אומשלאָף

ממשותדיק

2010-01-26T10:00:00.000-08:00

חבֿרה,

איך אַרבעט איצט אױף אַ זשורנאַל. טאָמער איר האָט עפּעס צוצוגעבן זאָלט איר שיקן מיר אַן אָנזאָג.

ס'װעט הײסן "ממשותדיק" און ס'װעט האָבן אי אַן ענגלישע אָרױסגאַבע אי אַ ייִדישע. איך בין גרײט צו אָננעמען עסײען און קונדס װאָס זענען שײך צו אָדער טעריטאָריליזם אָדער גענײטיקע ענדערונגען צו ייִדישיזם אָדער אַנטי־אַסימילאַציע.

אינהאַלט:
דאָס פֿאָלק: די צוקונפֿט פֿון ייִדישיזם
ישׂראל װאָלף

זאָלן מיר דאָ בױען אונדזער קולטור אין ענגליש?
חײם זשיטלאָװסקי

אַ קורצע געשיכטע פֿון דער פֿרײַלאַנד־ליגעס אונטערהאַנדלונגען
ישׂראל װאָלף

דער פּלאַץ פֿון פֿרײַלאַנד אין ייִדישן לעבן
יצחק שטײנבערג

צי קען נאָך עפּעס ווערן פֿונעם ייִדישיזם?
שיקל פֿישמאַן (אױב איך קריג זײַן רשות)

די ענלישע אַרױסגאַבע װעט זײַן אַ איבערזעצונג פֿון דער ייִדישער.

ישׂראל

בגד

2010-01-12T10:26:00.001-08:00

http://jewschool.com/2010/01/10/19987/beged-the-question/

דער פּיאָנער

2009-12-23T17:36:00.000-08:00

הײַנט בין איך געפֿאָרן צו ייִװאָ כּדי צו פֿאָרשן אַ ביסל. איך האָב געפֿונען די מיקראָפֿילם פֿון „דער פּיאָנער“ װאָס איז געװען יופֿס (פֿרײַלאַנד־יוגנט) צײַטונג. דרך־אגבֿ איז עס געװען אַ כּמו־שׂמחה בײַ ייִװאָ. טאָני מיקעלס און עדי פּאָרנױ זענען בײדע געװען דאָרטן.

צװישן העברעיסטישער און ייִדישיסטישער אַסימילאַציע
פֿון י. רינער

דאָס פֿאָלק: די צוקונפֿט פֿון ייִדישיזם

2009-11-22T20:39:00.000-08:00

מחוץ די חסידישע מחנות איז ייִדיש שױן אַ שפּראַך אָן אַ פֿאָלק. אָבער מע מוז קלאָר פֿאַרשטײן אַז ייִדיש שטאַרבט נישט און װעט קײן מאָל נישט שטאַרבן. באמת קענט ייִדיש װײַטער לעבן פּונקט װי ליטײַן לעבט הײַנט. מע קענט זיך לערנען ליטײַן אין די שולן און אוניװערסיטעטן און מסתּמא עס הערן אין אַ גאָר "פֿרומער" געגנט. אָבער מוז מען מודה זײַן אַז ליטײַן איז הײַנט אָן איר פֿאָלק, ד"ה אָן רױמער. די װאָס זיך לערנען ליטײַן װערן נישט רױמער אפֿילו אױב זײ זענען געבױרען געװאָרן אין רױם!
פּונקט אַזױ איז דער מצבֿ פֿון די װאָס קומען צו ייִדיש דורך קלאַסן אין די אוניװערסיטעטן. זײ װערן נישט "ייִדן" אפֿילו אױב זײערע באָבע־זײדעס זענען יאָ געװען "ייִדן". יענע סטודענטן און אפֿילו ייִדישיסטן בלײַבן יהודים אָדער ישׂראלים. פֿאַרשײט זיך, קענען מיר נישט אָפּלײקען די װערט פֿון אַקאַדעמיע בכּלל און די סטודענטן פֿון ייִדיש בפֿרט. מע דאַרף פֿאַרשטײן אַז אַלײן זענען זײ נישט קײן לײזונג. אָן אַ פֿאָלק צװישן װאָס אױסצולעבן אױף ייִדיש איז דער שפּראַך װאָס איז געלערנט אין די קלאַסצימערן אָדער אפֿילו געזױגען מיט די מאַמעס מילעך פֿאַרדאַמט צו צעקאַליעטשונג אונטער די השפּעות פֿון די "גרױסע" לשונות אין װעלכע סבֿיבֿות רעדערס געפֿינען זיך. למשל איז עס גרינג צו הערן בײַ דער ייִדיש־װאָך אַ ייִדיש װאָס איז בקיצור אַ רײן איבערגעזעצט ענגליש. יענע ייִדיש־װאָכניקס (איך בתוכם) זענען נישט שולדיק אין זײער שפּראַכס אָרעמקײט. באמת איז זײער שפּראַך אַ קלאָר אָפּשפּיגלונג פֿון דער געזעלשאַפֿט צװישן װאָס זײ װױנען און דװקא רעדן ייִדיש. אָבער איז פֿאַר יענער געזעלשאַפֿט שױן פֿאַראַן אַ פּאַסיק שפּראַך — אַמעריקאַן־דזשוּיש ענגליש (אָדער שפּאַניש, רוסיש, וכּדומה). בקיצור אױב ייִדיש האָט געפּאַסט פֿאַר אַזאַ געזעלשאַפֿט װאָלט קײן ייִדן נישט אָנגעהױבן צו רעדן ענגליש. לײדער, פּאַסט ייִדיש נישט. פֿאַר װאָס זאָלן ייִדן רעדן צװײ שפּראַכן אױב אײנער פֿון זײ איז אַ כּמו־איבערזעצונג פֿון דער אַנדערער? װי אַזױ קענען מיר דאַרװאַרטן אַן אַנדערער מצבֿ אױב מיר האָבן נאָר אײן געזעלשאַפֿט אָפּצושפּיגלן מיט אונדזערע לשונות? אַ ייִדיש װאָס אי באַגרענעצט צום יחיד אָדער משפּחה און אַנטװיקלט אין אַ יחידישע, ישׂראלי, אָדער גױישע געזעלשאַפֿט שטײט אין אַ סכּונת־נפֿשות. ייִדיש אָן ייִדישקײט איז שױן אונדזער באָבעס דאגה, אַ ייִדיש אָנע
"ייִדן" איז אונדזערע. הײַנט ייִדיש מאָנט אַ פֿאָלק צו רעדן איר און אַנטװיקלן איר אין אַ "ייִדישע" סבֿיבֿה אי אין דער הײם אױף דער גאַס. אַ סתּם סכום רעדערס איז נישט קײן פֿאָלק פּונקט װי אַ "רעדער" איז נישט קײן "ייִד". דערפֿאַר קענען מיר זאָגן אַז דער מצבֿ פֿון דער שפּראַך טאָר נישט זײַן אונדזער פֿאָקוס, נאָר מע מוז פֿאָקוסירן אױפֿן מצבֿ פֿונעם ייִדישן פֿאָלק און איר אינהאַלט. קודם־כּל מוזן מיר פֿאַרשטײן אַז אַ ייִדיש װאָס לעבט אַ שאָטן־קיום צװישן צעזײטע און צעשפּרײטע יחידים און משפּחות איז פֿאַרמשפּט צו אַ שאָטן־צוקונפֿט און אַ מיאוסע פֿאַרשװאַכונג און אונטערגאַנג. אַ געזונטער קיום און עתיד פֿאָדערט אַ "ייִדישע" פֿאָלק. לײדער איז יענע פֿאָלק געװען אױסגעהרגעט, צעברענט, און באַגראָבן אין אײראָפּע, דערשטיקט אין ראַטנלאַנד, גערודפֿט אין פּאַלעסטינע און מדינות ישׂראל, און פֿרײַװילק אַסימילירט אין אַמעריקע. אַהוץ די חסידישע שאַרבן לעבט זי נאָר אינעם עבֿר. דערפֿאַר זאָלן אונדזער הױפּט ציל זײַן די באַפֿרײַונג פֿונעם ייִדישן פֿאָלק פֿון איר געשיכטלעכן גלות.
בכּדי צו מקײם זײַן אַזאַ ציל װעלן מיר דאַרפֿן איבערמאַכן יהודישע, [עקס־]חסידישע, און ישׂראלי "אימיגראַנטן" צו "ייִדן". אָבער יענע ’אימיגראַנטן‘ װעלן קײן מאָל נישט זײַן צוגעצױגן צו פֿאַרלאָזן זײערע געװעזענע פֿעלקער אױב זײער נײַע פֿאָלק קענט נישט צוזאָגט אַ לעבן אָדער אַ חלום װאָס איז בעסער אָדער כאָטש מער אינטערעסאַנט פֿון זײערע הײַנטצײַטיקע לעבנס/פֿעלקער.
ס'איז קלאָר אַז די פֿולשטענדיקע באַפֿרײַונג פֿון אונזער פֿאָלק איז אוממעגלעך אין די ערטער/ייִשובֿים װוּ ייִדן (ד"ה יהודים, ישׂראלים, וכּדומה) האָבן שױן אַ פֿאָלקסלעבן און שפּראַך װאָס פּאַסט פֿאַר אַזאַ לעבן (ענגליש/עבֿרית/שפּאַניש/רוסיש). דער מצבֿ פֿאָדערט אונדז צו זוכן מחוץ אַזעלכע לענדער צו שאַפֿן אַזאַ ייִשוב.
אַװדאי איז עס נאַרישקײט צו דערװאַרטן אַ טעריטאָריע איצט. די װעלט מצבֿ צװינגט נישט אַזאַ אױסװעג פֿון אונדזערע צרות. בשעת דאָס ייִדישע פֿאָלק בלײַבט אינעם געשיכטלעכן גלות, דאַרפֿן מיר גרײטן אױף איר באַפֿרײַונג און אומקערן צוּ דער הװה. דער מצבֿ װעט אונדז נישט דערלױבן צו גײן אױפֿן ראַדיקאַלסטן װעג (דער עטאַבלירונג פֿון אַ ייִדיש־טעריטאָריע), דאַרפֿן מיר קלעקן מיט קלײנע ממשותדיקע טריטלעך.
די גרײטונג־פּראָגראַם װעט אָנהײבן מיט אַ זומער פּראָגראַם. אױף 3 הדשים װעלן יוגנע ייִדיש רעדערס קומען צוזאַמען צו לערנען לאַנדװירטשאַפֿט און באַשאַפֿן אַ ייִדישע קולטור. דאָס טאָר נישט זײַן אַ רײן ייִדישיסטישע אונטערנעמונג, מוז מע צוציִען די פֿײַערדיקע כּוחות פֿון די חסידישע און עקס־חסידישע יוגנט. מע װעט ניט נאָר שאַפֿן אַ לעבעדיקע אָרט פֿאַר ייִדיש, נאָר צונױפֿנברענגן די צװײ ייִדישע װעלטן אין אַ אָרגאַנישע און חברלעכער סבֿיבֿה.
מע דאַרף אײַער הילף צו פֿאַרװירקלעכן אונדזער ערשטע טריט! מע טאָר נישט דערלױבן אונדזער נאַציאָנעל קיום צו ממשיך זײַן "אָן אַ זין און אָן אַ ציל, בלױז לױטן באַפֿעל פֿון געשיכטלעכן פֿאַטום"
שטעלט זיך אין פֿאַרבינדונג מיט ישׂראל באַס
yisroel@yugntruf.org

The Modern Tinek-Shenishbe: Anti-Assimilation Among the Descendants of the Yiddish Nation

2009-11-22T20:05:00.000-08:00

In the beginning, the assimilationist/anti-assimilationist dialectic was limited to a debate on the negation or promotion of self. The enlightenment and the [temporary] liberation of Jews that followed forced us to re-examine our constitution in new ways. Battles of debate and action raged around the entire globe, from New York’s Lower East Side, to Johannesburg, and Warsaw. In the 20th century this dialectic was played out in the most painful of ways within the 3rd Reich and Soviet Union. The era we find ourselves in now is one in which most of the dust has settled, leaving it for us to figure out what exactly remains of both the dialectic and our nationhood.

The 20th century was brutal to the Yiddish nation. Between the abortive national policy of the Soviet Union, the genocidal policy of the 3rd Reich, the Negation of the Diaspora credo of the State of Israel, and the embrace of Western culture and language in America, very little remains of what once was a nation of millions. It would seem that all that is left of the once diverse Yiddish nation are the various Chassidic courts that continue to employ the Jewish language and reject western culture.

The cold hard truth is that Jews of Yiddish decent do not have a diverse and multitudinous people to “return” to. What exists are Chassidim and possibly a lot of elderly people (who in no way constitute a living breathing society on a national scale). The tragedy of anti-assimilationist Jew of Yiddish decent manifests itself in a status that could be interpreted as that of a modern tinek-shenishbe. A tinek-shenishbe being the transcription of a term used in Talmud to refer to a Jew who is like a baby captured and raised by non-Jews (thus having no/little understanding/respect of Jewish ways/customs). The term is expanded also to refer to Jews who are raised by non-observant parents, and therefore not responsible for transgressions. This concept works well when applied to modern Jews, who for a host of reasons, have come to reject assimilatory ideals and seek a return to their people. (It is in no way my intention to address the question “What is a Jew?”, but rather I seek to specifically address what I consider a fact, namely Jews of Yiddish decent, descend from a culturally/religiously/linguistically Yiddish nation and by choosing to fight against assimilation those individuals [must] look to embrace that national identity as their own.) Whatever the reason, such Jews never inherited the national makeup of their fore bearers. Instead they were figuratively taken as babies (tinek=baby), and raised by non-Yiddish peoples in a non-Yiddish cultural arena. These individuals are not accountable for their assimilation, but they do suffer its consequences and reap its benefits. As it so happens the Rabbis have an easy fix for the captive babies of yore, namely placing them among educated and reverent Jews. After a while they will come to respect the ways of Judaism and lose their wretched status. But alas, such a quick fix is hard found for the modern tinek-shenishbe! Where can one “place” these estranged outsiders to regain their Yiddish essence? The Chassidic community represents just one remaining shard of a once diverse nation of millions and is surely not for everyone, nor should it be expected to be. If its hard to be a Jew, its even harder to be an anti-assimilationist tinek-shenishbe! Sure, one could go and learn Yiddish, but a language alone cannot replace a folk-spirit that must be created and lived, and cannot simply be learned.

Without a folk to return to, our unsatisfied tinek-shenishbe must move in a radical direction, for while she is in the captivity of a strange and foreign culture, her nation that she seeks to reunite with finds itself in the captivity of history. The Yiddish nation cannot and will not be liberated by nostalgia and sorrow, but rather through a tangible folk-oriented program, a program that must take territorialist dimensions. Redemption of yesterday’s hopes can only be accomplished through pushing the limits of today’s realities.

The fatalists cry, “History has spoken!”, but the radical tinek-shenishbe triumphantly responds, “History will speak!” By starting our work now, we will be prepared when that moment comes. Then, not only will we shed our captive status, but our nation too will once again be able to rejoin the brotherhood of humanity. We start now!

-----

Yisroel Bass is an executive board member at Yugntruf—Youth for Yiddish, a non-profit that seeks to promote Yiddish among young people. He is currently working to create a summertime agricultural program where Yiddish speakers from various backgrounds will come together to learn new skills, participate in community, and develop a folk-culture all in Yiddish. If you are interested in helping with this project or simply have a question you can contact him though email: yisroel@yugntruf.org

די פּלוגתּא

2009-10-08T13:37:00.000-07:00

ייִדישיסט־פּרעסע מלחמה

2009-08-10T18:25:00.000-07:00

http://jewishmayhem.com/?p=283

כ'האָב ספֿקות בנוגע קאָמענטירן אױף אַלע שלעכטע/נאַרישע שמוץ װאָס אַזעלעכע מענטשן שרײַבן מכּוח ייִדיש. אַזעלכע מײנונגען זענען טיף אין די בײנער פֿון יענע מענטשן. אפֿילו אױב מענטשן זיך לערנען אמת פֿון אונזער כּעס, װעלן זײ מסתּמא נישט זיך לערנען ייִדיש און אפֿילו אױב זײ װאָלט, װאָלט זײ דאַרפֿן עוקר־דירה זײַן קײן ניו־יאָרק צו געפֿינען עפּעס אַ קהילה פֿאַר זײער נײַעם לשון. מע דינט בעסער ייִדיש דורך מעשׂים און אױפֿבױען אונזער קהילה, נישט דורך ברוגזדיקע קאָמענטאַרן אױף װעבזײַטלעך. ס'איז קלאָר אַז די ציוניסטן, אַסימילירטע, און אַנדערע שׂונאים פֿון ייִדיש האַלטן די מאַכט אין די פּרעסע. מיר קענען נישט דערװאַרטן קײן נצחון אין אַזאַ'ן אַרענאַ. מיר קענען נאָר בעטײטיקן ייִדיש אױף דער גאַס. אין דער אַנאַרכיסטישע אופֿן , זאָלן אונזער פּראָגראַם זײַן געבױט אױף דער לאָזונג "פּראָפּאַגאַנדע דורך מעשׂים [טובֿים]"

אױב מע זײט ממשיך מיט דער אַמאָליקע פּראָגראַם, װעלן מיר גאָרנישט נישט אױפֿטוען פֿאַר אונדזער באַװעגונג און חס וחלילה אױסזען װי רוגזישע פֿאַנאַטיקערס אין די אױגן פֿון די שױן אומאינטערעסירטע.

געשעדיקט

2009-08-01T13:41:00.000-07:00

קאָסמאָס מאָדנעקײט

2009-08-01T13:36:00.000-07:00

באָטװין

2009-07-19T18:06:00.000-07:00

װען ס'גײען צום קריג רעפּובליקס־באַטליִאָנען,
װען ס'בלוטיקט די ערד און עס קנאַלט דער דינאַמיט,
באַגלײט אַ געזאַנג די צעפֿלאַטערטע פֿאָנען:
דאָס גײען די באָװינס צו דער שלאַכט מיט אַ ליד.
אַ ליד פֿון האָפֿענונג און זיג פֿון מיליִאָנען,
װאָס װילן לעבן אין פֿרײהײט און רעכט,
װאָס שיקט אונז שטורמען דעם שׂונהס קאַנאָנען
און פֿירט אונז דרײסטע צום לעצטן געפֿעכט

נאָ פּאַסאַראַן!

