|
The
community of Petersburg was aroused, and news of the resignations spread
swiftly through the region. The Vaad widely publicized the story, and,
encouraged by the centers, it became the topic of widespread conversation,
evoking strong reactions among the people. The effects were soon felt by the
provincial governments, who informed Petersburg of the feelings of the Jews
concerning the conference.
At
the suggestion of Mandelstam, Werbel, and Eichenbaum, the Ministers of
Culture and the Interior had, previous to the conference, consulted leading
Rabbis in regard to books that a special committee under the Bureau of
Religions proposed, for the curriculum of Hebrew schools:
1)
Prayer book translated into German,
2) excerpts of Tanach (Bible) appropriate for children,
excluding unsuitable or unnecessary portions,
3) excerpts of Mishnah of the Orders of Agriculture, Festivals, Civil Law, and
Sacrifices, omitting laws of ritual purity, etc.,
4) excerpts of Rambam (Maimonides), including the enlightening laws on the
relations between man and Gd, King, homeland, and his fellow-men.
At
the time that Goldberg and Bashkovitch resigned from the conference, the
replies from the interrogated Rabbis arrived. Practically all noted that the
delegates to the current conference were not competent to judge the proposals,
and that some of the delegates' interpretations were untrustworthy. As far as
they (the Rabbis) knew, these questions had already been decided by Rabbinical
authorities at the Commission of 1843, and the Rabbis indicated agreement with
those decisions. Rabbi Menachem Mendel was not content with a general reply;
he composed a pamphlet with a lengthy reply, to each of the proposals in turn:
the Prayer-book, selections of Bible, selections of Mishnah, selections of
Rambam, and the general principle of translation, particularly into the
German. To this, he appended a short note:
"In
reply to the query about my opinion regarding the books proposed for schools
for Jewish children: the text of the prayers, selections of Bible, Mishnah, and
Rambam, all these to be translated into German. I fail to understand the need
for these books, especially the excerpts and German translation. At the
Commission called by the Government in 1843, after discussion and
investigation of the nature and character of children, we designed a program
for the schools for our Jewish children. This program was approved by
Government officials, and presented to His Majesty who was greatly pleased and
ordered its immediate implementation. The program planned then should not be
diminished or altered, since it is a program we found essential for the
education of the young, and required by Torah and Talmud law, from which we
cannot and dare not subtract."
The
pamphlet in reply to the proposals follows:
PROPOSAL
I: Formulating an orderly and standard text of prayers for all Jews, to be
translated into German.
REPLY:
There are only two prayer books prevalent among the Jews of Russia, i.e. the
Ashkenazi (German) text which is not precisely that actually used in Germany,
and the Sephardic (Spanish) text. Both have long been in use; both have been
printed for many years under the supervision of the censor, with no comments
on his part; the texts are in reality quite similar, differing slightly in
sequence of prayers; many Jews are accustomed to one text, and just as many to
the other. It would therefore be inadvisable to alter or confuse the
accustomed texts. In regard to translating the texts into German, see
Paragraph V of this reply.
PROPOSAL
II: Excerpts of the Bible, to include portions suitable for expounding and
teaching to youthful pupils, and omitting portions deemed superfluous or
inappropriate for instruction for young students. Examples of the latter would
be the account of Bilhah and Reuven (Gen. 3 5:22), and Yehuda and Tamar (Gen.
38) , there having been questions about their interpretation, even in Talmudic
times.
REPLY:
How dare we presume to omit portions of the Torah of Moshe, the servant of
G-d, and declare with mortals' understanding that they are not
"vital" or are not "proper" for the young? All the
portions, sentences, and words were pronounced by the mouth of G-d to Moshe,
who reiterated and recorded them. (See Baba Basra 15a. )
He
who asserts that even a sentence or word was not from the mouth of G-d, but
originated with Moses, is considered a non-believer in "Torah from
Heaven." Rambam, in his Commentary on Mishnah, Sanhedrin,
"Chailek," Thirteen Principles #'8, says:
The Torah is from Heaven. We are to believe that this
entire Torah given by Moshe was entirely from G-d, i.e. Moshe received it from
the Almighty . . . He was like a scribe who hears dictation and writes . . .
There is no difference between "The sons of Cham were Chush and
Mitzrayim" (Genesis 10:6) , "The name of his wife was Mehitabel" (36:39) , "And Timna was a
concubine (36:12) on
the one hand, and "I am the L-rd your G-d" (Exodus 20:2) , and
"Hear O Israel" (Deuteronomy 6:4) . It is all from the Omnipotent;
it is all (part of) the "perfect Torah of G-d" (Psalm 19), pure and
holy. Whoever says that certain of these passages and stories were told by
Moshe of his own accord, is considered by our Sages and prophets as a heretic
and worse, for he considers the Torah to contain heart and husk, and that
certain historical accounts and narratives are not beneficial, having
originated with Moshe. This is the concept of "Torah is not from
Heaven" that our Sages have defined as even including the belief that the
entire Torah is from G-d, except some specific passage that is not from G-d
but from Moshe. This constitutes "For the word of G-d has he shamed"
(Numbers 15:31) . Rather, every sentence in Torah contains wisdom and
profundity for him who understands...
