non-Jewishsurroundingswas weak, and thereforetheir
passageto EretzIsraelin time of troublewas easier.And finally,JudahLeib
Gordon lived from 1872 in St. Petersburg,servingas the secretaryof the
HevratMarbeiHaskalah;for him, WesternJewrywas beyondthe horizon.
His philosophicalstrugglerangedbetweenthe classicalhopes of the "profes-
sional" maskiland the frequentdisappointmentsemanatingfrom the nerve
center of the Russiangovernmentand the Russianintelligentsia.The gap
betweenthese could not be bridged,and Judah Leib Gordon went to his
grave broken, lonely, and embittered.

Ben-Gurion oftheNegev
University
Israel
Beersheva,