כאָר:
מיטיק, פֿאָרױס צום שטורעם צום אַטאַק
גײען מיר, באָטװיניסטן!
מיט דער אינטערנאַציאָנאַל,
מיט אונזער פֿאָלקסאַרמײ

אונז אײניקט דער האַס צו די ברױנע באַנדיטן
װאָס װילן פֿאַרקנעכטן דאָס שפּאַנישע לאַנד
מיר װעלן די גרין־רױטע פֿעלדער פֿאַרהיטן
מיט פֿאָנען פֿון אײנהײט און מיט ביקס אין דער האַנט
און אין דער ברידער־רײ פֿון פֿעלקער און ראַסן,
װאָס װילן מער נישט פֿאַרשלקאַפֿונג און נױט,
שמידן מיר אױס דאָס געװער פֿון די מאַסן
דער פֿרײהײטס־פֿאָלקפֿראָנט פֿון שלום און בױט

נאָ פּאַסאַראַן!

כאָר

מיר װעלן נישט לאָזן פֿון האַנט די געװערן,
אַזױ האָט געלערנט אונז באָטװין, דער העלד,
ביז ס'װעט אונז די צוקונפֿט אין גאַנצן געהערן,
ביז ס'װעט אַ באַפֿרײַטע זיך צערבליען די װעלט.
און אין די נײַע און קריגסלאָזע צײַטן
װעט מען דערמאָנען אױך אונזער פֿאַרמעסט,
װי ס'האָבן ייִדישע באָטװין סאָלדאַטן
פֿאַרטרײַבן װײַט די פֿאַשיסטישע פּעסט.

נאָ פּאַסאַראַן!

כאָר

?װוּהין קאָלומבוס

2009-06-17T16:16:00.000-07:00

פּראָפּ 8

2009-05-27T10:21:00.000-07:00

נעכטן האָט דאָס העכסטע געריכט אין קאַליפֿאָרניע באַשלאָסן אַז פּראָפּאָזיציע אַכט גײט נישט קעגן די שטאַטס קאָנסטיטוציע. דאָס הײסט אַז האָמאָסעקסועלע מענטשן אין קאַליפֿאָרניע קענען נישט חתונה האָבן (אָבער אַן ערך 18,000 װאָס האָבן שױן חתונה געהאַט קענען בלײַבן מאַן און מאַן און װײַב און װײַב). דאָס געריכטס פּסק איז גאָר אַ נאַרישע, אַפֿילו אַז 52% פֿון קאַליפֿאָרניעס שטימערס האָבן געשטימט פֿאַר פּראָפּ אַכט. ס'איז שױן צײַט אַז אַלע מענטשן זאָלן האָבן גלײַכבאַרעכטיקונג

.
אַפֿילו די װאָס זײַנען קעגן חתונה בכּלל מוזן מודה זײַן אַז דער אמתער קאַמף קעגן חתונה קענען נישט אָנהײבן ביז אַלע זײַנען ביכולת חתונה צו האָבן. מע קענט פֿאַרגלײַכן די מצבֿ מיט דאָס פֿון די אימיגראַנטן װאָס מאַרשירן דעם ערשטן מײַ פֿאַר דעם רעכט צו בלײַבן דאָ אין לאַנד און אַרבעטן. ביז מע האָט די באַזישע רעכטן קענט מען נישט קעמפֿן מיט די גאַנצע כּוחות פֿאַר די גרױסע רעכטן און פּרינציפּן.

חײם זשיטלאָװסקי קלוב

2009-05-13T08:38:00.000-07:00

דעם 8טן טאָג פּסח

2009-04-15T21:00:00.001-07:00

אַ דאַנק דן גרינשפּאָן און שׂרה גאָרדאָן

?איז די ייִדן־פֿראַגע שױן געענטפֿערט

2009-04-12T18:20:00.000-07:00

פֿיר קשיות, חד גדיא, דײַנו אױף ייִדיש

2009-04-08T08:23:00.000-07:00

געמעלן פֿון אַן אַלטע הגדה

2009-04-05T19:29:00.000-07:00

דער חײם זשיטלאָװסקי קלוב פֿון ניו־יאָרק

2009-04-04T19:56:00.000-07:00

http://khaimzhitlovskyklubny.blogspot.com/

!גלות־נאַציאָנאַליזם

2009-03-27T10:20:00.000-07:00

ציטאַט פֿון "אוממעגלעכקײטן" פֿון...אַ גרױסן חידוש... חײם זשיטלאָװסקי

2009-03-16T20:27:00.000-07:00

געטיִער פֿאַל

2009-03-11T18:40:00.000-07:00

טױזנטער יאָרן האָבן פֿילאָסאָפֿן געגלױבט אַז װיסן איז באַרעכטיקטער אמתער גלױבן

געטיִער איז אַ פֿילאָסאָף װאָס האָט אױסגעטראַכט פֿאַלן אַזױ װי עפּעס קענט זײַן אַ באַרעכטיקטער אַמתער גלױבן און ניט זײַן

װיסן

:אָטאָ איז אַ משל פֿון אַ געטיִער פֿאַל

שמואל גײט איעם עמפּײַער סטײַט בנינס ליפֿט אַרײַן. צװישן דער ערשטער און צװאַנציקער גאָרנס ברעכט ער אױס.

אינגיכן ראַמט שמואל אױף זײַן ברעכעכץ. ער ראַמט אױף אַזױ גוט אַז קײנער װעט װיסן אַז ער האָט אױסגעבראָכן.

אַפֿילו דער ליפֿטס לופֿט שמעקט װי בלומען

דער ליפֿט קומט אָן אױפֿן צװאַנציקן גאָרן.

קיש קומט אַרײַן אינעם ליפֿט.

די טירן פֿאַרמאַכן זיך און תּיכּף קיש ברעכט אױס

אי שמואל אי קיש װיל נישט אױפֿראַמען דער ברעכעכץ.

דער ליפֿט קומט אָן אױפֿן פֿערציקן גאָרן און קיש איז אַרױס.

שמואל בלײַבט אינעם ליפֿט מיטן ברעכעכץ.

דער ליפֿט קומט אָן אױפֿן פֿופֿציקן גאָרן.

פּלוני קומט אינעם ליפֿט אַרײַן.

ער זעט דעם ברעכעכץ, און גלױבט אַז שמואל האָט אױסגעבראָכן אינעם ליפֿט.

פּלוניס גלױבן איז אי באַרעכטיקט אי אַמת.

!אָבער עס איז ניט װיסן

ייִד זײַן

2009-03-11T18:26:00.000-07:00

אַ מאַמע מיט אַ קינד פֿאָרט אױף אַן אױטאָבוס פֿון תּל־אבֿיבֿ קײן ירושלים. די מאַמע רעדט צו איר קינד אױף ייִדיש, און דאָס קינד ענטפֿערט איר אױף עבֿריתּ. די מאַמע זאָגט אים, "ענטפֿערן מיר אױף ייִדיש", אָבער די גאַנצע נעסיע רעדט זי אױף ייִדיש, און דאָס קינד ענטפֿערט אױף עבֿריתּ.

דער אױטאָבוס קומט אָן אין ירושלים און אַ מענטש פֿרעגט בײַ דער מאַמע, "פֿאַר װאָס װילסטו אַז דײַן קינד זאָל דיר ענטפֿערן אױף ייִדיש? ער רעדט דאָך עבֿריתּ.

"זאָגט די מאַמע, "איך װיל אַז מײַן קינד זאָל געדענקן אַז ער איז אַ ייִד

.איך האָב די דאָזיקע מעשׂעלע געהערט נעכטן בײַ נאַכט בײַם נײַם ייִדישן רעפּעטואַר

(אױף ענגליש)

אמת

2009-03-11T18:22:00.000-07:00

אין אַסראָנאָמישע פֿראַגן דאַרף מען זיך צוהערן צו דעם, װאָס עס זאָגט דער
אַסטראָנאָם. אין פֿראַגן פֿון אינטערנאַציִאָנאַלער פּאָליטיק זענען מיר
אַלע, אָן אַן אױסנאַם, עם־הארצים גמורים

חײם זשיטלאָװסקי

פֿאַר די װאָס װעלן דאַװענען אױף טײַטש

2009-02-18T12:51:00.002-08:00

http://drop.io/yiddishsiddur

שמואל זשיטלאָװסקי רײכערט אַ פּאַפּיראָס אום שבת

2009-01-24T17:27:00.000-08:00

עזה פֿײַער אָפּשטעל

2009-01-17T16:24:00.000-08:00

די ישׂראלישע רעגירונג האָט געזאָגט אַז ס'װעט זײַן אַ פֿײַער אָפּשטעל אין עזה. װײל זײ האָבן געמאָלדן, כאַמאַס האָט אַ ראָקעט דערשאָסן. די מלחמה האָט גאָרנישט אױפֿגעטאָן. 1200/13 מענטשן/װײַבער/קינדער זײַנען דערהרגעט געװאָרן אין די בורזשואַזע שפּיל.

!פֿע

דער גלות שלעפּער

2009-01-03T22:43:00.000-08:00

גריכע געראַנגל

2008-12-10T16:22:00.000-08:00

אַנאַרכיסטן און לינקע מענטשן קעמפֿן קעגן די פּאָליצײ.

אױך, גרײַכלאַנדע אַמבאַסאַדע אין ניו־יאָרק.
פּאָליציאַנטן האָבן דערשאָסן אַ קינד מיט אַ פּאָר טעג צוריק

צװאַנציק פּראָצענט פֿון גריכע מענטשן װױנען אין אָרעמקײט

.
.

!ייִדישע קללות מיט ייִדישע אותיות

2008-12-08T00:11:00.000-08:00

אַלע צרות װאָס איך האָב אױף מײַן האַרצן, זאָלן אױסגײן צו זײַן קאָפּ.

זאָל עס אים אָנקומן װאָס איך װינטש אים (כאָטש אַ העלפֿט, כאָטש האַלב, כאָטש אַ צענט חילוק).

אײן אומגליק איז פֿאַר אים װײניק

פֿינסטערע לײד זאָל נאָר די מאַמאַ אױף אים זען.

חתונה האָבן זאָל ער מיט די מלאך המװעת טאָכטער

שטײנער זאָל זי האָבן, ניט קײן קינדער

אױסקרענקן זאָל ער דאָס מאַמעס מילך

זאָל ער קרענקן און געדענקען

זאַלץ אים אין די אױגען, פֿעפֿער אים אין די נאָז

שטײנער אױף זײַנע בײנער

טרינקן זאָלן אים פּיִאַװקעס

אַ משוגענער זאָל מען אױשרײַבן, און אים אַרײַנשרײַב

ן אַ הילצענער צונג זאָל ער באַקומן

קריגן זאָל ער די ___ בראָך

גאָט זאָל אױף אים אָנשיקן פֿון די צען מכּות די בעסטע

פֿראַנסן זאָל עסן זײַן לײַב

אַ קלײן קינד זאָל נאָך אים הײסן

װי צו דערלעב איך אים שױן צו באַגראָבן

גאָט זאָל אים בענטשן מיט דרײַ מענטשן: אײנער זאָל אים האַלטן, דער צװײטער זאָל אים שפּאַלטן און דער דריטער זאָל אים באַהאַלטן

װיפֿיל יאָר ער איז געגאַנגן אױף די פֿיס זאָל ער גײן אױף די הענט און די איבעריקע זאָל ער זיך שאַרן אױף די הינטן

אַלע צײן זאָלן בײַ אים אַרױספֿאַלן, נאָר אײנער זאָל אים בלײַבן אױף צאָנװײטונג

גאָט זאָל געבן, ער זאָל האָבן אַלצדינג װאָס זײַן האַרץ גלוסט, נאָר ער זאָל זײַן געלײמט אױף אַלע אבֿרים און ניט קענען רירן מיט דער צונג.

מגולגל זאָל ער װערן אין אַ הענגלײַכטער, בי טאָג זאָל ער הענגען, און בײַ נאַכט זאָל ער ברענען.

זײַן מזל זאָל אים לײַכטן װי די לבֿנה אין סוף חדוש

ער זאָל האָבן פּרהס מכּות באַשאָטן מיט איובֿס קרעץ

ער זאָל קאַקן מיט בלוט און מיט אײטער

הענג דיך אױף אַ ציקערשטריקל װעסטו האָבן אַ זיסן טױט

עס זאָל דיר דונערן אין בױך, װעסטו מײען אַז ס’איז אַ המן קלאַפּער

אַסימילאַציע און עם־הארצות גיבן זיך די הענט

2008-12-07T22:06:00.000-08:00

!די ייִדישע טאָגצײַטונג

2008-11-22T22:06:00.000-08:00

http://tugshrift.com/4.html

:פֿון זײער װעבזײַטל

תּפֿיסהניק

2008-11-19T20:30:00.000-08:00

הײַנט זעץ איך זיך אין אַ תּפֿיסה
מײַן אײגענע נאַרישקײט האָט מיר דאָ געװאָרפֿן

די לופֿט איז דיק מיט רױך
די שװאַרצע הימל איז קראַנק מיט גרױסן־כּרכלישע ליכט

מײַן קאַמער איז ענג מיט סימנים

דענקמאָלן פֿון פֿרײַהײט

הײַנט איז מײַן נשומה אין גאָר קײטן

מײַן סטראָף: אַנדערטהאַלב יאָר פֿון בענקשאַפֿט

געװיס, מײַן תּפֿיסה איז ניט קײן געװײנטלאַך תּפֿיסה פֿון אײזן און שטאָל

ס'איז דאָך שײן, ס'איז דאָך פֿײַן, ס'איז דאָך באַקװעם

מײַן שטראָף איז אַ װאַקאַציע װאָס איז צו לאַנג

אַ דורכשניטלעך חלום אין װאָס גאָרנישט איז געשען

אױף די װאַקאַציע בין איך װײַט ניט נאָר פֿון דער הײם נאָר פֿון עקסיסטענץ

אַצינד זײַנען מײַנע צורות פֿאַר מיר מײַן אײנציקע רפֿואה

!װאַכט אױף! דאָס אָרט איז ניט באַקװעם, דאָס אָרט איז ניט קײן פֿײַנער

געדענק אַז דו ביסט אין תּפֿיסה, אַז דו ביסט אין גאָר גלות

!די צורות מײַנער זײ שרײַען: אין אַ חודש אַרום דו װעט זײַן אַ פֿרײַער! נעם דײַן רפֿואה און דו װעסט װערן פֿרײַ

בעת אַזאַ מין חודש זײַנען די טעג ניט מער װי שעהען און מינוטן

אפֿילו שבת איז אָן הנאה; ענג מיט בענקשאַפֿט

מאָנטיק, דינסטיק, מיטװאָך, דאָנערשטיק, פֿרײַטיק, שבת, זונטיק, װאַרטן זײ אַלע.

הײַנט זעץ איך זיך אין תּפֿיסה, שטום, בענקנדיק און װאַרטדיק

שאַבלאָנען

2008-11-13T23:38:00.000-08:00

שװאַרץ^

רױט^

שאַבלאָן

2008-11-13T20:58:00.000-08:00

?....װאָס איז דאָס

2008-11-09T20:14:00.000-08:00

אָבאַמאַ שאַבלאָן

2008-11-08T17:35:00.000-08:00

באַראַק אָבאַמאַ

2008-11-07T11:23:00.000-08:00

אַנאַרכיסטן

2008-11-07T10:58:00.000-08:00

http://mke.indymedia.org/en/2008/11/210469.shtml

ייִנגליש/ייִדיש

2008-11-06T16:40:00.000-08:00

אינסטאַלאַטאָר פּאַרק ייִדיש קלוב

2008-11-02T22:44:00.000-08:00

הײַנט בין איך געפֿאָרן קײן אינסטאַלאַטאָר פּאַרק (אַן ערך לאַ ברײאַ און סאַנטאַ מאָניקאַ בולעװאַרד) אױף אַ לײען־קרײַז. איך בין געװען אַ ביסל שפּעט װײַל איך האָב ניט געװוּסט אין װעלכע בנין צו גײן. איך בין אַרומגעגאַנגן אינסטאַלאָטאָר פּאַרק אָן אַ ציל ביז איך האָב געפֿונען דעם בנין. עס איז טאַקע געװען אַ מאָדנע אָרט. דאָרטן איז געװען אַ סך אַלטע רוסישע (ייִדישע?) מענטשן אין דרױסן שפּילן אין קאָרטן. װען איך האָב געפֿונען דעם קלוב, איך האָב זיך געהערט אַז זײ לײענען שלום־עליכם (קאַסריליװקע...)

נאָך שלום עליכם, אַ מענטש װאָס הײסט פּסח האָט געלײנט פּאָעזיע װאָס איך מײן זײַן טאַטע האָט געשריבן.

!"דאָרטן זײַנען געװען 11 מענטשן. אַ סך מאָל אײן פֿרױ האָט גערעדט אױף רוסיש, אָבער די אַנדערע האָט געשריִען "ייִדיש.

אַ פֿרױ װאָס הײסט לאה האָט געזונגען אַ פּאָר מאָל.

(...מע האָט לײענט אַ שטיקל פֿונעם פֿאָרװערץ און אױך פֿון אַ ראַטן־פֿאַרבאַנדיש ביכל (אינעמ
"צום סוף האָב איך געלײענט זשיטלאָװסקיס איבערזעצונג פֿון שטשעדרינס "דער אַלטער װאָלף.
איך מײן אַז איך װיל פֿאָרן אין אינסטאַלאַטאָר פּאַרק נאָך אַ מאָל איבער אַ װאָך. איך האָף אַז איך װעל האָבן די מעגליכקײט צו רעדן מיט מער פֿון די מענטשן.