Hence,
in view of the declarations of the Rambam on the unequivocal and unassailable
sanctity of the entire Torah, how can we possibly omit any part of Torah, and
fail to teach it to our children, to say nothing of compiling excerpts and
changing the sequence as written by Moshe? This also applies to the rest of
the Bible, the words of G-d through His servants the Prophets -- we dare not
edit them. The adherence to sequence is evident, too, in the Talmud (Taanis
9a) concerning the child of Resh Lokish who studied the Bible in its order,
since he remarked, "Had I reached this passage. . . "
There
is no sentence, word, or even letter, that does not indicate profound wisdom
unrevealed to us or to any sage. "No man knows its measure" (Job
28:3). Therefore our sages teach in Avos (Ethics of the Fathers) that
he who learns from another a chapter . . . or one word, must honor him. We
find, with the Sages of the Talmud and Mishnah, that they derived tremendous
lessons, both legal and moral-ethical, from a single letter or word. Later
scholars, too, composed brilliant works in a like manner.
Ralbag
wrote that he frequently derived great lessons even from the stories in the
Torah, as he often notes in his comments, "The first lesson is ethical .
. . the second . . . the third ..." It is true of the overwhelming
majority of the Torah's passages, that they contain moral-ethical lessons.
Midrash Leviticus (19) on the passage "black as a raven" (sh'choros
k'orev): certain portions of the Torah that are seemingly
"black" and indecent for public discourse (e.g. laws of emission,
disease, childbirth), still G-d says "They are sweet (arevos) to
me, as it is written, 'sweet (v'orvo) shall be for G-d the offerings of
Judah' (Malachi 3) ."
This
is not to be compared to the Talmudic edict (Megillah 21a) that certain
passages of the Torah are not to be translated, for instance the episode of
Reuven and Bilhah. The Talmud discusses there the translations made during
public synagogue reading of the Torah, when illiterates hear the words as a
simple story, and our Sages were ever concerned for the honor of the Holy
Patriarchs. (Rashi, ibid. 25a) There would be gross misunderstanding
under such circumstances. But, in a school, the instructor would make
necessary explanations according to the commentary of Rashi (which was chosen
by the Commission of 1843 for teaching children), a respectful and proper
commentary based on the teachings of the Sages (Shabbos 55a). Onkelos, in his
faithful rendition, and other translators, translated these passages, though
their works were primarily for simple folk, since, in orderly study processes
it is certain that no omissions are to be made anywhere in the Torah.
If
a child fails to study, say, the story of Reuven and Bilhah, when he later
learns the words of censure which Jacob said to Reuven (Gen. 49, 3-4) , he
would be entirely confused. It is especially harmful to omit part of a
passage, since the Torah is interpreted by juxtaposition. The words of the
Torah are eternal, true, and just. This must be impressed upon the minds and
hearts of the pupils at the outset. (Yoreh Deah 245, 6: One is obliged
to teach his son the Written Torah in its entirety . . . )
Even
the curriculum recently issued for Government schools for Jews1 explicitly
states that first grade children are to study the first books of the
Pentateuch and the Mishnayos of the Tractate Shabbos. In the second grade they
are to complete the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Esther, Mishnayos Brochos and the Orders of
Festivals, Civil Law, and Sacrifice, Talmud Tractates Be'a, Sukkah,
Pesachim, and Shabbos, and many sections of the Shulchan Aruch
(as planned in 1843 by the Commission). The curriculum stipulates all the
books of the Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud, with no mention of omissions.
PROPOSAL
III: Excerpts of the Mishnah to include Brochos and the Orders of
Festivals, Civil Law, and Sacrifice, omitting laws pertinent only in the Holy
Land, and laws of purity that were in force only during Temple days, since
these laws are not overly urgent for young children in the general schools.
REPLY:
The Mishnah is the source of law, providing principles for further
amplifications of the law. Most Mishnaic laws are halachah l'Moshe m'Sinai
(statutes given Moshe on Sinai). Payah II: Said Nachum the Librarian,
"I received from R. Myasha, who received from Abba, who received from the
`pairs; who received from the Prophets as a law given Moshe on Sinai
that..." See also Rambam's introduction to his Commentary on Mishnah.
