Today’s turmoil—and what caused it: Rabbi Wein

In this, the seventh lecture in the series “The Jewish World 1880-1914”, Rabbi Wein focused on “Zionism, Socialism and Tradition”, looking at concepts and philosophies rather than geographical considerations. He actually structured his lecture around not two but three mainly Jewish movements that opposed the continued existence of Jewish life: Zionism, Marxism and Secularism. All three of these movements, he noted, are still around today but exercise a much lower level of influence on traditional Judaism than was the case a century or more ago.

Jews have always had a utopian, messianic world view: while this is the mainstream view, it was not share by Rambam. In his view, the messianic era would provide for is a world that continues much as it always has done. There will be no messianic revolution; instead, there will be an independent Jewish state, freed from the shackles of foreign domination. This view is in stark contrast with the world promised by the prophet Yishayahu, a world in which there will be no wars or illnesses, a world in which the lion lies down with the lamb. For Rambam this is all allegory: if the lion lies down with the lamb, quipped Rabbi Wein, the result will be lamb chops. Rambam’s view was not, and is not, popular. The traditional view was always optimistic, only to be eternally disappointed. Jewish religious leaders could offer no solution to our problems except to tell us to “grin and bear it, keep on praying—and wait”. This advice had been accepted for 1,800 years, but many felt that, at the end of the 19^th century, this was simply not good enough: many Jews were disappointed with false promises and fake messiahs.

Many traditionalists gave up waiting for messiah and looked at three possible substitutes:

1.      Secularism: the secularists held no belief in God or Heaven, rejecting the prospects of a world to come and of an afterlife. Up till then, even among traditionalists there were varying degrees of personal observance—but hitherto there had been no official movement away from God and religion. In the wake of the secularist movement, entire generations of pure secularists were born, scientifically oriented and holding the belief that utopia would be achieved only through knowledge. In the 19^th century, scholars believed they could achieve ultimate knowledge. Now, Rabbi Wein noted, they accept that, the more they know, the less they know.

How did this secularism affect the Jewish world? It began with the growth of the Haskalah, with acculturated Jews asking: “How can you be in the modern world without music, literature, art?” Kashrut and Shabbat were jettisoned on the basis that they had no relevance in modern world, being replaced by goals such as gaining entry to universities where people could obtain a truly secular understanding of the modern world in which they lived--a scientific world.

2.    Socialism and Marxism. In 1846, a Jewish apostate, Karl Marx, came up with a new philosophy based on the premise that all human history reflected class struggle, not national or religious differences. Religion, in his view, was the opium of the people, comforting the masses and deadening their sensitivity to reality so that they should be better equipped to accept the poverty and hardship under which they lived. Marx maintained that society, not individuals, should own the means of production—even though this was against human nature, which is to be acquisitive.

Communism, Rabbi Wein pointed out, is the ultimate utopianism. but 200 years of experience have demonstrated its failure in practice. Many Jews loved it—and regarded it as their second Talmud, being the only people to make it work in the form of Israel’s early kibbutzim. Kibbutz life was built upon the maxim of “to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability”—the ultimate utopian ideal. Marxism is ultimately a cruel philosophy because of its belief that the end justifies the means, this being an invitation to dispose ruthlessly of one’s opponents, as has been done by Stalin and Chairman Mao. The Left is still strong in Israel, Rabbi Wein concluded, but socialism is not as pernicious as it once was: the Histadrut no longer owns the country.

3.       Zionism: in all of its forms, this is a highly complicated doctrine. At heart it is an intrinsically religious idea, that of Jews returning to an ancient homeland. But it was sold to prospective adherents as a species of nationalism, not as a religious ideal and, in doing so, it encountered great opposition from Jews in the religious, secular and Marxist sectors. The great achievement of Zionizm has been to keep secular Jews within Israel and to accommodate their secularism.

Divisions within the ranks of Zionism were apparent when the British Secretary of State, Lord Palmerston offered Theodore Herzl the chance to establish a Jewish state in Uganda. Herzl welcomed this offer, but European Zionists were aghast: even though many of them were secularists or Marxists, this was unacceptable to them.

The religious community opposed Zionism because it was seen as nationalist and anti-religious. Charedim are still fighting this battle, even though the State of Israel is 77 years old and 8 million Jews live here. But now there is also the phenomenon of Religious Zionism – Eretz Yisrael al pi Torat Yisrael – and the concept of Zionism as we know it today embraces even religious socialists and their kibbutzim.