מײַן קאַשע רוקן-זעקל איז נאַס

2008-11-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

!איך גײ

:דו קענסט גײן אױך
נעם דײַן באַליבסטע קאַשע/גרײַפּלעך קעסטל. נאָך דעם נעם אַ ביסל שטריק.
!ס'איז טאַקע גרינג

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJpDBPrD-gs !אױ

!אָט אַזױ

2008-10-30T17:44:00.000-07:00

זע אײַן ייִנגליש...װי אַ זשאַרגאָן

2008-10-29T22:56:00.000-07:00

ס'איז שױן די צײַט צו אײַנזען ייִנגליש, און אײַנזען עס װי אַ זשאַרגאָן. ס'איז די צײַט ניט נאָר פֿאַר ייִדישיסטן, נאָר אַלע ייִדן.
מײַן פֿאַר װאָס איז קלאָר.
אַ סך מאָל װעלן מענטשן באַצעטלען עפּעס װי "ייִדיש" װען עס איז פּושט ניט אַזױ
אַזאַ טועת מאַכט שום קײן אױס ניט פֿאַר ייִנגליש, װײַל ייִנגליש איז גאָר אַ זשאַרגאָן. אָבער עס איז ניט אַזױ מיט ייִדיש.
ייִדיש איז באמת אַ רײַכע שפּראַך. נעבעך װעלן מענטשן מײנען אַז זי איז אָרעם װײַל אַנדערע מענטשן באַצעטלען ייִגליש לידער און רײד װי "ייִדיש". דאָס איז די סיבה אַז אַלע ייִדן דאַרף אײַנזען ייִנגליש.
װען כאָטש די ייִדן װאָס פֿאַרשפּרײטן ייִנגליש פֿאַרשטײן אַז ייִנגליש איז אַנדעריש װי ייִדיש, װעט עס זײַן אַ בעסער טאָג פֿאַר אונדזער שטאָלצע לשון.
אױף װעבזײַטלעך װי יוטוב, צו פֿיל ייִדן (און גױים) באַצעטלען עפּעס װאָס איז אָדער ייִנגליש אָדער ענגליש װי ייִדיש
װי ייִדן, מיר קענען נישט דערלאָזן מענטשן אָפּנאַרן די מאַסן. בפֿרט װעגן עפּעס װאָס איז אַזױ װיכטיק און נאָענט צו אונדז.
צו די ייִדן װאָס אָפּנאַרן װיל איך זאָגן:
זײַט אַזױ גוט הערט אױף דײַן אָפּנאַרונג. ניצט די װאָרט "ייִנגליש" װען דו שרײַבסט, זינגסט, רעדסט אױף אַ שפּראַך װאָס איז ניט טאַקע ייִדיש.

פֿישמאַן

2008-10-29T16:48:00.000-07:00

לאַ כױאַ

2008-10-28T18:34:00.000-07:00

זונטיק בין איך געפֿאָרן אין לאַ כױאַ אױף דער אי.פֿ.ייִ.ק. קאָנפֿערענץ. איך בין געװען אַ "העלפֿער" מענטש, בפֿרט קאליא באָרדולינס אַסיסטענט. ער איז טאַקע אַ אױסערגעװײטלעך רעדער. ער האָט גערעדט װעגן בילדונג בײַם לערערס פּאַנעל, און װעגן ביראָביזשאַן נאָך מיטאָג.
נאָך דעם ביראָביזשאַן לעקציע בין איך גאַגאַנגען אין אַ לעקציע װעגן הײַנטיקע טשערנאָװיץ. די רעדערקע איז געװען דר אַמעליע גלאַסער, אַ פּראָפֿעסאָרין אין דעם אוניװערסיטעט פֿון סאַן דיִעגאָ. זי האָט דער עלום באַװײַזן אַ פֿילם װעגן ייִדישקײט דאָרטן. ספּעציִעל װעגן װי גױיִם גײן אין שול און בענק נאָך ייִדן. ס'איז אַ זײער מאָדנע פֿענאָם. נאָך דעם איך האָב אָבסערװירט עטלעכע פֿרױען שפּילן מאַ־דזשאָנג (אױף ייִדיש). איך האָב גערעדט אַ סך מיט אײן שפּילערקע, װאַרדאַ גרינשפּאַן. זי איז ניט

נאָר אַ ייִדיש רעדערקע, נאָר אַ

ספֿרד. זי האָט געזאָגט אַז איר מאַן ע"ה איז געװען אַ באַרימט ייִדישיסט (איך האָב זײַן נאָמען פֿאַרגעסן). װאַרדאַ שטאַמט פֿון טורקײַ און איר מאַמע־לשון איז לאַדינאָ. נאָך דעםאיז זי געפֿאָרן אין ישׂראל, װוּ זי האָט זיך באַקענט איר מאַן. נאָך דעם זײַנען זײ געפֿאָרן קײן אַמעריקע. װאַרדאַ האָט ניט געקענט ייִדיש, אָבער זי האָט געװאָלט פֿאַרשטײן װאָס איר מען זאָגט מיט זײַן משפּחה און חבֿרים. צום סוף האָט ר' גרינשפּאַן ע"ה זיך געלערנט איר ייִדיש.

נאָך װעטשערע האָט יצחק סטראָם און "האָט

פּעסטראָמי" געשפּילט קלעזמער מוזיק

סוף־כּל־סוף די קאָנפֿערטץ איז געװען אַ ביסל מאָדנע. אַ סך פֿון די מענטשן װאָס זײַנען געקומען האָט געקענט קײן ייִדיש ניט. אַ סך פֿון די לעקציעס זײַנען געװען אױף ענגליש, ניט ייִדיש.

איך האָב הנוה געהאַט װײַל איך האָב געאַרבעט און גערעדט מיט אינטערסאַנטע ייִדישע רעדערס. .

עסטרײַך, פּרץ, פֿראַגעס, קשיות, און שאלות

2008-10-19T19:54:00.000-07:00

"According to Isaac Beshevis Singer, Bergelson and other writers 'lost...their linguistic charm' in the Soviet surroundings. 'It may sound mystical, but some of these writers were actually no longer able to construct a Yiddish sentence; their language had lost its soul' (Bashevis Singer: 267). In fact it was a new sociolinguistic situation rather than mysticism that changed the 'soul' of the language. For Tevje the Dairyman (Bergelson's chief analysis was of this work by Sholem Aleichem) Yiddish was the 'only true language, the instrument of all his inventiveness, the expressive vehicle of all his thoughts and feelings'; therefore 'Sholem Aleichem was able to exploit the full range of the Yiddish language -- precisly because Tevye's limited circumstances and traditional way of life kept him within the sphere of Yiddish and its (abundant) resources' (Wisse 1985: 32). Soviet Yiddish literature, however, as Bergelson (1937: 150) put it, 'ceased to celebrate - both in the language and in content - the poverty of the Sabbath' and instead celebrated the 'riches of the week-days'. Hence, Ruth Wisse's play of words, the 'contrast between the resourceful Yiddish of the poor and the poor Yiddish of the resourceful' (Wisse 1985: 32)" - Estraikh's Soviet Yiddish Language Planning and Lingusitic Development p. 96

This made me recall:

"I am talking to those who struggle to secure cultural rights, the right to create Jewish cultural values - it is not enough to talk Yiddish. You must have something to say!If you have nothing to say, you may talk Yiddish from the cradle to the grave, you may talk it everywhere, at home, in the street, in the synagogue during Reading of the Law, in the street, in the Philharmonia, in the middle of a concert, in the theater, at the opera - what you say will not be Jewish, because it will not mean anything real, it will be an imitation, dead.We stand firm like a wall for Yiddish! We are ready to give our lives for Yiddish! Yet before our eyes the Jewish content, what is essentially Jewish disappears, the Jewish soul dies. We are flooded with plagiarisms, with substitutes, with spurious goals and false trademarks.And the people are happy about it - they say it's European. Where is the original, the distinctively, genuinely Jewish?...Creation is the elevation of the soul. Only the Jewish soul can be the Jewish writer's Shekinah, his holy spirit, his one inspiration and creative force. It must be the eye in his head, with which he sees the world, its past, present and future. He must live and die for the Jewish soul, for the Jewish spirit." - Y.L. Peretz (As quoted by Goldsmith in Modern Yiddish Culture)

Bold Italics added

Questions abound.

Is the "sociolinguistic situation" today very similar to that of the early Soviet Union?
Back then there was an explosion of new political and urban words that had never been an active part of the Yiddish lexicon. Russian influence was overwhelming on these fronts.
Today - technological terms. This couples with the fact that a Jewish "state/territory"
(תּחום־המושבֿ/קהילה) has been widely replaced with the US state and private/rented property which is non-contiguous nor communally organized.

The question of soul/spirit. Under the crushing gravity of the American cultural sphere even the most isolationist and reactionary Jewish settlements (KJ...) would not escape. A modern day Tevye doesn't exist (but then again, he is a fictional character and never existed).

What is the responcibility of the Yiddishist?
What is the responcibility of the Diaspora Nationalist?
Does the future of the Yiddish nation require a Dubnovian /Anarchistic Autonomist program?

help please...

שײנפֿעלד אױף ייִדיש

2008-10-11T16:49:00.000-07:00

מחזור אױף עבֿרי־טײַטש

2008-10-07T23:08:00.000-07:00

:די גאַנצע מגילה איז דאָ

http://www.literatur-des-judentums.de/WJD/Images/seiten.asp?verz=468&blattnr=4&Sprache=eng&js=yes&autor=&bandangabe=Mahzor+-+Franqfurt+111+Lizer+Blersom,+5469+[1708/09]&titeluebersetzung=

קינדערשע ביכער

2008-10-05T23:25:00.000-07:00

איך האָב געלײנט אַן אַרטיקל אין קאַטאַרס ענגליש צײַטונג װאָס שטײט אַז איז

.פֿאַראַן אַ װײבזײַטל פֿאַר קינדערשע ביכער אין עטלעכע שפּראַכן

!דערצו האָבן זײ 23 פֿרײַע קינדערשע ביכער אױף ייִדיש

אַ סך שטאַמען פֿון סאָװיעטישע אוקראַינע

:לײען די ציג מיט זיבן ציגעלעך דאָ, און לײען די אַנדערע דאָ

http://www.childrenslibrary.org/icdl/SimpleSearchCategory?ids=&pnum=1&cnum=1&text=&langid=344

װיץ פֿון פֿאָרװערטס

2008-10-05T23:18:00.000-07:00

יעקבֿ און שמואל האָבן געשמועסט און שמואל האָט געפֿרעגט בײַ יעקבֿ, וויפֿל האַלט דער זייגער? יעקבֿ ענטפֿערט אים און פֿרעגט שמואלן, פֿאַר וואָס ער טראָגט נישט קיין זייגערל? ענטפֿערט שמואל, אַז ער דאַרף נישט, ער קען אַלע מאָל פֿרעגן בײַ אַן אַנדערן. "אָבער וואָס געשעט ווען איר שטייט אויף אין מיטן דער נאַכט, און איר דאַרפֿט וויסן וויפֿל עס האַלט דער זייגער?" ענטפֿערט שמואל — "האָב איך אַ שופֿר". "ווי קען אַ שופֿר אײַך העלפֿן צו וויסן וויפֿל עס האַלט דער זייגער?" פֿרעגט ווײַטער יעקבֿ.

איך עפֿן דאָס פֿענצטער און בלאָז דעם שופֿר אויף דער גאַס, און עמעצער עפֿנט זײַן פֿענצטער און שרײַט —

!"׳ביסט משוגע געוואָרן! ווער בלאָזט אַ שופֿר דרײַ אַ זייגער בײַ נאַכט!׳ ווייס איך שוין, וויפֿל עס האַלט דער זייגער"

http://yiddish.forward.com/node/1643

רעפֿאָרם קאָנװענטיאָן

2008-10-05T21:21:00.000-07:00

אונטער דער בײַטש פֿון דעמאָקראַטיע

2008-10-05T13:16:00.000-07:00

פּאָגראָם אין רוסלאַנד 1911

2008-10-05T10:39:00.000-07:00

!און עס װעט קומען דער טאָג

2008-10-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

גרױסער װערטערבוך זײט 1690

2008-10-04T22:56:00.000-07:00

"אַסימילאַציע און עם־הארצות גיבן זיך די הענט"

"?װאו ענדיקט זיך אינטעגראַציע און װאו הײבציך אָן אַסימילאַציע"

זשיטלאָװסקי -

דאָס ייִדישע פֿאָלק האָט שױן אַזאַ געשיכטלעכן מזל"

" אַז יעדע אַסימילאַציע גײט אָפּ מיט אַן עמער בלוט

־ אַקש

דאס פּאָליטישע ראָד

2008-09-21T22:47:00.000-07:00

.ר.נ.ק

2008-09-11T21:35:00.007-07:00

(גראַמאַטיק װעט װערן בעסער)

?װי איז דאָס געשען

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/poli-s06.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/minn-s11.shtml

http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/7991/we-are-numb-to-war-brother-of-young-woman-arrested-in-preemptive-raids-speaks-out

װאָס פֿאַר אַ לאַנד װױנען מיר אין? אַ חוצפּהדיקער! אונדזער רעגירונג מאַכט אינטערנאַציאָנאַלע מלחמה אָבער פֿאַר װאָס? פֿרײַהײט? כאַ! די טראָצקיסטן שרײַבן אַז אױב אַזאַ געשעעניש װעט געשען אין רוסלאַנד װעט אונדזער נײַעס מאַכט אַ גרױסע צימעס, אָבער ניט דאָ אין לאַנד! איך בין ניט קײן טראָצקיסט, אָבער זײ זײַנען ריכטיק

?װאָס מײנט מאַקײן

?װאָס מײנט אָבאַמאַ
אַלע מענטשן װיסן װאָס זײ מײַנען. זײ װעלן אױסזען װי שטאַרקע פּאַטריִאָטן. פּאַטריִאָטן שטעלן דעם שטאָט איבער מענטשלעכקײט.

:באַקונין האָט אַ מאָל געשריבן

"The principle of political or State morality is very simple. The State, being the supreme objective, everything that is favorable to the development of its power is good; all that is contrary to it, even if it were the most humane thing in the world, is bad. This morality is called Patriotism ." (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/index.htm)

!טאַקע אַ מאָראַל

:לײענט דער געזעץ פֿון מיניסאָטאַ

“a crime is committed to ‘further terrorism’ if the crime is a felony and is a premeditated act involving violence to persons or property that is intended to: (1) terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act; and (2) significantly disrupt or interfere with the lawful exercise, operation, or conduct of government, lawful commerce, or the right of lawful assembly” (emphasis added).

"coerce a considerable number of members of the public "

טעלעװיסיע=טעראָריסט
רעגירונג = טעראָריסט
אַנטי־מלחמה מענטשן = טעראָריסטן

"disrupt or interfere ..."

טײַטש: אַלע דעמאָנסטראַציעס זײַנען טעראָריסטיש.

די רעגירונג װיל אונדז איבערשרעקן מיט בילדער פֿון טעראָריסטן פֿון אױסלאַנד, אָבער דאָ אין לאַנד װער זײַנען די טעראָריסטן? װער װיל אַװעקנענמען אונדזער פֿרײַהײט? װער װיל מוטשען אונדז? די רעגירונג. אָבאַמאַ קען אונדז ניט ראַטעװען. ער איז בלױז אַ פּלאַטאָנישער שאָטן פֿון האָף

!שאָטנס קענען קײן מאָל אונדז ניט ראַטעװען. נאָר מענטשן, אָן שאָטנס, קענען אונדז ראַטעװען. װאַכט אױף

הײַנט האָבן איך מיט דעם גאַנצן ייִדישן סטודענטן פֿאַרבאַנד געפּרוּװט צו בענטשן קדיש אױף די מענטשן װאָס אַל־קײדאַ האָט דערהרגעט מיט 7 יאָר צוריק. אָבער נאָך דעם האָב איך זיך געפֿילט װי איך האָט געזאָגט קדיש אױפֿן האָף אַז אַמעריקע װעט באַלד װערן אַ פֿרײַע לאַנד. נאָכן סעפּטעמבער 11טן, אונדזער רעגירונג האָט "אָנגעהױבן" צו קעמפֿן קעגן טעראָר און אױף פֿרײַהײט. שױן מיר האָבן זיך פֿאַרלאָרן, און אױב מענטשן טאָן ניט עפּעס באַלד, װעלן מיר װערן פֿאַרלאַרן

די רעגירונג האָט שױן אַװעקגענומען דער זעלביקער פֿרײַהײט װאָס זײ זאָגן אַז װעלן זײ אױסהיטן.

?די שאלה איז, װאָס זאָל מען טאָן

!װאָכט אױף

2008-09-07T00:30:00.002-07:00

ייִדיש װאָך פּורים שפּיל

2008-09-04T21:54:00.002-07:00

Pirim in Oygust from Jelen! on Vimeo.

אינעם שפּיל
Leana Jelen
Marc Caplan
Naftali Ejdelman
Menachem Yankl Ejdelman
Gedalia Ejdelman
Arun Viswanath
Temma Liba Schaechter

דער גרױסער װערטערבוך פֿון דער ייִדישער שפּאַך

2008-08-29T20:53:00.002-07:00

צװײ אַרטיקלס פֿון מענדעלע װעגן דער גרױסער װערטערבוך פֿון דער ייִדישער שפּאַך

...אפֿשר מע דאַרף קלינגן העברעיש אוניװערסיטעט

http://www.yiddishstore.com/groyverfunde.html:מע קען עס קױפֿן דאָ

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 23:48:26 ISTFrom: rhle302@uvm.haifa.ac.il
Subject: Yiddish Studies in Israel III
http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol06/vol06.277

The Great Dictionary Debacle

A significant feature of the "Yiddish Literature" series is theirYiddish-Hebrew-English glossaries. Glossaries in foreign-languagetexts are hardly remarkable, yet these are. Their uniqueness stemsfrom their being virtually the only place students can find themeanings of many less common Yiddish words. They include words whichcannot be found in the two best and most widely used bilingual (andtrilingual) dictionaries, Uriel Weinreich's Modern Yiddish-EnglishEnglish- Yiddish Dictionary (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968) andAlexander Harkavi's Yiddish-English-Hebrew Dictionary (New York:Hebrew Publ. Co., 1927; repr. 1988). Strange as it may seem in anage when world Jewry spends millions of dollars in memorializing thevictims of the Shoa, ceaselessly building Holocaust Museums, theeffort to record for ourselves and for posterity the immense lexicalriches of the Yiddish language (the language of so many of themurdered millions) has so far largely failed. The story of thisfailure is international in scope, yet much of it is set in Israel.The task of extracting the true facts from clouds of accusations andcounter-accusations is beyond the scope of this essay. But we knowthat the Groyser verterbukh fun der yidisher shprakh:ehp1. ('GreatDictionary of the Yiddish Language') (New York: vol.1, 1961; vol. 2,1966; vol. 3, 1971; vol. 4, 1980), was conceived in New York and latermoved to Jerusalem, where it somehow expired. The non-native Yiddish-speaker/reader/writer is often dependent on dictionary help. The fourvolumes of the Groyser verterbukh cover the letter Alef ('A') andinclude about one-third of the Yiddish lexicon (since numerous wordshave prefixes beginning with alef, e.g. avek-, arum-). Two-thirds ofthe Yiddish word stock prepared for the Groyser verterbukh lingers incard catalogues.Nathan Susskind's English introduction to Vol. 4 is entitled "YudelMark's Dictionary." Mark died in 1975 in Israel. One of the greateststudents of Yiddish in the world, he was a central figure in thedictionary project. In 1968 the Yiddish Dictionary Committee in NewYork negotiated an agreement with the Hebrew University which enabledMark to settle in Jerusalem. Susskind writes: "The partnership withthe Hebrew University has proved a blessing in many ways. Mostimportantly it achieved what everybody hoped for: ensuring thecontinuation of the work." Unfortunately nothing has yet insured thecontinuation of Mark's work. We still lack a comprehensiveYiddish-Yiddish dictionary. Can there be a more pressing agenda forthe world Yiddishist community than the creation of such a dictionary?