Hence, all Mishnaic law can be divided into two categories: interpretations
received by tradition from Moshe, based on Scriptural allusions, and laws
given him on Sinai.
Kuzari
IV, Chap. 65, describes the stature of the Mishnah Sages. Chap. 64: " . .
. its succinctness of expression, its beauty of composition, its elegance of
presentation, and the integration of circumstance and verdict -- there can be
no doubt that an honest examiner will see that mortal man is incapable of such
a production without Divine aid." See also Chap. 69.
The
program as planned by the Commission for schools (as explained above in
Paragraph II) is essential, and deletions should not be made. This applies
equally to the first and second grades. It is clear that deletions within a
tractate proper are out of the question, since even minor omissions would
destroy. the harmonious structure, and make lucid understanding impossible.
Besides, the Mishnah is interpreted in context, for circumstances equivalent to
the first part, the latter part, etc. What might at first sight seem
redundant, may enable an astute student to deduce proof or a principle for
other more common and urgent cases. These are customary procedures as every
Talmud student is well aware. Hence we find in Midrash (Lev. 21) ,
"Immerse yourself in Mishnah, for if you are mystified, the Mishnah will
provide illumination." If omissions are made in the Mishnah, its study
would be corrupted and it would cease to clarify and broaden understanding.
In
consequence of the points discussed, it must be forcefully stated that we can
consent to no excerpts whatsoever or omissions from the Mishnah. We dare not
alter the system made by the holy Rabbi Yehuda the Prince, who compiled the
lore of the Sages, receptors of an unbroken tradition, and whose ordination is
traced directly to Moses. We shrink from such audacity. Even the Amoraim
said, regarding Rabbi Yehuda and his colleagues, "If our predecessors
were like angels, we are like men. If they were like men, we are like
donkeys" (Shabbos 112b). Certainly, we in our day, who cannot be
compared even to the Codifiers, can never tamper with the Mishnah.
The
Gemara is beyond all discussion. It is the source of decision, utterly
indispensable for fundamental understanding of Torah law (Baba Metzia
33a and b; Avoda Zara 19a) . There is already a section on this subject
by the Commission, published by the Ministry, as noted above in Paragraph II.
PROPOSAL
IV: Selections from Rambam, including laws most appropriate for advanced
students, and relevant to the layman in his worship, his relations with his
fellow-men, and his relations with monarch and country.
REPLY:
It is impossible to understand Rambam without the Talmud background. Rosh's
Responsa (Principle 31, article 9) , "Whoever reads (Rambam) and imagines
he understands, understands nothing." If this holds true with mature
scholars, it certainly applies to callow students. Maharshal
(introduction to his Yam Shel Shlomo on Chulin) cautions,
"Though Rambam's work is superior to those of his predecessors, it cannot
be accepted through unassisted logic, since the origin of the law is not
evident in the text." He explains further that study must begin with the
source of the law -- Talmud -- and then, only, are the abridged laws
comprehensible. See also S'mag, Introduction. Bais Yosef, in his
Introduction to Tur Orach Chayim, observes, "Using a condensation,
e.g. S'mak, Ogur, Kolbo, is truly a short but long route' " (Eruvin
35b). Ma'adanai Yom Tov, Introduction, wrote that Rambam himself
intended that the law source be first studied exhaustively, and then his work
be referred to for final verdicts.
Obviously
then, Talmud is de rigueur, as the Commission stated, for any degree of
comprehension. Even the Mishnah, the source of law and principle, is, without
Gemara, inadequate for knowledge of the Torah. Sota 22a, "Verdicts
may not be based on the Mishnah." It has been long accepted, that one
untrained in his youth in the study of Gemara, though schooled in Mishnah and
Rambam, is incapable of studying Gemara. If, in primary grades, youths fail to
study Gemara competently, they will be unable to proceed to advanced studies
in rabbinical seminaries.
There
is no need, therefore, to introduce this novel study of Rambam, which has
never been part of the Jewish curriculum. Verdicts are based on Shulchan
Aruch, not on Rambam, whose views were frequently disputed by Rashi, the
authors of Tosefos -- Rabbenu Tam and R'i -- as averred by S'mag,
Introduction, and the authors of the Shulchan Aruch.
If
Rambam is desirable for his moral-ethical teachings, the Commission curriculum
already stipulates the study of other books on morals and ethics that are more
extensive than Rambam, for example, Menoras Hamaor that is suitable
even for children. This work discusses human attributes, e.g. 'Candle I' on
envy, lust, and pride, 'Candle II' on levity, falsehood, slander, and
flattery, 'Candle III' on mitzvah observance, prayer, honor of parents, and
hospitality, 'Candle IV' on Torah study, 'Candle V' on penitence, 'Candle VI'
on the paths of peace and love, 'Candle VII' on humility. There is no further
need for selections from Rambam, especially since Menoras Hamaor has
been universally recognized, whereas a new work would be unacceptable.