Rabbi Wein concluded by asking: “How do we deal with residue of the turmoil of the 19^th century that continues today?” He confessed that he had no answer.

The Ottomans decline, while Jewish opportunities grow: Rabbi Wein

In the sixth of his eight-part lecture series, Rabbi Wein tackled the gradual disintegration of the Turkish-based Ottoman Empire and its impact on the many Jews who lived within its sprawling borders. This empire spread all the way from Balkans and the Mediterranean to the Middle East, Egypt, Libya and much of North Africa. Starting from the 15^th and 16^th centuries, this militantly Moslem even reached the gates of Vienna.

Because of its vast geographical spread, this empire began to decline. At the root of its failure was endemic internal corruption which was the consequence of its Caliph, based in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul (right), farming out governorships to different tribes, clans and families. Local autonomy was the norm, which meant that no two areas were governed in the same way. Eastern Sephardim were the main Jewish culture, and they lived within the Ottoman Empire as a self-contained society. Local rulers were less harsh on the Jews than were Western rulers, but in many communities they had no rights. Notably, however, there were no pogroms before 1948.

Israel, Rabbi Wein explained, was a sparsely populated wasteland with a tiny Jewish and mainly Sephardic population. The country had no effective economy. During the early 1800s, there was a small trickle of Eastern European Jewish immigration; these migrants came for purely religious reasons and had no expressed intention of founding a state. Safed, Tiveria, Yerushalayim and Chevron were the main centres of Jewish life. When Mark Twain visited the land in the late 1890s, he recorded that he had never seen a more desolate place. Incidentally, there was no real connection between the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities, especially since the former had had no real exposure to mussar or chassidut.

The Turks had a large Christian population within their borders, particularly in Armenia and Syria. Moslems viewed them, rather than the Jews, as their enemy. This, said Rabbi Wein, had the paradoxical effect of making the local Christian churches more antisemitic than their Western counterparts. During the 1800s, as the West started eroding portions of the Ottoman Empire, Jerusalem grew in significance: it was no longer just a place but had become an ideal, a vindication. Colonies were founded there by the Germans, Russians, French and others—and the Ottomans were helpless to stop this.  Many consulates based in Jerusalem claimed they were justified in being there to protect claims of locals living in these colonies. Curiously, at this time there was also a nascent movement among evangelical Christians who believed that Jewish settlement was needed as a precursor of the Christian Messiah.

Rabbi Wein then focused on the activities of Sir Moses Montefiore (left), who devoted his life to the cause of the Jewish people and intervened in the notorious1840 blood libel in Damascus. Montefiore visited Israel a total of seven times and generously donated money—but within the Jewish community there was no organisational infrastructure that could put it to good use. In short the Jews as a community were not ready for monetary support, but even private donations such as those of Montefiore would have the effect of weakening the Ottoman Empire first and, when the First Aliyah came, the Turks proved to be incapable of resisting it.

Within the crumbling Caliphate, the force of inertia was becoming impossible to overcome. Theodore Herzl had originally tried to buy Israel for the princely sum of 15 million British pounds, hoping to get this sum from the Rothschild family. The Turks however did not want to sell. In the 1890s, Greece broke away from Turkish rule (this assertion of freedom was romanticised by Lord Byron). Next, Serbia broke free from both Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian control. Cracks also appeared at the very core of the Empire, as hostilities increased between the Sunni Moslem majority and Shi’ite minority. Happily, the Jews were not caught in the crosshairs of their disputes.

Returning to Herzl and Zionism, Rabbi Wein showed that the Ottomans saw Jewish nationalism as a direct threat: it was not only European in origin, and therefore alien, but also featured secular Jews—something that the Ottomans regarded as a direct threat to an empire was founded on religion. Following Herzl’s unsuccessful bid to purchase the land of Israel, the JNF set out to buy land on a piecemeal basis and had far more success. In this way the Zionist movement succeeded in implanting itself in the Galilee during the First Aliyah through the establishment of kibbutzim and moshavim. How odd, commented Rabbi Wein, that the land of Israel should be built by the non-religious.