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:42:40 -0400 (EDT)From: Winer winer@zahav.net.il
Subject: Yiddish Dictionary
http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol10/vol10036.txt

As former board chairman of the Great Dictionary of the Yiddish Language, Iregard it as an obligation to respond to the inquiry on the fate of thedictionary which appeared recently on Mendele.Since publication of the first volume in 1961, three more were produced, thelast in 1980. The four folio volumes include some 80,000 entries, all ofthem beginning with the letter Aleph, representing a third of the projectedpublication. The disproportion can be explained by the uniquecharacteristic of Yiddish where nearly all prefixes begin with the letterAleph, in contrast to other languages.In a Yiddish article which appeared in 1980, I expressed a pessimistic viewon the possibility of further volumes , hoping at the same time that I turnout to be a false prophet. 20 years later, I regret to report, that thereis little on the horizon to indicate that I was wrong. The official reasonis lack of funds. This is hardly plausible since the Hebrew University,copyright holder for the last two decades, has succeeded in financing otherYiddish projects of lesser significance. The real reason is with respect tothe very character of subsequent volumes, of which volume five, has beenjust about ready for publication for over a decade. Assistant editor HebrewUniversity Professor Wolf Moskovitz is in possession of all the materialaccumulated during the life and after the demise of the editor in chief, thelate Yudel Mark. The major issue is orthography.The facts are as follows: Early in 1959 the editorial board conducted asurvey among Yiddish writers, linguists, teachers, publishers, editors,printers and leaders of Yiddish cultural agencies on the question ofadopting the changes in Yiddish orthography introduced by YIVO in 1936. Of177 responses, over 90% responded in the negative and sanctioned the rightof the editors to follow the standard spelling of contemporary Yiddishwriters, the daily Yiddish press (that still existed at that time) and theYiddish school system. In compliance with the request of YIVO, the firstvolume printed a statement by YIVO disclaimed any responsibility orsponsorship.After the Trustees of the Yiddish Dictionary transferred the project to theHebrew University, the new Board decided to make major changes in subsequentvolumes, chief among them being the adoption of YIVO spelling. Manyidentified with Yiddish, regard such a radical operation on the life work ofits editor, Yudl Mark, as immoral, which in addition, would also reflectnegatively on his scholarship and academic stature.. This position has beenclearly stated on a number of occasions in print as well as in acommunication directed to the present acting editor. Fearing that plasticsurgery on the existing dictionary will evoke a wave of criticism in Israeland abroad, the present solution appears to be -- keeping the project indeep freeze. .Nevertheless, no one will question the right of the Trusteesto produce a new dictionary disconnected from Mark's work.The full story is available in articles that appeared in the Yiddish press.There is also a chapter on the subject in English in a book presently beingprepared for publication.

Gershon Winer, Jerusalem

"ענגליש־אידישען ענציקלאָפּעדישען װערטערבוך"

2008-08-27T15:14:00.002-07:00

די גאַנצע מגילה. אַראָפּלאָדן אין קאָמפּיוטער אַרײַן! מער װערטער, װײניקסטע פֿונטן

בענד 1

http://www.archive.org/details/englishyiddishen01abeluoft

באַנד 2

http://www.archive.org/details/englishyiddishen02abeluoft

באַנד 3

http://www.archive.org/details/englishyiddishen03abeluoft

=דער גרױסער קונדס + ישׂראל און פּאָטאָשאָפּ

2008-08-17T20:21:00.007-07:00

גימעל איז אַ גראָבער גױ

2008-08-17T18:17:00.003-07:00

?זײער לעבידיק! אלף בית אױף ייִדיש. אפֿשר חסידיש

יוטוב

2008-08-15T12:48:00.002-07:00

^^^(אַ קורצער פֿילם ,גראַמאַטיק איז שלעכט.אָבער ס'איז אַ גוטער אָנהײב)

איך האָב אָנגעהױבן אַ נײַע "יוטוב" קאָנטע מיט װאָס אַלע ייִדישיסטן קענען אַרױפֿלאָדן זײערע ייִדישע פֿילמען. אױב איר װיל ניצן דער קאָנטע צו אַרױפֿלאָדן דײַנע ייִדישע פֿילמען זײַט אַזױ גוט לאָזט מיר װיסן. איך װעל שיק דיר דעם פּאַראָל

http://www.youtube.com/Yiddishists

"ביג סטיק"

2008-08-08T18:50:00.003-07:00

?װאָס איז עס טײַטש די העברעישע װערטער

אַ פֿרײלעכע משפּחה

2008-08-06T11:13:00.000-07:00

פּאָרן ליד

2008-07-12T18:35:00.003-07:00

,צו ייִדיש קומט אַ נײַע װאָרט

:און אױך צו ישׂ-רא-ל איז דאָרט

דאָס װאָרט איז פּאָרן, אַ שמוציקע זאַך

.װאָס מענער האַלטן פֿון אַ סך

,אין ישׂראל, אױף װידעאָ

:איז איצט אַ קױטיק, ברודיק שאָו

,ס'איז טאַקע גראָב און טאַקע מיאוס

.זײ צײַגן אַלץ, פֿון קאָפּ ביז פֿיס

,די װױנערשאַפֿט, געשופּט מיט געלט

!זײ לױפֿן דאָס צו זען! מ’קװעלט

:מאַך ליבע, נישט מלחמה מער“”

!מ’פֿאָלגט דעם מאָטאָ עװעריװער

, אױף האַרד קאָר נעמען זײ אַ קוק

אױף קערנקערנדיק דײ לאָאָק

אַלצדינג, בײַ זײ, איז קװײַט אָקײַ

. מאַכט-אָרגאַנען אַר קװײַט בלאַזײ

נבֿיאים, לאַנג צוריק, אַגריִד

. דאָס פֿאָלק װעט אַ קרבן װערן פֿון גריִד

, דער פֿאָרױסזאָג האַס קאָם טו פּאַס

!דער שקל קעניגט אַלץ, אַלאַס

(פֿון סטאַנליִ ציגלמאַן (ענגליש פֿאָרװערטס

!אַ חסרון ־ די כּלה איז צו שײן

2008-07-04T14:51:00.003-07:00

בלעטל

2008-07-02T19:00:00.001-07:00

העמדער רעדוקס

2008-06-18T21:16:00.008-07:00

http://www.cafepress.com/yiddishist

נוּיאָרקיש

2008-06-16T09:31:00.020-07:00

http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/news/radio/podcast/lecture_59.mp3

בילדשאָפּ

2008-05-15T15:10:00.002-07:00

בילדשאָפּ

2008-05-15T14:14:00.004-07:00

זומער

2008-05-13T10:23:00.002-07:00

איך װעל דאַרפֿן אַ ייִדיש לערער אױף דער זומער. אױב װײסט דו אַ גוטער לערער שיק מיר אַ בליצבריװ. איך װעל צוריקפֿאָרן קײן ניו־יאָרק אױף דער 13טן יוני

דער האָלצהעקער און די זשאַבע

2008-05-10T01:57:00.000-07:00

א
אַמאָל האָט אַן אָרעמער האָלטשעקער געהאַקט האָלץ לעבן אַ טײַך. די האַק איז אים אַרױסגעפֿאַלן גון די הענט און איז אַרײַנגעפֿאַלן אין װאַסער. האָט ער זיך אַװעקגעזעצט לעבן טײַך און האָט גענומען קלאָגן און װײנען. ער האָט ניט געהאַט קײן געלט מיט װאָס צו קױגן אַ צװײטע האַק.
װי ער זיצט אַזױ, רוקט אַרױס אַ גרױסע זשאַבע איר קאָפּ פֿון װאַסער און פֿרעגט:
־־ "פֿאַרװאָס װײנסטו?"־־ "מײַן האַק איז אַרײַנגעפֿאַלן אין װאַסער און איך האָב ניט מיט װאָס צו קױפֿן אַן אַנדערע."
די זשאַבע האָט זיך אַראָפּגעלאָזט אין װאַסער און אין אַ װײַל אַרום איז זי אַרױף מיט אַ גאָלדענער האַק.
־־ "איז דאָס דײַן האַק?" ־־ האָט זי אים געפֿרעגט.־־ "נײן," ־־ האָט דער האָלצהעקער געענטפֿערט.
די זשאַבע האָט זיך װידער אַראָפּגעלאָזט אין װאַסער און אין אַ װײַל אַרום איז זי אַרױף מיט אַ זילבערנער האַק.
־־ "איז דאָס דײַן האַק?" ־־ האָט זי אים געפֿרעגט.־־ "נײן," ־־ האָט דער האָלצהעקער געענטפֿערט.
צום דריטן מאָל האָט די זשאַבע זיך אַראָפּגעלאָזט אין װאַסער און אין אַ װײַל אַרום איז זי אַרױף מיט אַ האַק פֿון אײַזן און האָלץ.
־־ "איז דאָס דײַן האַק?"־־ "יאָ," ־־ האָט דער האָלטצהעקער געעענטפֿערט.האָט געזאָגט די זשאַבע: ־־ "װײַל די האָסט ניט געװאָלט צונעמען קײן פֿרעמדע האַק, שענק איך דיר אַלע דרײַ העק."
דער האָלצהעקער האָט גענומען די דרײַ העק און איז אַװעק אַהײם. ער האָט אַלעמען דערצײלט װאָס מיט אים האָט געטראָפֿן.
ב
אַ האָלצהעקער, אַ שכן, האָט דאָס דערהערט, איז ער אױף גיך אַװעק צום טײַך און האָט אַרײַנגעװאַרפֿן זײַן פּראָסטע האַק אין װאַסער. דערנאָך האָט ער זיך אַװעקגעזעצט בײַם ברעג און האָט גענומען װײנען.
האָט זיך באַװיזן די זעלביקע זשאַבע און געפֿרעגט:־־ "פֿאַרװאָס װײנסטו?"־־ "מײַן האַק איז אַרײַנגעפֿאַלן אין װאַסער און איך קען זי ניט אַרױסנעמען," ־־ האָט דער שכן געענטפֿערט.
די זשאַבע האָט זיך אַראָפּגעלאָזט אין װאַסער און אין אַ װײַל אַרום איז זי אַרױף מיט אַ גאָלדענער האַק.
־־ "איז דאָס דײַן האַק?" ־־ האָט זי אים געפֿרעגט.־־"יאָ", ־־ האָט ער געענטפֿערט.
װען די זשאַבע האָט דאָס דערהערט, האָט זי זיך אַראָפּגעלאָזט אין װאַסער און איז שױן מער ניט אַרױף צוריק

־זלמן יעפֿרױקין און יודל מאַרק

אױסערגעװײנטלעך

2008-05-06T12:48:00.000-07:00

ייִדישע סאָציִאַליסטן אין ישׂראל

2008-05-03T14:18:00.001-07:00

בלעטלעך

2008-04-30T23:03:00.000-07:00

דער ערשטער מײַ

2008-04-30T13:46:00.000-07:00

משוגעת

2008-04-30T10:23:00.000-07:00

?פֿאַר װאָס האָבן קײנער דערצײלט מיר ניט אַז שלאָפֿלאָזיקײט איז דײַטשמעריש. צי זאָל עס איבערבײַטן צו אומשלאָף

געדענק די בושה: געדענק דער 22טן ניסן

2008-04-26T20:37:00.001-07:00

Monty Noam Penkower
THE KISHINEV POGROM OF 1903:
A TURNING POINT IN JEWISH HISTORY