PROPOSAL
V: Translation of the three compilations (Bible, Mishnah, Rambam) into a
grammatically impeccable German.
REPLY:
A translation of these works -- Bible, Mishnah, Rambam, and the prayer-book --
though we were not consulted as to the quality of the translation proper, is,
in our considered opinion, not only of no use to teacher and pupils, but would
be distinctly harmful and confusing. School children in our country are
unfamiliar with pure German, since Yiddish is used in school and home. By
reading a German translation, neither they, nor their seniors, would
understand anything. It would be unwise to train an entire people, young and
old, in a new language, German, in place of the language spoken for hundreds
of years. Many sages discounted the feasibility of such a move. Ozar
Nechmad on Kuzari I, 3, declares, "Would an entire nation
alter their spirit and needlessly discard their accustomed tongue? Ralbag
expressed similar sentiments." He refers to Ralbag, Milchamos Hashem
VI, Ch. 15. "It is inconceivable that one nation among all, should
unanimously agree to change their language. What could possibly impel them? It
is demeaning that they abolish it. . . " Teaching a new language would be
a time-consuming task and an unbearable burden, especially if the
translation is to be in German characters. The scheme will impose an
unwarranted and unjustified hardship on the students, who have not yet even
mastered the German language. Facility in linguistics is not a trait common to
all men. In any event, studying the translation would not lead to a clear
understanding of the Torah and Mishnah.
To
have instructors utilize the translation as a commentary to the text, would be
a violation of the Commission's agreement in 1843 to use Rashi's work
exclusively, since it has become a standard work over these past 700 years.
The greatest scholars subsequent to Rashi underwrite his interpretations and
accept him as the deciding authority. It would be wrong to utilize the German
translation which often veers from Rashi's views, unless a new translation, in
conformity with Rashi and acceptable to contemporary Torah scholars, is
prepared, a formidable task indeed.
If
the purpose of the translation is to make the Torah accessible to non-Jewish
students, it would be advisable to render the translation in the language of
His Majesty the Czar, Russian, the tongue common in our land and vital for all
affairs.
As
to a translation of the Mishnah and Rambam, in addition to previously stated
objections, it is well nigh impossible to arrange a translation faithful to
Talmudic interpretations. The brilliant scholar and peerless translator, R.
Yehuda ibn Tibbon, in his own translation of Chovas Halvovos,
castigates the majority of translators. "Often the scholars in different
lands urged me to translate portions of Gaonic works from the Arabic into
Hebrew, but I would not be swayed, because of the many pitfalls to avoid in
this undertaking. In illustration: of all I have seen of translations from the
Arabic into Hebrew there are, without exception, none that fail to destroy the
beauty, alter the content, and lose the flavor (of the original). This loss is
due to three factors: 1) some translators were insufficiently fluent in
Arabic, 2) others were insufficiently fluent in Hebrew, 3) those perhaps
fluent in both languages may not have understood the text as the author meant
it, but translated according to their own ideas, in a manner quite different
from the author's concepts. Perhaps there are translations by some who
combined all these traits. It is obvious that any one factor could distort the
subject..." His words were later emphasized by his eminent, scholarly
son, Shmuel ibn Tibbon, in his Introduction to Moreh Nevuchim.
We
of the Commission of 1843 were consulted on the quality of the German
translation of the Pentateuch. We rejected it on the grounds of its divergence
from Rashi. Please accept in good faith our demurral to the five proposals, as
you well know the remark of the sage, "Love scholars, but love truth
more." (End of Rabbi Menachem Mendel's reply.)
When
the reply was received by the Bureau of Religions, it was given to Mandelstam
for perusal and translation into Russian; the reply was to be on the agenda of
a session of the current Conference. Mandelstam invited Stern and Pinsker to
study the reply. They were dismayed to find that in the five years since the
Commission of 1843, not only did the Lubavitcher Rabbi fail to modify his
opinions or waver from his stand, but he was even more determined and
outspoken than ever.
Mandelstam
also invited Werbel, Eichenbaum, and Lifshitz to discuss the reply of the
Rabbi, the one of the six consulted who replied at length and with
explanations. There were three opinions expressed by the group: 1) report to
the Minister that, of the six replies received from the Rabbis, none give
substantial answers, and some reiterate their opinions expressed at the
Commission of 1843, 2) translate the reply so as to be ineffective by omitting
the conclusions, 3) translate the entire epistle, with conclusions, and add
commentary but to translate it into sharp language, with a demanding tone
concerning the defense of the glory of the Jewish faith and the superiority of
Torah and mitzvos that separate Jews from other people, and elevate them over
all else. This rendition would surely infuriate the haughty Count Uvarov and
stimulate him to implement the Maskilim's proposals.