With Jewish settlement came Jewish disputes, largely between Sephardim and Ashkenazim. The Turks gave kashrut rights to the Sephardim, which the Ashkenazim said they couldn’t accept. Disputes amongst Jews were always referred to the Turkish authorities and, since those authorities were corrupt, the arguments put before them were corrupt too. Also, the 0od Yishuv refused to recognise the new Yishuv, finding the newcomers to be so rebellious and condescending towards traditional Jews that there was no dialogue.

“If not for us, then for our children”: Jews in the USA

Yesterday Rabbi Wein delivered the fifth of his eight lectures in the current series, The Jewish World 1880-1914. In this lecture the audience was treated to a potent mix of hard fact, penetrating analysis and personal recollections.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century around 2.5 million Jews had entered the United States. This began a wave of migration that both saved Jewish people and allowed for creation of State of Israel. But why was the USA so eager to welcome Jews? After the Civil Law, the USA had became a continental power. It took over an enormous amount of land—but was short of human resources and needed people. At the start of its industrial revolution this new power needed workers and customers in great number. Thus Immigrants encouraged to come until the 1920s.

The earliest Jews to arrive came in colonial times, but they comprised only around 1,000 out of a population of around two and a half million. In the main they were Sephardi, and traditional in their religion observance. This was a good time for them to come, being businessmen and middlemen in a land that had no income tax, no poll tax, and practically no restrictions on trade: this was the beginning of the era of the robber barons. Thus the USA offered great opportunities and a world of freedom and enterprise that simply didn’t exist in Europe.

In the 1840s there was an influx of reform Jews from Germany, but this wave of immigration left little behind since second and third generation Jews of German origin chiefly converted to Christianity. Though they created federations, institutions, hospitals and schools, the aim of these institutions was to Americanize any Jew that came to America. Rabbi Wein cited the extreme example of the Pittsburgh Platform – a document that called on Jews effectively to abandon their Jewish practice and to divorce themselves completely from traditional Judaism.

Non-Jews who thought that the assimilationist position of the Pittsburgh Platform was real Judaism were deeply shocked at the sudden massive influx of Jews from Eastern Europe towards the end of the century. Yiddish-speaking and very different in their behavior and dress, they looked quite out of place in their new social environment. In the eyes of America, the USA was supposed to be a melting pot, so there was no tolerance of diversity. The norm throughout the land was a six-day working week, with Sunday being universally recognized as the day of rest. This posed enormous problems for immigrants who sought to remain observant Jews, who also had to face the challenges of urban life as they exchanged the city for the shtetl.

Life was tough for those who kept Shabbat since jobs were lost on a weekly basis. Poverty was rife and tenement life was tough. However the prevailing attitude was positive and forward-looking: “I won’t make it, but my children will”.

Rabbi Wein did not neglect the unseemly side to Jewish immigration—our involvement in crime. This was a field in which the immigrant Jews and Italians dominated, but there was a crucial difference between them: the Jews never put their children into the crime business, preferring to spend the proceeds of crime on educating them and putting them through college, whereas the Italians put all theirs into the family crime business and thus became the scapegoats for all crime.

Around 10 percent of Jewish immigrants were involved in left-wing politics, which was seen as anti-American. There were no pogroms as such, but there was the occasional spontaneous blood libel. Although the Jewish populace was generally not liked, such fighting as there was tended to be along ethnic, not religious lines. But the hold of religion on the new Jewish Americans was weak. Rabbi Wein quoted a telling aphorism of Dr Twerski: parents were giving their children what they didn’t have, but forgot to give them what they did have.

Given the powerful pressures towards conformity and Americanisation, it was not surprising that European rabbis had little influence even on their own families. After all, this was the United States, not the shtetl, and everything was different. Against this, the early 1900s saw the creation of the Young Israel movement. This was an attempt to preserve halacha while giving it an American tinge. Young Israel encouraged communal singing in shul, spoke English and looked for English-speaking rabbis. Against this, the Conservative movement sought to make concessions to religious observance and custom on the basis that this was the only way to prevent the complete assimilation of American Jewry. There was little else to choose from, since even by 1914 there were only a few truly orthodox institutions, and they weren’t seen as forerunners of any successful movement.

In conclusion, Rabbi Wein reminded his audience, when contemplating the calamitous situation he had depicted, not to be too judgmental. Times were hard and so were the decisions that people had to make.