As the church bells of Kishinev pealed on April 19, 1903 (April 6 on the
Julian calendar), marking the noon hour of Easter Sunday, the first
pogrom of the twentieth century began. Initially, young people began
hounding Jews to leave Chuflinskii Square, their cause gradually taken
up by adults in an increasing state of holiday drunkenness. Late that
afternoon, some twenty-five bands, averaging thirty–fifty each, simultaneously
fanned out across the Jewish quarter of Bessarabia’s capital,
teenage boys taking the lead in smashing the windows of houses and
stores. Students and seminarists from the Royal School and the city’s religious
colleges, iron bars and axes in hand, followed the hooligans; aided
by looters, they plundered and demolished property. The local police
made no attempt to interfere, Chief of Secret Police Levendal even
exhorting the gangs on. A few rioters who were taken into custody were
quickly released. Christian homes, differentiated earlier that morning by
large chalked crosses, went unscathed. Passing through the streets in his
carriage, Orthodox bishop Iakov blessed the mostly Moldavian attackers.
The rampaging mobs of laborers and artisans, finding Governor
von Raaben not employing the more than 5,000-man military garrison
against them and seeing many police taking part in the robbery, passed
to murder and massacre during the night. Having just celebrated the
seventh day of Passover, the city’s 50,000 Jews (a third of the population)
now fell prey to barbarism. Four who tried to defend 13 Asia St. on
Monday were killed; a boy’s tongue was cut out while the two year old
was still alive. A group of 150 Jews in the New Bazaar succeeded in driving
away their aggressors until a police officer arrested some of these
defenders and broke up the remaining body. Meyer Weissman, blinded
in one eye from youth, begged for his life with the offer of sixty rubles;
taking this money, the leader of the crowd destroying his small grocery
store gouged out Weissman’s other eye, saying: “You will never again
look upon a Christian child.” Nails were driven through heads; bodies,
hacked in half; bellies, split open and filled with feathers. Women and
girls were raped, and some had their breasts cut off.
188 Monty Noam Penkower
Several policemen and a Jewish member of the fire brigade did
drive off attackers, and some civilians gave Jews shelter, but these
responses proved rare. No Russian or Moldavian clergymen, with one
solitary exception, performed a similar Christian duty. The better
class of the public, the semiofficial St. Petersburgskiye Vedomosti subsequently
reported, “walked calmly along and gazed at these horrible
spectacles with the utmost indifference.” The savagery of the 1,500–
2,000 rioters went on unimpeded until, at 7p.m. on April 20, the
governor received a telegram from Minister of the Interior Vyacheslav
von Plehve to disperse the mob. Within an hour, a large detachment
of troops implemented the order. This, in turn, drove crowds to the
Bender Rogatka, Skulanska Rogatka, and other suburbs, where they
continued their slaughter and violation of Jews until the morning of
April 21, when full martial law came into effect.1
The results were devastating. According to a memorial album
published by Kishinev Jewry that year, the recorded names consisted
of thirty-four males (two babies among them) and seven females
(including a twelve year old) who died during the pogrom itself, followed
by another eight who succumbed to their wounds. This number
surpassed the total killed in all of the pogroms of 1881. The volume
also gave the figure of 495 wounded, ninety-five of them seriously.
The number of homeless reached 2,000, with 2.5 million rubles in
personal property damage. And even after the pogrom was quashed,
a visiting journalist who arrived soon thereafter was particularly
impressed that there appeared to be “neither regret nor remorse”
among the Gentile citizenry. Almost each evening during his stay, large
numbers gathered in the Royal Gardens to enjoy the music of the
Dragoon Band, which performed Polish polkas, as well as the Hungarian
Chardash and Russian marches, in faultless fashion.2
Yet, until a few years earlier, no clouds foreshadowing such carnage
darkened Kishinev’s horizon. Coming under Russian rule in
1818, the city had developed as a commercial and industrial center,
attracting Jews from other parts of the vast Romanov Empire. Most
of the factories, along with large commercial houses and printing
presses, were owned by Jews, and the growing number of Jewish poor
received support from a united charitable organization founded by
their coreligionists in 1898. The fertile countryside witnessed good
relations between Jews and their neighbors (primarily Moldavian) to
the extent that when pogroms swept across the whole of southern
Russia during 1881–1883, so frequent and furious that the London
Times called them “a scandal to civilization,” the Bessarabian peasants
refused to take part. In the early 1890s, a prominent police officer
harassed the Jews by blackmail, closed the Great Synagogue, and
rigorously applied the government’s anti-Semitic May Laws of 1882,
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 189
but the Jewish kehilla succeeded in having him removed to another
district.3
The arrival of Moldavian nationalist Pavolachi Krushevan on the
scene in 1894 dramatically altered this harmonious tableau. Taking
control of the region’s only daily newspaper, Bessarbets, he began inciting
the population through a relentless stream of articles bearing titles
like “Death to the Jews!”, “Down with the Disseminators of Socialism!”,
and “Crusade against the Hated Race!” Vice-Governor Ustrugov, in his
capacity as official press censor, and Levendal encouraged Krushevan’s
campaign against Jews, especially those holding municipal office. In
1902, Plehve offered Krushevan a substantial subsidy to run a similar
newspaper in St. Petersburg named Znamya, which he began publishing
in the czarist capital. That same year, Krushevan attempted
during Easter time to link Jews to the death of a Christian youth,
resorting to the charge of ritual murder. He failed at this libel, an
accusation dating from the Middle Ages stating that Jews killed Christians
to take blood for ritual ceremonies, only because the guilty individual
was quickly identified.4
The following year, the murder of a Christian boy in early February
at Dubossary, south of Kishinev, coupled with the death of a girl in a
Kishinev hospital, enabled Krushevan to renew his effort. Shortly
after government emissaries met secretly with Krushevan and provincial
officials, a broadside printed on the Bessarbets press informed the
city’s inhabitants that a recent imperial ukase permitted Christians “to
execute bloody justice [krawawaja rasprawa] on the Jews during the
three holy days of Easter.” Most novel, the crusading anti-Semitic editor
had his confederates distribute copies of “The Rabbis’ Speech,” a
pamphlet first published in St. Petersburg in 1872, in which twelve
Jewish elders were depicted meeting once a year in a Prague cemetery
in their resolve to conquer the world. Although later evidence would
prove that an uncle had murdered the boy and that the girl had committed
suicide, Bessarbets rushed to call for vengeance against the Jews
of Kishinev. A few days before April 19, 1903, a sizable group of
armed Albanians and some Moldavians arrived there by train.5
With open discussion in the city of an approaching pogrom, the
chief rabbi implored Bishop Iakov to announce that the Church had
long opposed the blood libel charge. The metropolitan replied that he
thought some Jews did practice ritual murder, and he refused to
intervene. On April 17, a delegation of Jewish leaders warned Raaben
that Krushevan’s incitement would lead to murder. The governor
assured his visitors that all necessary steps had been taken to maintain
order. In fact, he did nothing. Chief of Police Tchemzenkov, asked to
curb Bessarbets’s activities, replied that it would “serve the Jews right.”6
And the pogrom came.
190 Monty Noam Penkower
Jewish community elders, led by Jacob Bernstein-Kohan, managed
to send cables abroad about the slaughter, requested succor, and
pressed for an official investigation. The Yiddish press of New York
City’s Lower East Side, home to 500,000 East European Jews, carried
full accounts every day starting April 27. Two days later, the executive
boards of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the
Independent Order of B’nai Brith informed U.S. Secretary of State
John Hay of their wish to send supplies and ascertain the facts.
St. Petersburg at first denied the massacre but, in the face of overwhelming
evidence from the London Standard and other reports, had
its ambassador in Washington, D.C., blame the victims by announcing
that “the Jews ruin the peasants, with the result that conflicts occur.”7
On May 18, the London Times published a letter that Plehve wrote
to the governor twelve days before the pogrom began, advising that
he take no strong action. The Russian government declared the document
a forgery; Plehve publicly asserted that the trouble had begun
after a Jewish carousel owner hit a Christian woman: the Jews countered
with weapons and killed one Gentile, sparking popular passion
against the Jews. (A later pretrial examination revealed the interior
minister’s explanation to be bogus.) Although no conclusive proof
surfaced as to the letter’s authenticity, Plehve’s past record of encouraging
anti-Semitic activity and his slow response to the escalating
pogrom presented, as one historian has concluded, “a strong case for
negligent homicide.”8
Some of Russia’s intelligentsia denounced what Tolstoi, who had
been silent about the pogroms of 1881–1883, termed the “horrible
events in Kishinev.” While condemning the criminals responsible and
the government that, with its clergy and “bandit horde” of officials,
“keeps the people in a state of ignorance and fanaticism,” he advised
the Jews to adopt “virtuous living.” A collection of essays, Sbornik, as a
fund-raiser for the victims was edited by Maxim Gorki, who railed
against the killers and instigators and called on men of conscience to
help Russia’s Jews. Vladimir Korolenko, the liberal author who had
already protested his countrymen’s anti-Semitism since the 1880s,
described in harrowing detail what he saw and heard in the city two
months after the butchery in “House No. 13” on Asia St., which could
not yet hide “a huge crimson patch mixed with bits of glass, mortar,
bricks, and feathers.” These responses circulated widely underground
in Russia, as well as abroad.9
Far more worrisome to the Romanov government was the outcry
that swelled in major Western countries. Large protest meetings were
held in Paris and London; Denmark, Italy, and Belgium sponsored
relief campaigns. The dispatches for William Randolph Hearst’s New
York American of the famous Irish nationalist Michael Davitt, who
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 191
reached Kishinev in mid-May, had a marked effect on molding public
opinion. Responding to a call from the Alliance Israelite Universelle,
German-born Jewish magnates Oscar Straus, Jacob Schiff, and Cyrus
L. Sulzberger in New York raised a relief fund of $100,000 by June, a
quarter of the total sum collected worldwide. Across the United States,
seventy-seven public meetings were held, with ex-president Grover
Cleveland addressing a Carnegie Hall rally against the “wholesale
murder” of defenseless human beings “who have been tacitly, if not
expressly, assured of safety, under the protection of a professedly civilized
government.”10
On May 23, Plehve categorically refused a Jewish delegation’s
request that he condemn the pogrom and seriously revise the government’s
anti-Jewish legislation, but the West’s indignation fueled some
change. The Russian autocracy replaced Raaban at the month’s end
with the fair-minded Prince Serge D. Urussov. The vice-governor
found himself shifted to Tiflis (which would witness a massacre against
Armenians a half year later), whereas the police chief was dismissed
outright. An attempt to renew disorder near Kishinev’s marketplace
was promptly scotched by the military garrison, which arrested forty
instigators. The interior minister also sent the director of the police
department to investigate the pogrom. And, in announcing that trials
of the rioters would commence, Minister Murawyev declared that
“justice will take its course.”11
These steps did not halt a B’nai Brith delegation from meeting
with Secretary Hay and President Theodore Roosevelt on June 15,
armed with a protest for dispatch to Czar Nicholas II. Taking note
that “race and religious prejudice” had stirred riots that the local
Kishinev authorities failed to suppress, exciting “horror and reprobation
throughout the world,” the petitioners advised that “millions of
Russian subjects” were in “constant dread of fresh outbreaks.” Hay
deplored the “cruel outrages” inflicted against the Bessarabian Jews but
urged caution. Roosevelt, on the other hand, announced for the record
that he had never known of “a more immediate or a deeper expression
of sympathy for the victims of horror over the appalling calamity
that has occurred.” Also eager to reprimand Russia because of her
machinations in Manchuria, the chief executive suggested in mid-July
that the petition be sent to the American chargé at St. Petersburg, who
would ask whether the document would be accepted. Two days later,
Hay heard that Russia would neither receive nor consider the petition.
The original was then circulated throughout the United States, garnering
nearly 13,000 signatures, and ultimately ended up as a bound
volume in the archives of the State Department.12
Theodor Herzl, leader of the World Zionist Organization, could
not do with petitions. Having wired the Kishinev Jewish community of
192 Monty Noam Penkower
his shock at this “great national tragedy,” the movement’s herald felt
compelled to seek an answer to Kishinev with a significant overture
from Plehve. Personal efforts to secure a charter from the Ottoman
Empire’s sultan for mass Jewish settlement in Palestine had achieved
nothing, and Great Britain just retreated from an offer for large
refuge in the Sinai Peninsula’s El-Arish. One month after the pogrom,
Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain repeated to Herzl’s representative
the proposal of a colony in East Africa holding at least one million
Jews, citing celebrated author Israel Zangwill’s public embrace of this
center as “an admirable beginning” in light of Russian Jewry’s calamity.
But as Plehve held the key to any wide-scale exit, Herzl sought a
meeting by conveying to him that “despair is beginning to take hold of
the Jews of Russia,” with the youth “drawn to the ranks of revolution.”
Indeed, on June 24, fearing that Zionism had directed itself toward
“strengthening the Jewish national idea” and urging “the organization
of Jews in closed societies,” the interior minister ordered all its meetings
and collections prohibited. Then, hearing from an intimate contact
that Herzl had “a plan for organized emigration without re-entry,”
Plehve finally agreed to accord the Zionist an interview.13
Fully conscious, as he had earlier written an American statesman,
of the “seven million outlawed human beings who have again begun
to tremble!” Herzl prepared at the beginning of August 1903 for perhaps
his most decisive journey.14 Physically ailing and anxious over
the mounting restrictions that confronted his acolytes in Russia, the
forty-three-year-old lawyer departed Vienna for his first trip to the
heartland of world Jewry. Perhaps the czarist regime, if persuaded
that the Zionist objective of mass migration could aid in checking radicalism’s
advance, might help convince Constantinople to grant the
elusive charter. Ahead was an arduous trip to St. Petersburg and a
bureaucracy rife with Judeophobes, none more influential than Plehve
himself.
II
For the majority of Russia’s Jews, Kishinev represented yet another
episode in their people’s historic misfortune. Yiddish poet Shimon
Frug’s very popular “Hut Rahmones,” printed on the front page of
St. Petersburg’s daily Fraynd in April, reflected the common perception
about “streams of blood and rivers of tears” shed across the ages and concluded:
“Have pity! Give shrouds for the dead and for the living—
bread.” Other poets recalled past martyrologies, such as David Frishman’s
“Daniel in the Lion’s Den,” with its last Hebrew lines: “Should you leap
on me, tear me / content would I die / Knowing that at least / They
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 193
were the beasts of the forest that did it.” A miscellany entitled Hilf
(Help) by Warsaw’s Yidishe Folkstaytung, seeking funds and support
within Russian society, carried stories by Shalom Aleichem (Shalom
Rabinovitz) and Mendele Moher Seforim (Shalom Yankov Abrahmovitz)
that offered slight comfort to readers. Three parables by Tolstoi and
a Korolenko sentimental offering for this collection contributed in
like vein.15
Not so the Jewish Socialist Bund of Russia and Poland, an anti-
Zionist and anti-Orthodox organization first created in 1897, which
asserted that only the overthrow of capitalism, a system fostering class
conflict and ethnic hostility, would end dictatorial czardom. The hated
regime, it averred, employed anti-Semitism as a tool against the revolutionary
spirit that was sweeping the empire. The Bund’s April manifesto
decried the consolational response of fellow Jewish writers,
particularly Frug’s standard lines: “How weak is our hand to do battle,
how great and heavy is our woe.” It called for answering “violence
with violence,” rather than submissively awaiting salvation from God,
friends, government, or other quarters. Ignoring the fact that workers
and the educated class had supported the pogrom, the Bund concluded
with a cry for “international proletarian solidarity.”16
Some non-Marxist Jewish youngsters, assuming, as did the Bund,
that the Kishinev Jews had meekly reacted to the mob, also rushed to
call for self-defense against future attack. Socialist-Zionist ideologue
Nahum Syrkin wrote an article in Yiddish urging fellow Jews to go out
to the street with weapons in hand. Poalei Zion activist Michael Helpern,
under the rallying cry “Remember the shame!”, organized Jewish fighting
groups in Vilna and other towns. In Kiev, nineteen-year-old Pinhas
Dashevsky, with two other left-wing Zionist student friends, authored
a letter calling for resistance. Not long thereafter, Dashevsky traveled
to St. Petersburg with the intention of killing Krushevan in revenge
for the pogrom. The stab wound on the instigator’s neck was so minor
that Krushevan returned home, refusing to receive treatment from a
Jewish pharmacy nearby. In his trial, Dashevsky claimed that his people’s
national honor was at stake. Behind closed doors, the court handed
down a sentence of hard labor in prison. Of the five-year term,
Dashevsky served two for an act that electrified his contemporaries.17
When the first news of the pogrom reached Odessa, Vladimir
Jabotinsky, then a precocious journalist, was delivering a lecture on
Leo Pinsker’s Autoemancipation! (1882) before the local Jewish literary
society. Earlier, hearing rumors of an impending pogrom in Kishinev,
Jabotinsky and some other youngsters had gathered pistols and
printed forms declaring the legality of self-defense. The report to the
club now by several survivors dramatically corroborated his reassertion
of that classic treatise’s response to the pogroms of twenty years earlier,
194 Monty Noam Penkower
Pinsker having called for an immediate territorial solution to aid the
powerless Jewish people. While Jabotinsky would set out to distribute
funds and clothing in Kishinev, the society’s senior members agreed on
the date for a meeting to formulate their own response to the tragedy.18
None of the shocked group appeared as agitated as Ahad Ha’am
(Asher Ginsberg), whose advocacy of cultural Zionism had long found
him at sharp odds with Herzl’s emphasis on political statehood. “The
killing in Kishinev has completely filled my heart and I cannot think
of anything else,” he wrote to Joseph Klausner, a protégé and his successor
as editor of haShiloah in Warsaw. The Jewish delegations seeking
help from St. Petersburg were “slaves,” Ahad Ha’am informed
another correspondent, “defiled by persecution that reinforces their
self-contempt.” If there were still “men among us,” he went on, “they
must come together and raise a new flag, the flag of inner freedom,
the flag of personal honor.”19 Understandably, the distinguished circle
asked this gifted essayist to draft a public manifesto in Hebrew that
each would endorse.
Although Ahad Ha’am’s proclamation began by recalling the
deadly pogroms carried out under Ukrainian leaders Chmielnicki
(1648) and Gonta (1768), it stressed that the current oppressive government
laws convince “the rabble that a Jew is not human . . . and his
blood is unaccounted for.” Local officials side with their countrymen;
judges are not immune from “the hatred and contempt that they feel
toward Jews.” Then came the crux of his indictment: “It is a disgrace
for five million human souls to unload themselves on others, to stretch
their necks to slaughter and cry for help, without as much as attempting
to defend their own property, honor and lives.” Rather than take
the traditional recourse to tears and supplications, Jews had to realize
that “only the one who can defend his honor is honored by others.” A
permanent organization in all communities was needed to stand
guard against the enemy, and shouldn’t the regime permit us “the
natural right of every living creature to defend itself inasmuch as it is
able?” A general assembly must be convened to have the main Jewish
communities in the land consider other weighty issues, such as giving
order to an emigration that inevitably would increase more than ever in
the foreseeable future. Thus wrote Ahad Ha’am, whose name was joined
by historian Simon Dubnow, writer Ben-Ami (Hayim Rabinovich, who
had organized a Jewish student self-defense unit in that city in 1881),
editor Yehoshua Ravnitski, and the young poet Hayim Nahman Bialik.20