The
Rabbi, meanwhile, sent copies of his reply to the Vaad in Petersburg, to Rabbi
David Luria, and to the Governor-General of Vitebsk and Mogilev, Count
Galitzin. Galitzin, a nephew of the Count Galitzin who was Minister of Culture
under Czar Alexander I, was raised in a liberal atmosphere. While still a
student, he heard much from his uncle about the great Jewish Rabbi (Rabbi
Schneur Zalman) who was brought to Petersburg as a revolutionary. The elder
Galitzin was lavish in his praise of the Rabbi and his outstandingly scholarly
son (Rabbi Dov-Ber). Before young Galitzin left Petersburg for his post of
Governor-General of Vitebsk and Mogilev, his uncle requested him to protect
the Lubavitcher Rabbi from his foes and Jewish persecutors, the Maskilim. This
request was based on experience, for three Vitebsk Jews, Mirkin, Zlotkin, and
Briskin, often denounced the Rabbi or a member of his family. The accusations
would be sent to the Bureau of Jewish Affairs or the Third Section in
Petersburg.
Within
a few months of assuming office, the young Count changed the personnel of his
staff, and a new morale prevailed in all Government offices. His predecessor,
Diakov, had been a bitter anti-Semite who especially persecuted observant
Jews. Diakov was of royal descent (though not "legally"), a
degenerate and alcoholic. He made frequent, prolonged visits to the large
estates in his provinces, and left the conduct of his office in the hands of
his adjutant, Petrov, a reckless, stupid man.
The
Petersburg Vaad gave the epistle to the learned Yerachmiel Massayev to
translate into Russian, German, and French.1 Massayev translated the letter
into the three languages, and added notes from secular literature, to
illuminate its contents and the citations from Talmud and rishonim -- all in a
readily comprehensible, logical, and cultured manner. His translations were
considered by scholars to be more than expert; they revealed the intellectual
wealth of the original Hebrew, and were literature of the first rank. As a
member of a group of young intellectuals, Massayev showed the reply to his
comrades, who lauded the translation and his erudite notes. The group met to
discuss the reply, and in discussion amplified it further. Massayev rewrote
his translation incorporating the suggestions and comments of his friends.
This copy he gave to his uncle, Chaim Massayev, a member of the Vaad.
Mandelstam
and his group translated their copy for the Bureau of Religions as they had
decided. While adding nothing to the Rabbi's words, they managed to give the
reply an air of hauteur and insufferable conceit, emphasizing the superiority
of the Jewish faith over the Christian. After discussion and additions and
deletions, this draft was approved. A short review was added that, in the
entire reply there was nothing substantial to serve as a clear reply to the
proposals, with the exception of the allusions to the Commission of 1843. They
also noted its condescending attitude toward Christianity.
In
the first report Governor-General Galitzin sent to the Minister of the
Interior -- July 10, 1846 -- on the state of the provinces under his
jurisdiction, he appended a special report on Rabbi Schneersohn of Lubavitch
and his conduct in communal activities. He stated that the Rabbi was deeply
interested in his people's material welfare, and closely supervised their
ethical conduct. On the basis of information gathered by police officers
Kutchinski and Viatzek, the Honored Citizen Rabbi Mendel Shachnovitch
Schneersohn could be suspected of no misdeeds, his conduct being faultless.
This report was transmitted to the Chief Police Officer and the Bureau of
Jewish Affairs. Straganov, the Minister of the Interior, was displeased with
the report and irked by Galitzin's liberal views. The report had an even more
unfavorable effect on Benkendorff, Chief of the Third Section, and Kisselev,
head of the Bureau of Jewish Affairs.
Young
Galitzin, in a letter to his uncle,1 who was then Honorary President of the
Senate, praised the Rabbi, mentioning remarks by the nobles Glinka, Azmidov,
and Shachavski, estate owners near Lubavitch. This letter was dated one week
after the report. He also noted the stories told him by Count Shubalov and Dr.
Heibenthal about Rabbi Schneuri. Young Galitzin declared that, on the strength
of reports from the Secret Police keeping the Rabbi under observation, he
would recommend, in September or October, the removal of the six year old
surveillance over the Rabbi.
Straganov,
though harsh, was in a decided measure quite sincere. Personally a devout
Christian, he respected adherents of other faiths, and deep in his heart he
felt respect for Jewish leaders. Ever since the purchase of the Schtzedrin
estate in 1844, Straganov's attention was drawn to the Rabbi. Kisselev and
Benkendorff, on the other hand, regarded Jewish leaders with open disfavor.