Jews under threat -- and Jews seen as a threat: Rabbi Wein explains

In this, the fourth in his series of eight lectures on ‘The Jewish World 1880-1914’ Rabbi Wein continued his discussion of the plight of the Jews in Russia, taking up with the last of the Romanov Tsars—Nicholas II (right), who strictly enforced the harsh decrees imposed by his father Tsar Alexander III.

These three decrees were as follows:

1.       Jewish men of 18 had to serve in Russian Army for 25 years. Around 50,000 Jews were forced into the army; hardly any came back as observant Jews. Many tactics were employed to evade this conscription, such as changing surnames to make it look as though there was only one son in the family.

2.       All Jews had to live within the Pale of Settlement; this excluded them from living in the great cities of Moscow and St Petersburg. Once again, it proved possible to get round this restriction, at least for the wealthy.

3.       Heavy taxes were imposed, but these too could be evaded since Russia had a culture of corruption.

Nicholas was the head of the heavily antisemitic Russian Orthodox Church. He was also a cousin of Kaisar Wilhelm in Germany and King George V of England. All were grandchildren of England’s Queen Victoria and this was assumed to be a positive indicator of peace. Unfortunately it did not, since nationalism drove the family apart and led to the First World War.

The Jews in this period were divided. The maskilim (secularists) believed that society could order itself without religion and that history displayed a progressive improvement in human life and conduct. This movement began in Germany but spread throughout Europe. The maskilim regarded Judaism as being devoid of culture, with no real culture, literature or music of its own. Their philosophy is now reflected in the acronym DEI (“diversity, equality, inclusivity”) and in denial of the notion that the Jews are a special, unique people.

The Russian government, with which the maskilim cooperated, was sympathetic to this view, and to the solution of the Jewish problem by converting one-third, killing one-third and driving the remaining third out. Local rabbis were the “enemy”.

The orthodox community was not however beaten. Thanks to the Gaon of Vilna (left), the foundations of Jewish survival through Torah education were firmly established in the institution of the yeshiva. The establishment of the yeshiva enabled the best and most promising students to study in depth and also involved whole communities in their support.  Yeshivot also produced communists and free-thinkers, as well as what turned out to be leaders of the Zionist movement. One by-product of the establishment of yeshivot was the ongoing tension between the Rosh Yeshiva and the Rabbi of the town: not many people could fulfil both functions at the same time.

The yeshiva world was not immune from disagreement and dispute. Reb Chaim Brisker’s popular new way of analysing the text of the Talmud was at odds with the traditional methods used by the Netziv. This caused a split in learning methodologies that exists to this day—but in the nineteenth century they were both taught within the same institution. Added to this was the emergence of the Mussar Movement of Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, focused on establishing a world view based on ethical and behavioral values. Some yeshivot were in favour of mussar, others against it. And then came the political issue of Zionism: should the yeshivot be for it or against it? All these issues contributed to the fragmentation of the Torah world, not just in Lithuania but throughout the world.

A further idea promoted by the Gaon was that the Jews should stop waiting for the Messiah and should move to Israel. He encouraged those whom he influenced to leave and settle here. He himself got as far as Odessa, but never completed his Aliyah. The idea of moving however took root in Russia, where entire villages were emptied out as the Jewish poor fled to the United States to escape the cruelty of Tsar Nicholas. They knew they would struggle in their new land but reckoned that it was worth the struggle for the sake of their children.

There were however some Jews who did not want to leave Russia: they wanted to remain there and improve the country. They spoke Russian but were seen as a constant threat to Russian society because they tended to espouse far left and anarchist political causes. Nicholas was always worried about the threat that these Jews posed. Hounded by the police in Russia, some of them left for the United States, bringing their left wing sentiments with them.

The Jewish World 1880-1914: a new lecture series

Beit Knesset Hanassi is delighted to announce details of the forthcoming lecture series by Rabbi Berel Wein: "The Jewish World 1880-1914".  This series covers the three and a half decades that culminated in the First World War, the conflict that many believed to be the war to end all wars. This period saw many shifts in the fortunes of the Jewish people and of the Jewish religion itself, as commitment to the Torah faced competition from the claims of nationalism and conflicting political philosophies.

Delivering the lectures is Rabbi Berel Wein, who has earned an outstanding reputation as a writer and lecturer on Jewish history. 

These lectures are open to the public as well as to our members. You can sign up in advance for the entire series, or you can pay at the door for each lecture you attend. 

We hope to see you there!