As it turned out, the proclamation was issued two weeks later
under the auspices of a nonexistent Agudat Sofrim Ivrim (Hebrew
Writers’ League). The decision, made while Ahad Ha’am was on a
business trip for the Wissotsky tea firm, infuriated him. As he wrote to
Ravnitski from Rostov-on-the-Don in June, the group had no right to
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 195
do so without consulting him first. In his view, the anonymity of the
composers destroyed whatever value the circular might have had. His
less uncompromising colleagues, fearing that a signed call for selfdefense
would provoke the regime further against the empire’s Jews,
opted to send the manifesto that same month to about 100 communities
in the (unlikely) hope that it would elude police surveillance.21
For his part, Dubnow penned an essay the following month, later
to appear as the ninth letter of his Essays on Old and New Judaism. In “A
Historic Moment: The Question of Emigration,” the generation’s preeminent
Jewish historian noted that the new pogroms had engraved
the watchword of self-help in flaming letters on the Jewish nation. The
partial transfer of Jewry’s greatest center from Eastern Europe to
North America he realized to be a “living and permanent fact”—
indeed, “the most important event in contemporary Jewish history.”
Accordingly, Dubnow called for a central committee to oversee the
shift in dense masses of this Russian diaspora to uncrowded population
areas, even while Jewry sought to improve economic conditions
and civic rights in the old centers of Europe. To these ends, he argued,
a general Jewish congress had to be convened in the near future. He
concluded with the prayer that all who strove for the preservation and
revival of the Jewish people would unite “over the fresh blood of our
new national martyrs!”22
Dubnow’s Odessa colleagues had also decided to gather as much
data as possible about the pogrom, to be brought both as evidence in the
Russian trials of the killers and before the bar of history. Disseminated
abroad, this information might exert pressure on St. Petersburg to
check its anti-Semitic legislation and could also raise relief funds in the
West. Certainly aware that Rav Elhanan Spektor of Kovno had undertaken
a pioneering effort in similar vein to alert the world successfully to
the pogroms of 1881, Dubnow pressed for a thorough collection of facts.
Photographs had to be taken, and statistics, amassed; the eyewitness testimony
of survivors and of Gentiles, written down in detail. A series of
topics had to be addressed, including the extent of help received from
non-Jews, the exact damage done, if Jews had defended themselves,
and the identity of those responsible. To undertake this mission on
behalf of the Kishinev Historical Commission, which he headed,
Dubnow suggested the most junior of their circle, Bialik.23
It was an inspired choice, indeed. Bialik was hailed by Klausner as
“the poet of the national renaissance” when his inaugural volume of
Hebrew poems appeared in 1901, and his first published poem, “El
haTsipor” (1892), had contrasted the tears and sighs of Exile with the
hope and joy of Zion. He was deeply influenced by Ahad Ha’am’s effort
to replace Jewry’s fading religious loyalties with a philosophically
oriented humanist rationale for its existence, and Bialik’s “Al Saf Bet
196 Monty Noam Penkower
haMedrash” and “haMatmid” reflected the ex-Volozhin yeshiva student’s
anguished sense that only a spark remained of the sacred Torah
fire of old. With traditionalist society personally deemed melancholy
and moribund, he metamorphosed the builders of Eretz Israel into
priests and Temple builders (“Birkat Am”) and angrily reproached
Jewish apathy to the rising Zionist movement (“Akhen Hatsir haAm”)
in his first self-styled “Poem of Wrath.” Despairing of contemporary
Jewish life (“Al Levavkhem haShamem”), Bialik recalled the legend
(“Metei Midbar”) that the generation of the exodus from Egypt awakens
periodically to utter defiance against the Divine decree consigning
them to a state of living death and suggested the urgent need to fight
for a people’s redemption.24 Not surprisingly, the thirty year old
accepted Dubnow’s summons without hesitation.
On the eve of his departure for Kishinev, Bialik penned an initial
reaction to the pogrom, “Al haShehita.” The original title of “Upon the
Slaughter,” later changed to “A Plea for Mercy” (“Bakashat Rahamim”)
in order to pass state censorship for publication in haShiloah, implied
that the defenseless victim pronounced on himself the traditional
blessing uttered by the ritual slaughterer before slitting an animal’s
throat. Boldly assuming the prophetic voice, the poet’s raging twentyeight
lines expect nothing from Divine justice. Mercy’s availability in
heaven is doubtful, and retribution on earth, futile: “Vengeance for
the blood of little children / The devil has not framed.” Rather, the
author ends his second Poem of Wrath with a curse that “to the gloomy
depths the blood will worm its way / Devour in darkness and grow upon
the earth’s foundations.”25
What Bialik saw in Kishinev, he told Bernstein-Kohan years later,
almost drove him mad. Aided by a local Hebrew teacher, Pesah
Auerbakh, he investigated the pogrom in painstaking detail. For more
than a month, he collected documents, took photographs of the dead
and of desecrated Torah scrolls, and got people who suffered to talk
to him. Working in a state of mounting internal tension, as recalled by
Yisrael Berman, a youth who escorted him about, the poet filled up
four large notebooks of almost 200 pages. Certain that the volume
projected by the Historical Commission would greatly help the victims,
Bialik then retired to his father-in-law’s home in the Kiev District
to prepare the manuscript. According to Dubnow’s exacting instructions
that July, he was to draw a picture of the entire event up to the
present and send the documents as pieces justificatives for subsequent
publication by the commission. A committee centered in St. Petersburg
would prepare the final book, along with an introduction to place the
massacre in historical context.26
Instead, Bialik sat down to compose the long narrative poem for
which he is best remembered today, “b’Ir haHareiga” (“In the City of
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 197
Slaughter”). Mastering the Hebrew language in all its layers, from the
biblical, to the Talmudic, to the modern, this anti-epic surveyed the
ruins in gruesome scene after scene. The indifference of nature pains
the prophet-author’s soul first: “And calmly like today and yesterday, /
The sun will rise tomorrow in the East / Its splendor not diminish in
the least.” Far more arresting is his acerbic description of the cowardly
descendants of the Maccabees (“It was the flight of mice they fled, /
The scurrying of roaches was their flight; / They died like dogs, and
they were dead!”), who viewed from hiding the agonies of their loved
ones and did not resist, commit suicide, or go insane from anguish.
Husbands rushed off to the rabbi to ask whether they could sleep with
ravaged wives. Displaying their wounds, survivors begged for charity,
as of old, instead of rebelling against their fate.
Astonishingly, it becomes clear that God Himself is the speaker of
the poem. Confessing that “I have fallen from My high estate,” the
Almighty intones: “Your dead were vainly dead; and neither I nor you /
Know why you died or wherefore, for whom, nor by what laws; / Your
deaths are without reason; your lives are without cause.” The terrible
question arises: “For great is the anguish, great the shame on the brow; /
But which of these is greater?—son of man, say thou!” Ultimately, He
calls on the prophet to “demand the retribution for the shamed / of all
the centuries and every age! / Let fists be flung like stone / against the
heavens and the heavenly Throne!” Devoid of the hope and comfort
offered hitherto by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other predecessors, the contemporary
prophet can only end his scroll of agony by fleeing into the
wilderness, stormy winds swallowing up his cry of rage.27
This anti-epic transformed Kishinev, to use David Roskies’s
phrase, “into a crucible of heaven and earth.” God has abdicated His
throne, and His Chosen People remain equally passive and powerless.
The enemy consigned here almost to oblivion, Bialik chose, as well, to
make no mention of the evidence about the sporadic Jewish self-defense
that his own notebooks documented. For the sake of a “higher truth,”
the poet’s deliberate effort to shock informed Kishinev with iconographic
import, implying to his readers that the Jewish archetypal
responses of mourning and awaiting Divine retribution had to be
radically altered in the face of recurrent violence. A censor’s cut of
imagined subversive lines and a change of title to “The Oracle at
Nemirov,” allowing for publication in St. Petersburg’s haZeman at the
year’s end, hardly fooled readers. If anything, the new title resonated
strongly, linking the pogrom with the Chmielnicki massacre in June
1648 of some 6,000 Jews in Nemirov and, in particular, with the perfidy
of Gentile rulers who, then as now, conspired with the killers.28
“In the City of Slaughter” drew immediate praise. “You have
attained the uppermost peak of Hebrew poetry,” a greatly agitated
198 Monty Noam Penkower
Klausner wrote Bialik, “and perhaps of poetry in general.” Yaakov
Mazeh, the state-appointed rabbi of Moscow, promptly announced
that this “vision” should replace the traditional lamentations said in
synagogues on the anniversary of the Nemirov pogrom. Jabotinsky
observed that a poem of such quality provided the best reason to learn
Hebrew, which he followed up with lessons from his former teacher
Ravnitski while writing a preface in poem form to his own Russian
translation, an incitement to armed rebellion. To Joseph Hayim
Brenner, soon to be the honest, skeptical voice of the Second Aliya to
Palestine (1904–1914), this and Bialik’s two earlier Poems of Wrath
signaled an encouraging “sign of renaissance.”29
The Hebrew press did not pay the poem much attention at first,
perhaps out of fear of censorship or preoccupation with other events
soon to crowd the newspaper columns. Not so Russian Jewish youngsters,
whose grasp of its pathbreaking significance was eloquently
remembered by Yisrael Berman: “Each and every word was like a
skewer of white hot iron, each and every line a consuming fire. . . .
The chisel of his language had broken open the Jew’s closed, sorrowing
heart, injecting it with an ancient spirit of heroism and energy.”
Jabotinsky declaiming the poem in Russian to Zionist gatherings,
recalled a future president of Israel, engraved the “awful words” on
hearts forever. “B’Ir haHareiga,” especially after the author himself
provided a Yiddish translation to reach the masses, became a new
generation’s rallying cry for action.30 Before long, Kishinev as modern
symbol of national shame—created pitilessly by Bialik—would be
countered with mounting agitation for Jewish self-defense.
III
While Bialik was drafting his singular elegy, Herzl brought his own
case for reasoned diplomacy to Plehve. In their first meeting, on
August 8, this included a request for intervention with the sultan in
order to secure a charter for colonization in Palestine; financial aid for
large emigration, with money raised from Jewish funds and taxes; and
facilitation of Russian Zionist organizational work. Agreeing to all
three points without hesitation, the Russian minister asked for a
summary and an outline of what his guest intended to say at the forthcoming
Zionist Congress. On August 14, Plehve gave Herzl a letter,
approved by Nicholas II, stating that the Zionists could count on the
government’s “moral and material assistance with respect to the measures
taken by the movement which would lead to the diminution of
the Jewish population in Russia.” This pledge, as well as intervention
with Constantinople and a possible audience for Herzl with the czar,
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 199
came with a barely veiled warning: all rested on what happened at the
congress. “Thus everything depends upon our people committing no
stupidities,” confided the Zionist chief to his diary.31
“We must give an answer to Kishineff,” Herzl had written associate
Max Nordau in July, and the offer of Uganda in East Africa “is the
only one. . . . We must, in a word, play the politics of the hour.” Great
Britain’s official proposal and Plehve’s formal communication, the
latter given apparent value by the tumultuous reception that “sorely
oppressed” Jews in Vilna accorded Herzl as he traveled westward
from St. Petersburg, he brought before the Sixth Zionist Congress on
August 22. His opening speech, consequently, included this hortatory
appeal: “Kishinev exists wherever Jews undergo bodily or spiritual
torture, wherever their self-respect is injured and their property
despoiled because they are Jews. Let us save those who can still be
saved!” The East Africa project (actually a district east of the Mau Mau
escarpment in what is today Kenya) Herzl presented as “only an auxiliary
colonization—but, be it noted, on a national and state foundation.”
Palestine, he declared, remained the unchanged goal.32
The 596 delegates gathered in Basle converted the congress
debate into a question of principle—Palestine or Uganda? Nordau
defended the British offer as “ein Nachtasyl,” a temporary night shelter
in which hundreds of thousands of hard-pressed Jews would educate
themselves and the world to the idea that “we Jews are a people
capable, willing and ready to take upon ourselves all those tasks which
characterize an honorable and independent people.” Various federations
(led by the German), supported by a majority of the Mizrahi
religious Zionists, Socialists like Syrkin, and individual Russians close
to Herzl, endorsed his request for a commission to investigate
Uganda’s settlement potential. The Russian representatives, however,
among them those from Kishinev, were furious that he had met the
hated Plehve and remained unalterably opposed to any negotiation
other than for Palestine. Following the 295–177 vote in favor of the
commission, the “negatives” walked out of the hall, some weeping on
the floor as if in the mourning rites of Tisha b’Av. A temporary
compromise was reached with these self-styled “Zionists of Zion,” but
Herzl had gained a Pyrrhic victory. On August 31, physically and spiritually
exhausted, and keenly aware of the decisive split in the movement,
he informed friends Nordau, Zangwill, and Joseph Cowen that
by the Seventh Zionist Congress, “if I am still alive,” “I shall have
Palestine, or else I shall have recognized the complete futility of all
further effort in that direction.”33
Even as the despairing man spoke, his anxiety about the ongoing
threat to Russian Jewry’s existence received immediate corroboration
in Gomel (Homel), the scene of the next major pogrom. The familiar
200 Monty Noam Penkower
opening signal “Beat the Yids!” (“Bei zhidov!”) was heard on August
29; looting and pogrom ensued for four days against the city’s 20,000
Jews, then half of the population. This time, however, lightly armed
Bundists and left-wing Poalei Zion groups organized to meet the
assaults. Police and troops punished the defenders, whose robust
effort greatly minimized property losses and kept the number of
Jewish victims down to a dozen (alongside eight Christian rioters).
Aware of this activist shift in mood, the governor of Mogilev Province
lost little time in publicly blaming the Jews. Thirty-six were brought to
trial, together with some pogromists, and the czar received an official
report about the Jews’ “aggressive and insubordinate behavior.”34
The Kishinev and Gomel pogroms, with others in Smiela, Rovno,
and Sosnowiec that same year, increasingly reinforced Jewish alienation
from the Russian state—and justifiably so. The autocracy, which
did not discourage such assaults and blamed the victims, implicitly
abandoned its old distinction between “useful” and “useless” Jews.
The unequivocally anti-Semitic Nicholas II turned down any cabinet
recommendation for abolishing Jewish disabilities, including higher
education and living in the restrictive Pale of Settlement, and
informed his minister of war that the Jews (vulgarly referred to invariably
as zhidy) deserved the “lesson” of Kishinev because of their revolutionary
activities. Urussov’s candid memoirs speak of “a malevolent
attitude toward the Jews” that was manifested in the highest court
circles after Kishinev. No longer limited to the governor-general of
Moscow, Raaben’s successor reminisced, this hostile feeling was also
entertained by the czar’s immediate family. All efforts to induce the
latter to condemn the Kishinev pogrom, or even to give vent to some
sympathy by granting the sufferers material aid, “met with complete
failure.”35
Plehve soon dismissed the idea of persuading Constantinople to
let Jews enter Palestine, considering political Zionism a “chimera” in light
of strong Turkish opposition. He still wished to encourage Zionist
ideas in Russia, he informed Anglo-Jewish publicist Lucien Wolf that
October, because such involvement would make Jews less receptive to
Socialist influence. He “fully appreciated the gravity of the Jewish
question,” the interior minister went on, the difficulty being much
greater with the lower class of Jews because of their poverty and lack
of Russian education. Before treating the question of education, means
had to be found for them to earn a living. Jews could not be permitted
to live outside of the Pale, Plehve asserted, and he was considering
expanding the areas where they could reside.36
The trial of the Kishinev rioters made government intentions
obvious. Plehve insisted on closed doors, lest the truth be disclosed.
The president of the court ruled out any discussion of prepogrom
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 201
incitement and preparations and, to minimize the importance of the
trial, decided that it should be conducted as one involving twenty-two
separate cases. No officials stood charged. Government attorneys who
handled the prosecution in good faith were hampered at every turn;
almost all resigned. After this, the examination of the numerous
Jewish witnesses became a mere farce. The few convictions handed
down were quite nominal, at most a few years at hard labor. Claims
for compensation were rejected: Jews were told that their losses had
been met many times over in relief contributions from Russia and
especially the West.37
Krushevan, the prime instigator who never came to trial, printed
a shortened version of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in his
newspaper Znamya from August 26 to September 7. Thus, the public
first encountered the most famous and infamous source of modern
anti-Semitism. In January 1904, Krushevan published the “rabbis’
speech,” purportedly about Jewish designs for world conquest, in the
same newspaper without revealing who gave him the manuscript. The
same version but no longer truncated would later appear in the form
of a booklet that was likely edited by another Bessarabian, Krushevan’s
close associate G. V. Butmi. Receiving the approval of the St. Petersburg
Censorship Committee, it was published on December 9, 1905. Butmi
and Krushevan also helped in building up the radical monarchist
Union of Russian People and its terrorist arm, the “Black Hundreds,”
whose insignia the czar wore proudly on his chest. A different edition
appeared by the mystic Sergei Nilus, one of the imperial court’s favorites.
A somewhat revised and enlarged edition of Nilus’s work in 1917
would become “a force in world history,” but it was Krushevan, with
government sanction, who had first published the “Protocols” and its
demonological view of Jews and Judaism.38
Kishinev set certain patterns, as well, for the pogroms that
erupted across Russia during the next three years. Again and again,
Jews fell prey to effective anti-Semitic press agitation, local official
encouragement, police support, limited action taken against pogromshchiki,
and a central government taking the role of bystander, all the
while accusing the Jews of being responsible. In total, twenty-five
localized pogroms followed the Kishinev example. From September
until December 1904, reservists disgruntled by the country’s unpopular
and failing war against Japan, and encouraged by a press that
sought to shift the blame from the regime to the Jews, instigated a second
wave of twenty-four pogroms. (Though accused of evading the
draft and conspiring against Mother Russia, 33,000 Jews were, in fact,
fighting and dying in Manchuria for the Romanov Empire—6.6 percent
of the czarist force, although constituting only 4 percent of
Russia’s population.) An attempt to unite different Jewish political
202 Monty Noam Penkower
parties for self-defense quickly collapsed when the police arrested
Poalei Zion activists on their way to the conference. Given this oppressive
reality, Russian-born Arthur Ruppin concluded his pathbreaking
sociological study Die Juden der Genenwart (1904) with the following
declaration: “Zionism is not merely a national or chauvinist caprice,
but the last desperate stand of the Jews against annihilation.”39
The beginning of the 1905 Revolution against the Romanov tyranny,
initiated in response to the “Bloody Sunday” in January when troops
fired on thousands who had marched on the Winter Palace to petition
Nicholas II, unleashed a third phase of violence against Jews. Twentytwo
pogroms, the most serious in Kiev, Lodz, and Zhitomir, took place
between January and September. The Black Hundreds, encouraged
by a czar who wrote his mother that “nine-tenths of the troublemakers
are Jews, the People’s whole anger turned against them. That’s how
the pogroms happened,” declared as its program the annihilation of
the Jews in Russia.40
The number of attacks rose dramatically after Nicholas issued a
manifesto on October 17, 1905, which granted the people a parliament
or Duma. One day later, anti-Semitic assaults broke out in more
than 300 cities, most lasting an entire week, which, Dubnow wrote, “in
its horrors, finds no parallel in the entire history of humanity.” The