The fact that for seven years --1836-1843 -- Lilienthal, Rotenberg, and
Mandelstam had made all sorts of accusations against the Torah, its eminent
scholars, the Chassidim and their leader, the Lubavitcher Rabbi, caused
Kisselev and Benkendorff to suspect Torah scholars and the Rabbi,
particularly, of subversion.
The
Commission of 1843 and the Rabbi's strenuous efforts to defend Judaism,
Kabala, and Chassidus1 had displeased Benkendorff and Kisselev. Benkendorff
finally demanded that the Minister of the Interior order Diakov to impose a
stricter surveillance over the Rabbi. Galitzin's report was naturally
unpleasant for Benkendorff and Kisselev, and the two officials requested
Straganov to call a special meeting to discuss "vital matters."
After
discussing routine Ministry business, the two officials expressed their
misgivings about the liberal tendencies of Governor-General Galitzin, and
their lack of confidence in his reports on the estate holders and political
activities of the Jewish leaders, especially of Rabbi Schneersohn. They
insisted that the Minister take proper measures to restrict Galitzin's
liberalism, and maintain a more stringent watch over the Rabbi and the White
Russian and Lithuanian communities under his influence.
As
a result of this meeting, the Ministry informed Galitzin of the Minister's
request ,for a comprehensive report, to be submitted within a few months, on
the political state of affairs among the nobles of Vitebsk and Mogilev and the
Jewish communities. Emphasis was to be placed on Rabbi Schneersohn, head of
the Chabad Chassidim. On October 17, 1846, Galitizin submitted his report.
Benkendorff
marked his copy of the report, I do not. believe in the political propriety of
the Swedish and Polish-born nobles. The case of the Tzadik Schneersohn should
be assigned to General Freigang, Head of the Fourth Division, Third Section,
Secret Police."
Freigang
assigned the Director of the Secret Police in Vilna to investigate the Rabbi,
ascertain the number of his visitors, and determine the relationship between
Galitzin and the Chassidim of White Russia and Lithuania, and especially with
the Rabbi. Yurkovski, Director of the Minsk Secret Police, and considered by
his colleagues to be a peerless spy, and Maslov, a spy using membership in the
Minsk City Council to cloak his less publicized activities, arranged the
investigations according to Freigang's orders. Shortly after this, Benkendorff
was stricken with a fatal disease; one Orlov was, appointed his successor.
Orlov, a devout Christian, was a conscientious, just, and kindly man who
honored and admired the faithful of any religion.
After
Orlov assumed office, Freigang's report on the findings of the Vilna Secret
Police was received, verifying Galitzin's appraisal of October 17, 1846. Orlov
became interested in the case and ordered the entire file on Rabbi Schneersohn
for his personal inspection. He suspected that slander and hatred were the
cause of injustice to the Rabbi, and suggested to the Minister that the Rabbi
was a victim of libel. He proposed that, with the Minister's approval,
Galitzin be consulted on whether to maintain surveillance over the Rabbi any
longer. The Minister agreed with Orlov's analysis of the situation, and wrote
Galitzin accordingly. Galitzin's reply, dated March 7, 1847, stated that,
according to information received from provincial officials of
Vitebsk-Mogilev, the Honored Citizen Rabbi Schneersohn of Lubavitch was
deserving of freedom from observation. Orlov then asked Uvarov for his consent
for this move; Uvarov agreed.1 On March 19, 1847, Orlov demanded that the
responsible officials carry out the decision and recall the Police observation
of the Rabbi. Straganov then notified Galitzin that a thorough investigation
of the Rabbi showed him to be unassailable in his political activities. Thus,
the police surveillance came to an end.
Galitzin
gleefully notified Dr. Heibenthal and Count Shubalov of these developments,
and wrote a special letter to his uncle. Two weeks later he received a reply
from the elder count, blessing him for his efforts on behalf of truth and
justice. "But in my opinion," wrote the count, "Rabbi
Schneersohn will now more than ever be in need of your protection. Heretofore
he could refute any accusations by referring to his police observers. Now that
he is free, who will testify for him and defend him from his enemies and
persecutors?
"I
remember," continued the letter, "the deluge of accusations that the
enemies of Rabbi Baruchovitch -- grandfather of Rabbi Schneersohn -- rained
upon him after his proper political conduct had been verified. He was finally
summoned to Petersburg and held in the prison Taini Soviet and almost
sentenced to life imprisonment in Petersburg. Thanks to some upright men in
the Government, and above all, the refined and just heart of His Majesty, Czar
Alexander, he was granted complete freedom. I have no doubt that the same will
befall his grandson, that his Jewish enemies who consider themselves
enlightened will slander and libel him. Remember, then, your duty to defend an
honorable man battling his brethren who deny their Torah, the Torah of
Moses."
His
uncle's letter moved the young Governor. When he learned of the elections to
the Conference called by the Minister of the Interior, and the Rabbi's
inability to participate, Galitzin promptly forwarded Dr. Heibenthal's
affidavit regarding the Rabbi's ill health. Galitzin received his copy of the
Rabbi's reply to the Conference proposals. Being aware of the implacable
opposition of the Maskilim to the Rabbi, he asked Eliezer Zipkin,1 a scholar
of Russian, to translate it. Zipkin replied that, though he clearly understood
the contents, he was unable, for lack of Russian equivalents for certain
terms, to make a true translation. He suggested that the tutor engaged by
Count Piotr Paskovitch for his son Jakob, the Academician Otto Schultz, a
graduate of the Academy for Oriental Languages, would be capable of rendering
a precise translation. Galitzin sent a Hebrew copy of the reply to the
Governor of Mogilev requesting him to forward the copy with a letter from the
Count (Galitzin) to the scholar Schultz, asking him to translate the reply
into Russian.
Schultz
translated the reply and cited from secular literature material pertinent to
the topics discussed. He sent the translation to the Governor to forward to
Count Galitzin.
Shortly
afterward, Galitzin received a communication from the Third Section signed by
Orlov, stating, "The Third Section, has received a copy of the note sent
to the Governor-General of Vitebsk-Mogilev, regarding the pamphlet circulated
by the Tzadik Schneersohn of Lubavitch, expounding rebellion against the
wishes of the Czar, the note stating that the office of the Governor-General
defends Rabbis Schneersohn. The note is signed by the Vitebsk citizens Shmuel
Mirkin, Reuven Wolf Zlotkin, and Benjamin Briskin. The Governor-General is
requested to 1) investigate this note, and 2) send to the offices of the Third
Section a translation of the pamphlet."
Yerachmiel
Massayev was a constant visitor in the home of the elder Count Galitzin.
During one of. their conversations, when the Count related the events of the
investigation of Rabbi Baruchovitch in 1801, and the Rabbinical Commission of
1843, Massayev told him about the reply he had translated. The Count studied
the translation and praised Massayev and his young scholar collaborators for
their comments. He sent a copy to his nephew in Vitebsk with a personal note.
Meanwhile, young Galitzin received two more translations: Professor Schultz's,
and a translation by the censor Tugenholtz from the Governor-General of
Vilna.
Galitzin
then replied to the Third Section that the pamphlet mentioned in the complaint
of Mirkin, Zlotkin, and Briskin, was the same pamphlet he had received from
the Honored Citizen Rabbi Mendel Shachnovitch Schneersohn of Lubavitch,
written in Hebrew. He (Galitzin) had sent a copy to the Bureau of Religions,
where a competent translation was no doubt made. Since the office of the
Governor-General had in its possession three different translations from
three different sources, the copies were being sent to the Third Section,
without prejudice toward any version.
The
Third Section then requested a copy of their translation from the Bureau of
Religions, prepared by Mandelstam and his colleagues, making a total of four
different versions of the reply in the files of the Third Section. Orlov was
understandably bewildered. He had been making a study of the accusations
against Chassidim during four periods: 1) against the Karliners1 in 1772, 2)
the charges and imprisonment of Rabbi Schneur Zalman in 1798, 3) the
accusations and imprisonment of Rabbi Dov Ber in 1826, and 4) the continuous
accusations from 1838 till 1848, and the many imprisonments of Rabbi Menachem
Mendel in 1843.
Orlov
prepared a statement on the general subject of the accusations, and suggested
that the Ministers of Culture and the Interior appoint a special committee to
investigate the origin of the charges. He declared that accusations based on
fraud reflect unfavorably on those Government institutions that respect the
perpetrators of the frauds. At a joint meeting of the Ministries, Straganov
censured Uvarov for his extraordinary and indiscreet faith in the Maskilim.
For years Uvarov had trusted Dr. Lilienthal, until his (Lilienthal's)
misconduct with Government funds and subsequent flight. Since then Uvarov had
conferred on all Jewish affairs with Mandelstam and Rotenberg, ignoring the
Rabbinate entirely, a palpable indiscretion, in Straganov's view. At Uvarov's
behest, Straganov charged, he had selected the six delegates to the current
Conference, and was now informed by the Governors of Vitebsk, Mogilev, Minsk,
Vilna, etc., that the Jews were incensed by the proceedings of the Conference,
claiming that the goal of the Conference was their conversion.
Uvarov
summoned Mandelstam, Rot and the four delegates, Eichenbaum, Werbel,
Lifshitz, and Bernstein. He poured out all his accumulated wrath on their
heads, raging at them with bitter contempt, "How dared Mandelstam advise
the appointment of such men as delegates, public desecrators of Judaism, and
the sole rabbi not really a rabbi, but merely an Instructor in the Vilna
Seminary!" he demanded. In addition, he charged, their translation of the
Lubavitcher Rabbi's reply was spurious. He announced that the Conference would
shortly be terminated, to be considered as never having taken place, i.e.
without recommendations. He dismissed the men, permitting them to leave
Petersburg.