worst occurred in Odessa, where over 300 Jews were killed. With the
pogrom of June 1906 in Bialystok and that in Siedlce three months
later (both carried out by the army and the czarist secret police) ending
the deadly wave, the number of pogroms came to 657, according
to Shlomo Lambroza’s count. Since October, almost 3,000 (at least
one-fourth women) out of the empire’s 4.89 million Jews had been
murdered, and 2,000 had been seriously wounded. Some 1,500 children
were orphaned, 800 losing one parent. The destruction of property
caused by the pogroms of 1903–1906 is estimated to be 57.84
million rubles within the Pale and an additional 8.2 million rubles outside
it. And few could have any illusions about the government’s
increasing role in the pogroms, most dramatically challenged by
Urussov in a speech to the Duma in mid-1906.41
This excessive violence demanded a response from Russian Jewry.
The religiously Orthodox argued that survival depended on submission,
whereas the Zionist movement had supported widespread emigration
ever since the pogroms of 1881. After Kishinev, however,
armed organizations numbering hundreds of students were created in
Gomel, Dnepropetrovsk, Kiev, Shklov, Berdichev, Chudnov, Stolpce,
Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk, and Rostov-on-the-Don. “B’Ir haHareiga” convinced
Yitshak Ben-Zvi and other Poalei Zion activists in Poltava,
joined by assimilated Jewish youngsters, not to go “like sheep to the
slaughter.” The Bund consistently advocated armed resistance, and its
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 203
successful cooperative effort with Poalei Zion during the May 1905
pogrom in Zhitomir especially won over many converts. Odessa’s 302
dead included fifty-five who had fought their attackers. In 1905 alone,
Jewish labor parties and their military units could be found in fortytwo
cities; thirty of these went into action. Brenner’s prose piece “Hu
amar la” caught the prevailing mood, speaking of the young generation’s
insistence on self-defense for the sake of “vengeance and
honor,” rather than emulating their fathers’ craven hiding or relying
on either God or the authorities for protection from attack.42
The Kishinev outrage almost certainly had a related effect on
another Jew, Yevno Azef. This increasingly well-paid agent of the
secret police during the previous twelve years had found his way into
the inner circle of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. He helped organize
most of the major acts of terrorism against the regime, even as he
delivered up to his paymasters some of his most active fellow conspirators.
Radical groups like that party seized on Kishinev to portray the
czarist regime as a criminal force, making it easier to gain disenchanted
recruits, to obtain funds, and to justify acts of terror and sedition
as “revolutionary justice.” Azef helped organize an attempt
against the life of Plehve, so widely identified then as the author of the
Kishinev pogrom. The conspirators succeeded in July 1904.43
Self-defense and assassination could not check, much less halt, the
sustained savagery. The empire’s threatened Jews and a few Gentile
supporters were no match for the Black Hundreds, Cossacks, police,
troops, and Russian officialdom. When the Bund began calling for
armed revolution, an intimidated Jewish community gradually withdrew
support. Nor did the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party,
now under the thumb of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, applaud the Bund’s
emphasis on national-cultural autonomy to serve the Jewish proletariat
masses. In classic Marxist ideology, anti-Semitism was viewed as yet
another cursed bourgeois phenomenon that would diminish as the class
struggle ended with the victory of the workers. For its part, the Menshevik
newspaper Iskra played down Bundist and Zionist resistance to the
pogromshchiki, greatly exaggerating the help offered Jews by undefined
(but, by clear implication, non-Jewish) workers. Nor did liberal and
progressive circles speak out against the pogroms, except to label them
“counterrevolutionary,” or protest that the October 1905 manifesto
conspicuously avoided mention of Jews when promising rights for all.
Dubnow concluded that Jews should be wary of any illusion that major
differences would exist between the “old Russia” and the “new.”44
Across the Atlantic, at the same time, American Jewry’s response
weighed in the balance. An angry Jacob Schiff, whose Kuhn, Loeb firm
had become one of the two most powerful private investment banking
houses in the United States, backed a bond issue of $200 million for
204 Monty Noam Penkower
Japan during its war with Russia and consistently prevented other
firms from underwriting loans to the anti-Semitic czarist regime. When
Count Sergius Witte came to America for negotiations to end the
Russo-Japanese War, a Jewish delegation including Schiff and Oscar
Straus warned Nicholas II’s finance minister in September 1905 that
his country’s refusal to grant Jews equal rights endangered Russian
goodwill in the United States. Once President Roosevelt had secured
the Treaty of Portsmouth, ending the war and gaining himself the
Nobel Peace Prize, he prodded Witte to recognize U.S. passports
when issued to Jewish citizens. One day before sailing for home, Witte
met again with Straus and two colleagues and promised to do all he
could to relieve the situation of Russia’s Jews.45
News of the October pogroms galvanized Schiff, Straus, and
Sulzberger to work in tandem with British Jewish leaders Nathan
Rothschild and Samuel Montagu for a far more intense popular drive
than that of 1903. (The Rothschild banking house, like that of Kuhn,
Loeb, also refused to float Russian loans.) Thirty-nine pogrom orphans
were placed in private homes across the country as well. In addition, a
Jewish Defense Organization, headed by young Judah Magnes, then
secretary of the Federation of American Zionists, was quickly formed
of all groups; on December 4, some 200,000 marched to New York
City’s Union Square to hear speeches on self-defense. This joint venture
petered out, with Bundists and Zionists unable to maintain unity,
but the American Jewish Committee was formed in 1906 by “uptown”
German-born philanthropists like Schiff to “prevent infringement of
the civil and religious rights of Jews and to alleviate the consequences
of persecution.” And under Sulzberger’s direction, an estimated
$4 million was collected in the United States by September 1906
through the National Committee for Relief of Sufferers by Russian
Massacres and was sent to Russia for distribution.46
Roosevelt, though deeply sympathetic, did not think that Washington
could do anything to relieve the plight of Russia’s Jews. Diplomatic
intervention, he replied to an entreaty from Schiff, would only harm
them at a time when the Romanov dynasty faced political revolution
and social chaos. The United States had not gone to war against
Turkey on behalf of the Armenians some years before, he observed,
and was not prepared to do so against Russia now. At the same time,
Roosevelt chose Straus in early 1906 to be his secretary of commerce
and labor, telling the first Jew to join a presidential cabinet that he was
wanted not only because of ability and character but because it would
be a clear indication to Russia and other anti-Semitic countries of the
president’s sentiments.47
Nicholas II and his court could not be oblivious to these and
related developments. The resounding defeat by Japan, awarding that
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 205
rising Asian power a preponderant interest in Korea, patently
exposed Russia’s weaknesses just at a time of growing American imperialism
and influence. At least as significantly, the royal dictatorship
came to understand that popular demonstrations at home, whether
revolutionary or reactionary, represented a double-edged sword: they
were as dangerous as they were useful for the throne. Consequently,
when, at Straus’s urging, Roosevelt followed England’s unofficial
representations to Russia against the possibility of further pogroms in
the pre-Easter season of 1906, the United States received a reply very
different from that given after Kishinev. St. Petersburg informed the
American ambassador that it held the police responsible for maintaining
order; its ambassador to Washington, D.C., solemnly assured the
president in similar tones.48 The pogroms of 1906, it turned out,
would be Russia’s last during Romanov rule.
IV
The Russian government’s move to reestablish the status quo ante
proved to be short-lived. Nicholas and his supporters disbanded the
first two Dumas; the third, elected by a much smaller vote, was dominated
by pro-czarists and anti-Semites. High officials also conspired to
suppress evidence about the innocence of Mendel Beilis, charged in
1911 with murdering a Christian boy for Jewish ritual purposes, and
kept trying to “prove” their case even after he was declared not guilty
two years later. The Jews of the Pale continued to confront discriminatory
legislation, Gentile animosity, and poverty so grinding that an
estimated 30–35% at the turn of the century depended on charity provided
by Jewish relief organizations.49 Traumatized by the murderous
assaults of 1903–1906, many chose to seek liberation elsewhere.
The Kishinev pogrom and its successors triggered a massive emigration
to the United States. From 53,000 in 1903 (compared with
40,000 in 1901), the number rose to 74,000 in the next year. During
1905 and 1906, the bloodiest wave of pogroms, the figure rose to
91,000 and then 111,000. It reached a high of 115,000 the following
year and then fell but remained steady at about 60,000 until the outbreak
of World War I. This great wave, perhaps reaching 1,000,000
between 1900 and 1914, changed the face of the United States and of
its Jewish community.50
The American Jewish Committee oligarchy, led by Meyer Sulzberger
and Louis Marshall, greatly facilitated the exodus from Russia by contributing
to the defeat of a literacy test requirement for immigrants in
1907 and 1913 thanks to lobbying, propaganda, and publicity. In 1911,
its members conducted a successful campaign for abrogating the
206 Monty Noam Penkower
Russo-American treaty of 1832, charging that Russian discrimination
against the entry of American Jews violated the treaty. The committee
also hoped that abrogation would inevitably compel Russia to free her
own Jews. Once World War I began, the American Jewish Committee
drew $100,000 from what remained of the funds of the Kishinev
Committee for the Relief of Sufferers by Russian Massacres to aid
Jewish victims in the war zones. It also sparked the organization of a
central relief organization for stricken European Jewish victims that,
together with Orthodox and labor leaders, became the highly effective
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.51
The pogroms had a decisive impact on Palestine as well. Between
Kishinev and World War I, some 40,000 Russian Jews arrived, most of
them young. The minority who stayed would become the leaders of
the Zionist enterprise there, such as David Ben-Gurion, Yitshak Ben-Zvi,
Levi Eshkol, Moshe Sharett, and Berl Katznelson. The ranks of the
first arrivals swelled by coreligionists who had been disillusioned by
the outcome of the 1905 Revolution, this Second Aliya brought the
Jewish settlement (Yishuv) to 85,000, about 12 percent of the total.
Profoundly moved by “b’Ir haHareiga,” some veterans of self-defense
activity during the pogroms established Bar Giora and haShomer,
paramilitary units to protect settlers from marauding Bedouin and
others. The latter group adopted as its slogan the aggressive lines from
Yaakov Cahan’s poem “Biryonim,” written five months after Kishinev
and already cited in a Poalei Zion manifesto after the Zhitomir
pogrom of 1905: “In blood and fire Judea fell, in blood and fire shall
Judea rise again.”52 These two groups, in turn, would inspire many to
serve in Britain’s Jewish Legion during World War I and, from 1920
onward, in the Yishuv’s own Hagana (self-defense) organization.
The pogroms persuaded the world Zionist movement to adopt a
new platform at the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905. The philosophy
of “synthetic” or “practical” Zionism had first been proposed by
the Russian Menahem Ussishkin, vociferous opponent of the Uganda
scheme, to include educational and organizational work in the Diaspora
alongside diplomatic activity and agricultural settlement. Ahad Ha’am,
who lambasted the Uganda plan as the logical consequence of the
political Zionists’ detachment from their Hebraic past, also approved
the program of Gegenwartsarbeit—concurrent work in Palestine and in
the Diaspora communities. The Helsingfors conference of Russian
Zionists ratified this program one year later. The plan arose as a natural
response to various factors: the pogroms; Herzl’s death in July
1904; the weakness of political Zionism, which also could not check
Britain’s ultimate retreat from the East Africa project; the platform of
the last Zionist Congress; and the growing appeal for Jewish youth of
the Bund and of Marxist ideology.53
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 207
Zangwill drew far different conclusions. He had given Herzl the
first opportunity to describe his philosophy to a public audience in
November 1895, before the Maccabean Club in London, and hailed
his friend in Dreamers of the Ghetto as “a very modern Moses.” The famous
British author had also opposed the Anglo-Jewish Association’s conviction,
expressed after Kishinev and Gomel by President Claude
Montefiore, that the time had not come for losing all hope that the
Russian government would ameliorate conditions within the Pale. After
Herzl’s death, and in opposition to Ussishkin and the “Zionists of Zion,”
Zangwill left the movement in 1905 and established the Jewish Territorialist
Organization that same year. Its efforts were dedicated to the
creation of a large Jewish haven in some country that need not necessarily
be Palestine.54
A few years later, Zangwill came to believe that the final goal of
Jewish nationalism was the unity of all civilization and that only in
America might this be achieved. Owing to that country’s liberal immigration
policy, the peoples reunited in the New World would “ultimately
harden into homogeneity of race” combining the best of Hebraism,
Hellenism, and Christianity. Hence his play The Melting Pot, in which
David Quixano escapes from the pogrom in Kishinev, which had
claimed his entire family, to “shining America . . . where God would wipe
away tears from . . . all faces.” There the young Jewish violinist meets a
beautiful Christian settlement worker, Vera Revendal, with whom he
falls in love. He learns to his horror, however, that her unrepentant
father had inspired the massacre as “a holy crusade.” Eventually,
inspired by his faith in the crucible that melts all hate and vengeance,
David writes his great American symphony in honor of his newly
adopted country as the “land of tomorrow” and the “only hope of
mankind.” He and Vera are reunited as the curtain falls to the music
of America’s popular hymn “My Country ‘Tis of Thee.”55
Most serious critics dismissed The Melting Pot as propaganda and
claptrap patriotism. Adolph Klauber of the New York Times, for example,
judged the play “insincere as a work of art and unconvincing as
a human document.” The shrewd Frenchman Crevecoeur had long
before been the first to observe, in Letters from an American Farmer
(1793), that in the United States “individuals of all nations are melted
into a new race of men,” but Zangwill’s catchphrase aptly captured the
current sense of Americanization triumphant. The play’s obvious
spread-eagleism, as a result, enjoyed great popularity. Speaking for
many of his countrymen, Roosevelt rose from his theater seat after The
Melting Pot’s debut in Washington, D.C., on October 5, 1908, and
exclaimed, “That’s a great play, Mr. Zangwill!”56
Dubnow, another champion of territorialism, hardly embraced
the dissolving of Jewish separatism and the absorption of Judaism into
208 Monty Noam Penkower
what Zangwill would describe as “The Next Religion.” His program of
Yiddishist cultural autonomy in the Diaspora stood sharply at odds with
his friend Ahad Ha’am’s insistence that all this would be “Sisyphean
labor” unless the Zionist center were established in Palestine. In
Dubnow’s view, Jewish history offered examples of equal and independent
Jewish centers across the globe, none ever attaining a majority of
the population. Ahad Ha’am’s elitist caution, advocating a gradual
development of the “spiritual center,” disregarded European Jewry’s
pressing plight. Hence Dubnow’s continued call after Kishinev for an
orderly mass migration, particularly to the United States.57
On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the appearance of “El haTsipor,”
Dubnow heartily thanked Bialik for the “holy tempest [se’ara kedosha],
for the marvelous expression which you gave to our national longings
from generation to generation, for the poetry of the new Jeremiah.”
He tried his own hand at capturing the Kishinev slaughter via a story
featuring a Russian Jewish soldier who arrives in the city soon after
the pogrom to find his young sister raped, her baby choked to death,
and her husband beaten. Wondering why Jews did not fight back, the
main protagonist approvingly cites lines from “b’Ir haHareiga” to
convey the personally bitter taste of synagogue prayers seeking Divine
retribution, and he quickly leaves for Gomel and other cities to prepare
Jews for self-defense. Anti-Semitism in the Russian army and
pogroms during World War I were depicted in the soldier’s recollections
as well. (One year later, following the downfall of Romanov rule,
Dubnow and a colleague would publish a documentary collection on the
Kishinev pogrom mostly taken from the files of the imperial Ministry
of Justice and the Department of Police.)58
Dubnow’s story appeared in Moscow’s haTekufa in 1918, along
with an asterisk indicating his conviction that “the Russian Revolution
had on its own solved the tragic question as the sense of world justice
would have solved it in the future.” It was a premature statement. The
civil war (lasting until 1921) that followed the Bolshevik triumph
brought havoc to Russia’s Jews. Although 700 Jews were killed in
pogroms mounted by Red Army detachments, the Red Army command
punished these actions as running counter to Marxist ideology. Far
worse, beginning in March 1919, the retreating Ukrainian national
army led by Semen Petliura and the peasant bands affiliated to it massacred
the Jews in Berdichev, Zhitomir, Proskurov (about 1,700 within
a few hours), and elsewhere. The counterrevolutionary White Army,
identifying the Jews as pro-Bolshevik, also pogromized Jews with the
support of many Russian Orthodox clergymen. The anarchists under
Nestor Makhno contributed their share to massive Jewish losses. It is
estimated that in 1918–1921, more than 2,000 pogroms of indescribable
cruelty took place, most of them in the Ukraine. Some 30,000 Jews
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 209
were killed directly; together with those who succumbed to their wounds
or to illnesses contracted during the pogroms, a total of about 150,000
died.59
Jabotinsky, arguably the emerging Jewish leader most transformed
by the Kishinev pogrom, entertained scant hope for life in Russia.
Admittedly having had no inner contact with Judaism during his
youth, the twenty-three year old who brought relief to Kishinev’s victims
knew nothing at the time of the writings of Bialik or of Ahad
Ha’am. By the end of 1903, however, readers of Jabotinsky’s widely
popular feuilletons, such as “Without Patriotism,” in Odessa’s Novosti
recognized the seriousness of his Zionist faith. He voted against Herzl
on the Uganda plan, helped draft the Helsingfors Program, and crusaded
against anti-Semitism, Jewish assimilation, and the Bund. “B’Ir
haHareiga” he considered to have been “the foundation for all Jewish
self-defense, comparable only to Deuteronomy’s chapter 28 of ‘tokhaha’ ”
(reproof ). In 1911, “Jabo” translated a selection of Bialik’s poetry into
Russian with Bialik’s kind advice (a German edition appeared in 1922),
presenting it as the symbol of a new Jewish generation’s desire to create
its own national history and thereby jettison the degradation of
ghetto life. Two years later, he wrote Bialik that he would continue to
try and realize the “Hebrew revolt” reflected in the poet’s oeuvre.60
This individual revolt began with him joining ex-Russian Jewish
officer and Galilee halutz (agricultural pioneer) Joseph Trumpeldor in
calling for the formation of a Jewish Legion, which would join the
World War I Allied powers in the effort to liberate Palestine from
Ottoman rule. Jabotinsky’s almost single-handed crusade finally got
London to create Jewish battalions that were later consolidated into
the “First Judean Regiment,” of which he was decorated as a lieutenant
in the first company to cross the Jordan River. In the spring of
1920, anticipating anti-Jewish violence by Arab extremists, he organized
the Hagana in Jerusalem, openly leading it to confront the
incited Arab masses during Passover. Briefly imprisoned, the charismatic
hero joined the Jewish Agency Executive for two years until
resigning because of what he considered to be Zionist acquiescence in
Great Britain not living up to her responsibilities under the League of
Nations’ mandate, particularly London’s separation of the area east of
the Jordan from Palestine. In 1925, “Jabo” and followers created the
World Union of Zionist-Revisionists, which openly demanded that
Palestine on both sides of the Jordan become the Jewish Commonwealth.
To check adamant Arab opposition (respectfully analyzed in
his 1923 essay “The Iron Wall”), he concluded that a Jewish majority
with a formidable Jewish army would be essential.61
Jabotinsky’s militant Zionism struck no responsive chord with Bialik.
Traumatized by the pogroms of 1903–1906, Jewry’s now uncontested
210 Monty Noam Penkower
national poet fell into increasing despair. In succeeding poems, he is
depicted as the unheeded prophet making for the grave (“Davar”) in