The
four delegates had previously prepared voluminous background material, some
going back to the days of Catherine II and Paul. Recommendations had been
prepared on 1) prohibitions on importing Kabala and Chassidic literature, 2)
substitution of an organized school system for the cheder, 3) expenses
of these schools to be borne by the Jews through a special tax on Sabbath and
holiday candles. The clique was confident of success, since they constituted a
majority. Besides, their proposals were prepared by the leading pedagogue of
the day, Hertz Humburg,1 the Supervisor of Jewish Schools in Bohemia. The plan
was to obtain Government approval quietly, to avoid any possible opposition.
Humburg
composed several textbooks of a patriotic nature in German, and something
titled, "Who is Culturally Fit for Marriage?" In 1810 an Imperial
edict was issued: 1) to introduce Humburg's textbooks in all Jewish schools,
2) to grant marriage licenses to Galician and Bohemian Jews only after
successful examination by the District Police Officer on Humburg's book.
Humburg
proposed that the government 1) institute censorship over Jewish literature,
2) examine Jewish literature and expunge any statements opposing the
government, the Catholic church, and humanity, e.g. superstitions, 3) forbid
the publication of the following literature: new prayers (except those for the
welfare of the monarch), Kabala, biographies of Rabbis and tales of
wonder-workers, sermons with Talmudic casuistry and content, and new
literature on Talmud and the Codes of Law, 4) convene an assembly of the
Rabbis of Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, and Galicia, to deliberate on expunging
from Jewish literature -- Bible, Talmud, Codes of Law, and Prayer-books all
those subjects, laws, statements, and verses that are derogatory of Gentiles.
Through
his proposals Humburg favorably impressed Franz I and the ranking government
officials. Franz appointed Humburg Inspector of Jewish Schools in Bohemia,
where he served from 1814 until 1841. He succeeded in destroying the cheder
schools of Bohemia, propagating secular studies and Haskalah, reinforced
strongholds of Haskalah in Galicia, and was considered the elder statesman by
Russian and Polish Maskilim.
The
proper time to implement the scheme would be, they decided, at the close of
the Conference, when Uvarov and his aides Satutski and Karpov, sympathizers of
the Maskilim, would be most amenable. The one drawback was the presence of
Bashkovitch and Goldberg, who would certainly oppose the recommendations. But
those two had already resigned from the Conference, and after a three-week
suspension of sessions, the Conference was resumed with two more meetings
scheduled. The agenda of the closing session included 1) a reading of the
Rabbi's reply, and a decision by the Conference, 2) discussion of
implementation of decisions, and 3) adjournment.
The
plans were, then, to submit the proposals at that time, and the Maskilim were
confident that this ruse suggested by Humburg would successfully evoke
official approval of their proposals. It was Humburg's strategy to act quietly
and suddenly; Humburg was expert in deceit. Their ends would be quietly and
efficiently fulfilled: customs officials would receive unobtrusive orders from
the Chief of Revenues to return all Jewish books from abroad; a school system
would be organized, and, at the proper time, an official proclamation would be
issued announcing compulsory attendance and the abolition of the cheder;
certain citizens in each community would lease the candle tax concession, and
then Municipal Police would declare a monopoly on candle sales, and anyone
violating the monopoly would be punished. Success was assured, since the task
would be completed before opposition could be aroused and protests submitted.
The Jews would be presented with a fait accompli; even minor changes would be
time consuming, hence ineffective.
The
one error in their calculations was the prejudiced translation of the Rabbi's
reply. The storm raised by the discrepancies of their rendition vitiated all
their careful plans. The efficient Petersburg Vaad discovered and
widely publicized the details of the ignominious debacle, and the public
clearly understood the reasons for the dissolution of the Conference, and the
Government's declining to announce the proceedings and decisions of the
Conference.
The
infamous conduct of Mandelstam and his colleagues during the Conference,
their overt contempt for Shabbos and kashrus, brought disgrace upon the
Maskilim of Russia and Poland. But for the timely assistance of Maskilim from
abroad, the notorious houses of apostasy, the seminaries of Vilna and Zhitomer,
would have disintegrated. In all Jewish communities the Maskilim were rejected
and discredited as forgers and prevaricators. Mandelstam himself,
notwithstanding his official post as expert on Jewish affairs in the
Ministries of Culture and the Interior, fell from grace in the Ministries he
served, and his name became a by-word of mockery and calumny among the Jews of
Russia.
THE END |