a world branded with the mark of Cain (“Yadati b’Lel Arafel”). An
unsatisfied creative soul (“Aharei Moti”) dies in the midst of unanswered
prayer (“v’Haya Ki Timtse’u”). The Eternal Light has gone out
in the empty Jewish study hall where the author was “the last of the
last” (“Lifnei Aron haSefarim”) and a broken, useless twig (“Tsanah
Lo Zalzal”). Bialik’s discarded draft of a poem, retrieved by Klausner,
expresses resignation that the Jewish people, creator of the great messianic
ideal, will be the only nation alive not to witness eventual peace
on earth. A youngster, caught between the call to preserve the last
spark of redemption and the lure of eros, plunges into the abyss
(“Megilat haEsh”). Dubnow, having implored Bialik to write “the
poem of atrocity” about the effect of World War I both on the world
and on East European Jewry, was greatly distressed to receive a letter
in reply about “awaiting heavenly aid” and personal doubts regarding
creative ability. Instead, Bialik’s poems call for a dance of death
(“laMenatseah Al haMeholot”) and describe the impossibility of return
to the purity of childhood in a present lacking faith and vision (“Ehad
Ehad v’En Roeh”). His poetic voice, in turn, became silent.62
These acutely personal reflections may well suggest, too, why Bialik
chose not to release in his lifetime the four notebooks of facts and
interviews about the Kishinev pogrom. Bialik complained at first that
he had to take fifteen rubles from his own pocket to work on this
effort, the Historical Commission not giving the funds promised.
Biographer Pinhas Lahover conjectures that the poet’s decision about
the notebooks lay in his feeling that “b’Ir haHareiga” was superior to
anything that might have resulted in book form. Yet publication
would have added the incomparable effect of authenticity, the many
eyewitness reports he transcribed far more powerful than documented
volumes at the time by Davitt, Errera, Henry, Singer, Adler, Stiles,
Prato, Urussov, and Herzl associate Berthold Feiwel (writing under
the pseudonym von Told). Rather, Bialik’s growing sense of failure at
his own perceived national mission, perhaps most keenly expressed
one year after Kishinev in “Aharei Moti,” left him harboring no illusions
about the present Jewish generation. Unprepared to receive his
message (highlighted in “b’Ir haHareiga”) and learn for the future, its
members should, he judged, die out in Exile. Not surprisingly, “b’Ir
haHareiga” offers no clear line of recommended action. At the poem’s
conclusion, Yosef Oren has observed, the suffering prophet takes over
from helpless God the mantle of silence. A later generation, Bialik
thought, would hear and respond to the call of history.63
Turning from poetry, which had ended without a ray of hope for
this “so tragic a soul,” in Zangwill’s phrase, Bialik began to undertake
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 211
manifold cultural activities. Public lectures, essays, criticism, translating,
and editing the best of classic Jewish literature followed for the
rest of his life. Thanks to the pro-Zionist Gorki’s intercession with
Lenin’s totalitarian Soviet government, Bialik and a group of other
Hebrew writers received permission in 1921 to leave the country. He
went to Berlin, a center of Jewish émigré authors, and worked there
until 1924, when he moved permanently to Tel Aviv. Bialik never
wrote “the poetry of rebirth” that a member of the Kishinev relief society
hoped that he would write after settling in Eretz Israel, having
long ago sensed a basic truth: “Know that the root of my soul is the
Exile, and who knows? Perhaps the Divine presence does not rest on
me except from sadness and specifically in an unholy land.” Yet he
hailed the new Hebrew University (1925) as a people’s welcome realization
that “without a tangible homeland, without private national
premises that are entirely ours, we can have no sort of a life, either
material or spiritual.” Bialik traveled to the United States and Great
Britain on cultural missions; served as president of the Hebrew Writers’
Union and of the Hebrew Language Council; and initiated the popular
Oneg Shabbat, a Sabbath cultural-spiritual forum for his secularized
contemporaries.64
On June 2, 1934, Bialik addressed a large Tel Aviv audience for, it
soon transpired, the last time. Noting that he was about to depart for
medical treatment in Vienna, he warned listeners about the Yishuv’s
own serious illnesses: foreign labor, political rivalry, and civic hatred.
Bialik ended with a prayer that all would see, upon his return, signs of
healing and recovery. The blessing was denied him; he died abroad
on July 4. An almost “dense silence” engulfed the stricken Jewish
metropolis for Bialik’s funeral, with Hadassah founder Henrietta
Szold finding it hard to believe that Tel Aviv, “a city in undress, could
assume such an aspect of dignity and spiritual elevation.” In keeping
with an earlier request, the national poet was laid to final rest next to
the grave of the man he always called “my teacher and mentor,” Ahad
Ha’am.65
V
No doubts arose as to Bialik’s legacy at the time of his death. Jabotinsky
on the political Right, remembering how he was so impressed when
first hearing the “prophetic thunder” of “b’Ir haHareiga,” characterized
the deceased as “the one poet in all of modern literature whose
poetry directly molded the soul of a generation.” On the Left,
Ben-Gurion replied, in part, to British High Commissioner Arthur
Wauchope’s condolence message thus: “He was the spiritual leader of
212 Monty Noam Penkower
his people, the master craftsman of our language. No Jew of our time
has had such a powerful impact on the life of his people. . . . In our eyes
he was the bearer of the nation’s legacy, of its ideals and aspirations.”66
Most agreed with the poet-critic Yaakov Fikhman’s assessment
that “b’Ir haHareiga” signaled “perhaps the most important date in
the history of modern Hebrew poetry.” For many readers, this most
enduring literary response to the massacre of April 1903 carried the
power of such classic indictments as Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin and
Zola’s J’accuse! Accepting (despite evidence to the contrary) Ahad
Ha’am’s earlier gloss about Jewish quietism during the Kishinev
pogrom, “b’Ir haHareiga” created a new national text. In evoking the
hopelessness, the stagnation, and the shame of Exile, Bialik’s arresting
cri de coeur in Hebrew implied the necessity of a new path: human
defiance—as much for the sake of reasserting Jewish self-respect as to
save life and property. His cruel, uncompromising message, observed
Zalman Shazar, forbade tears, destroyed consolation, and uprooted
any remaining illusions thereafter. Especially once published with its
original title and several censored lines restored in 1905, along with
two other poems as Songs of Wrath, Bialik’s masterpiece contributed
greatly to the change of mood among the radical, modernist youth in
Russian Jewry. Zionists adopted the elegy into their historical canon,
with sovereignty in the Promised Land viewed as the only answer to a
bimillennial history of persecution and degradation.67
Jewish art, too, began to reflect the sea change wrought by Kishinev
and the succeeding pogroms of 1903–1906. For the cover of Gorki’s
miscellany, E. M. Lilien offered the traditional response of martyrdom:
an aged Jew, depicted as a Christlike figure on a stake, burned
in his prayer shawl and kissed by an angel holding a Torah scroll. In
related spirit, Samuel Hirszenberg’s “Golus” (1904) shows an endless
line of suffering Jews moving westward in stoic resignation, and his
“The Black Banner” (also called “Funeral of the Zaddik,” 1905) portrays
the tragedy of a sea of hassidim mourning not only their leader
but an entire way of communal life. Bialik, by contrast, instructed
Joseph Bodko to prepare woodcut illustrations for “b’Ir haHareiga”
that had the Almighty both raising His fist against the pogrom’s victims
and taking the image of a prostrate old Jew whose strength is
gone. More pointedly, bearded shtetl Jews occupy the background of
Lazar Krestin’s “Birth of Resistance” (1905), while young men and
one woman step forward to defend themselves with staves and guns.
The standard depictions by Abel Pann (Abba Pfefferman) of “The Day
after the Pogrom” (1903) and “Refugees” (1906) would be succeeded
by his graphic series of fifty sketches about pogroms in Russia during
World War I (“Jug of Tears,” 1916), including that of an armed
mother in “Defending Hearth and Home.”68
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 213
The Kishinev pogrom and Bialik’s presence continued to seize the
Jewish imagination. “In the last resort,” observed the English essayist
Philip Guedella in 1920, “if the highest argument for Zionism is to be
found in the prophet Isaiah, the case for it on the narrowest grounds
is—Kishineff.” Arab attacks against Jews in Eretz Israel that same year,
Trumpeldor falling in the defense of Tel-Hai, led some to draw analogies
to the slaughter of 1903; Brenner quoted from Al haShehita’s “All
the World Is My Gallows.” The Yishuv’s press cited “b’Ir haHareiga”
after the Arab riots of 1921, in which Brenner and forty-six other Jews
were murdered. In 1929, the butchery by Arabs of the “old Yishuv”
(deeply religious, non-Zionist Jews), who displayed helplessness in
Safed and Hebron, led the new Yishuv to embrace “b’Ir haHareiga”’s
censures against exilic life once again.69
This trend continued in the 1930s. Viewing the first official steps
taken against Germany’s Jews in March 1933 as “but another form of
what took place in Kishinev in 1903, and what happened in Kishinev
served to vitalize Jewry throughout the world as nothing else,” Herzl’s
former secretary, Jacob de Haas, pressed the Zionist Organization of
America to champion a program of mass immigration to Eretz Israel.
One week later, the Jewish Agency Executive in Jerusalem considered
that a public manifesto should be authored by Bialik to arouse the Yishuv
and world Jewry. Quoting Bialik’s “each people has as much heaven over
its head as it has land under its feet,” Hayim Greenberg unsuccessfully
tried to persuade Mohandas Gandhi in 1937 to speak out against the venomous
anti-Jewish propaganda amid the millions of Muslims in India as
Jews attempted to emerge in Palestine from the “anomalous state of
homelessness and landlessness” to which history had doomed them.70
Once World War II began, Jewish youth under the Nazi jackboot
rallied to Bialik’s message. Not prepared to accept Gandhi’s advice, given
three weeks after Kristallnacht, that Jews remain in Germany and pursue
his doctrine of satyagraha (passive nonresistance even unto death), their
organizations regularly commemorated the anniversary of Bialik’s death
and reprinted “Al haShehita” and “b’Ir haHareiga.” The poet Yitshak
Katzenelson, who translated the latter elegy into Yiddish while crammed
into the Warsaw Ghetto along with over 400,000 Jews, wrote that “Bialik
saw our anguish, expressed it, and captured it for all time to come.” And
on January 1, 1942, in the first call for armed resistance to the Holocaust,
Abba Kovner in the Vilna Ghetto echoed Bialik’s critique of exilic submissiveness
in exhorting fellow Jews: “Let us not go as sheep to slaughter!”
71 Subsequent revolts in the Warsaw Ghetto and elsewhere, followed
by uprisings in Auschwitz-Birkenau and other death centers, transformed
the poet’s words of 1903 into deeds forty years later.
Yet Germany’s “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” made any
analogy with a past pogrom, however savage, impossible to sustain.
214 Monty Noam Penkower
That nation’s policy of total, systematic annihilation, begun with the
Third Reich’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, had no
precedent in either Jewish or world history. Even regarding “b’Ir
haHareiga,” later recalled one of the primary organizers of the Warsaw
Ghetto Uprising, “you couldn’t say that pogroms took place on
the same day wherever there were Jews. So, there wasn’t anything or
anyone to learn from; and if I had considered, even for a moment,
what we hadn’t seen in our worst nightmares, I would have thought:
‘Yitshak Zuckerman, go to the madhouse!’ Because you had to have a
sick imagination to come to such conclusions.”72
Everywhere under Berlin’s control in World War II, all Jews
were marked for murder. Dubnow, whose last volume (1940) in his
monumental History of the Jewish People concluded by heralding the
emerging autonomous Jewish communities in the United States and
Eretz Israel (“the state-in-the-making”), was shot on December 8,
1941, at the age of eighty-one by a Gestapo officer—a former pupil—
when the Riga Jewish community was deported to a death camp.
Of Kishinev’s 65,000 Jews in 1941, an estimated 53,000 had perished
by VE Day under the rule of Rumanian gendarmes and German
SS units. In the entire Polish–Soviet area, which had a Jewish
population of 7,005,000 in mid-1941, Jewish losses (excluding military
casualties) at the hands of Germans, Ukrainians, and Baltic-area
nationals amounted to 4,565,000.73 Given the unique fusion of
murderous Nazi zeal and methodic precision, the instances of Jewish
armed resistance did not present a significant factor in response. The
State of Israel, because of the sharp negation of the Exile by Bialik,
Brenner, and some of their intellectual contemporaries, only began
to comprehend this reality decades later.74
Remarkably, “Kishinev” still reverberates in Jewish memory.
Thus, for example, Henry Roth’s Mercy of a Rude Stream: A Star Shines
over Mt. Morris Park (1994), the long-awaited sequel to the author’s
widely acclaimed Call It Sleep (1934), recalls that slaughter powerfully,
if briefly. In Roth’s autobiographical novel, immigrant Ira Stigman,
coming of age in New York City’s Lower East Side before America
entered into World War I, relates his mother’s still-haunted experience
of the anti-Semitic savageries in Russia:
The Great War came closer. The Huns impaled babies on their bayonets—
though Mom ridiculed stories of German atrocities. “What, the Russ is
better? Czar Kolki (kolki means bullet) iz a feiner mensh? Who in all the
world is more benighted than the Russian mujik? Who doesn’t remember
their pogroms, the Kishinev pogroms, in 1903? Pogroms led by seminar
students, especially on Easter—Kishinev when I was still a maid. And after
they lost to the Yaponchikis when I met your father, immediately they take
it out on the Jews. Go! More likely the Russ impaled the infant on his
bayonet.”75
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 215
An anti-Semitic orgy of outright murder, rape, and pillage in
Bessarabia’s capital 100 years ago should have receded into the forgotten
annals of recorded time. The number of victims and the destruction
in Kishinev in 1903 pale by comparison with the Holocaust and even
by the standards set during World War I and the pogroms of 1918–
1921. As for the author of “b’Ir haHareiga,” in early 2003 some Israeli
commentators wondered at the choice of the first four lines from
Bialik’s “Aharei Moti” by Navy chaplain Harold Robinson to eulogize
Ilan Ramon at the official U.S. memorial service for the Columbia
astronauts, pointing out that many in the reborn Jewish state are no
longer familiar with the Hebrew author’s work and his many references
to the rich Jewish tradition.76
Yet it is the very passage of a century that offers the perspective
required to appreciate one pogrom’s historical significance. Coming,
as the Bund proclamation put it, at the start of “a century in which
humanity boasts of its civilization, its progress, its education and culture,”
what took place in Kishinev shook much of the Western world
into protest against the Romanov regime for the first time.77 The brutal
assault also strengthened a greater sense of Jewish solidarity across
the United States, where a community of opposing camps took its first
major steps toward defending Jewish rights in America and elsewhere.
Russian critics of the czarist dictatorship, which was commonly
viewed as responsible, seized on the pogrom as another justification
for revolt. Free from pogroms for the past twenty years, the Jews of
Russia realized now how easily a few militant instigators could take
advantage of religious antagonism and economic rivalry to unleash an
organized attack. This anti-Semitic assault quickly turned deadly in
Kishinev, because police and soldiers were ineffective and hostile, religious
leaders remained silent, respectable middle-class Christians
passed by, and the central government wavered before blaming the
victims. As pogroms mounted in the next three years, St. Petersburg’s
true intentions became clear. The waves of Jewish emigration to the
United States and, in far smaller measure, to Palestine followed suit.
As a consequence of these different responses, the impact reached global
proportions.
“B’Ir haHareiga,” more than any other artistic creation in the
floodgate of response worldwide, gave voice to the seismic change that
had begun to affect the Jewish people. Judah Leib Gordon, Bialik’s
predecessor as the “poet laureate” of Hebrew literature, had reacted
to the pogroms of 1881 by calling for emigration against the “murderous
villains” in “Ahoti Ruhama” (1882), with God seen even earlier as
indifferent to historic Jewish suffering (“Bein Shinei Arayot,” “b’Metsulot
Yam”). Bialik’s seminal work, going much further, assumed God’s impotence
and, therefore, implicitly called for self-defense. That cause
216 Monty Noam Penkower
became a given among Russian Jewish youth and their counterparts in
Palestine’s Second Aliya, whose first members were veterans of the
Gomel pogrom resistance. And unlike Gordon’s emphasis on the
United States as a large refuge, Bialik only advocated Eretz Israel. As
for Jewry at-large, the poet’s dramatic monologue, suffused with raw
anger, helped mightily in turning Kishinev into a metaphor for pogrom
and vulnerability, much as Mainz and Nemirov had centuries earlier.
The complete publication of Bialik’s collected testimonies, to mark the
eightieth anniversary of the barbarous rampage in Kishinev, further
captures that metaphor’s potency to illustrate Jewry’s tragic past.78
In 1903, former U.S. president Grover Cleveland warned the Carnegie
Hall protest meeting that such things as occurred in Kishinev
“give rise to a distressing fear that even the enlightenment of the twentieth
century has neither destroyed nor subdued the barbarity of
human nature, nor wholly redeemed the civilized world from ‘man’s
inhumanity to man.’ ” Later, Chaim Weizmann, who assumed Herzl’s
role, fabricated a memory that he had joined a group of 100 youngsters
in defending the Jews of Kishinev during the assault, writing this to
Dorothy de Rothschild in September 1914 and repeating it as fact in his
autobiography. Yet, reminiscing in the same volume, the first president
of the State of Israel caught the essence of the vast divide that existed
between the moment of Cleveland’s expressed anxiety and the years of
the Holocaust, noting of Kishinev: “Certainly it cannot compete with
what we have become accustomed to in the fourth and fifth decades of
this century. Perhaps the key lies there: ‘What we have become accustomed
to.’ ” At the same time, Weizmann concluded that “in our memories
Kishinev has remained the classic prototype of the pogrom.”79
What erupted in that city during three days in April 1903, a turning
point in Jewish history, remains so. Its varied legacy is with us still.
TOURO COLLEGE
NOTES
1. For some contemporary accounts, see Michael Davitt, Within the Pale:
The True Story of Anti-Semitic Persecution in Russia (New York, 1903); Yaakov
Goren, ed., Eduyot Nifgaei Kishinev keFi ShehNikhtevu Al Yedei H. N. Bialik
v’Haverav (Tel Aviv, 1991); Leo Errera, Les Massacres de Kishinev (Brussels,
1903); B. A. Henry, Les Massacres de Kichinev (Paris, 1903); Berthold Feiwel
(von Told), Die Judenmassacres in Kischinew (Berlin, 1903); Raffaelo Prato,
I massacri di Kischineff (Rome, 1903); Isidore Singer, Russia at the Bar of the American
People: A Memorial of Kishinev (New York, 1904); Cyrus Adler, The Voice of
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 217
America on Kishineff (Philadelphia, 1904); W. C. Stiles, Out of Kishineff: The Duty
of the American People to the Russian Jew (New York, 1903); and E. Semenov, The
Russian Government and the Massacres (London, 1906). The most recent description,
based on Russian archives, is Edward H. Judge, Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy
of a Pogrom (New York, 1992), pp. 49–75. The semiofficial St. Petersburg
newspaper, quoted in the (London) Jewish Chronicle on May 8, 1903, is cited in
David Vital, Zionism: The Formative Years (Oxford, 1982), p. 240.
2. Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 10 ( Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 1065–1066; Davitt,
Within the Pale, pp. 172, 174. In memoirs published years later, the senior surgeon
at the Jewish Hospital in Kishinev declared that he had treated at least
500 patients after the pogrom, many with serious injuries. M. B. Slutskii,
V skorbnye dni: Kishinevskii pogrom 1903 goda (Kishinev, 1930).
3. Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 7 (New York, 1925), p. 512; London Times,
quoted in Robert G. Weisbord, African Zion (Philadelphia, 1968), p. 38; Davitt,
Within the Pale, p. 95. According to the May Laws, no new Jewish settlers were
allowed in the Pale, Jews could not own or manage real estate or farms outside
the cities of the Pale, and Jews were not allowed to do business on Sunday or
other Christian holidays. These “Temporary Rules” remained in effect until
the fall of the czardom in 1917. A numerus clausus (quota system) was also
introduced in Russian schools, with an upper limit of 10 percent established
for the proportion of Jewish students in the Pale, 5 percent outside it, and
3 percent in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
4. Davitt, Within the Pale, pp. 97–98.
5. Davitt, Within the Pale, pp. 99, 189; Singer, Russia at the Bar of the American
People, p. 8; Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World-
Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (New York, 1967), p. 109.
6. Davitt, Within the Pale, pp. 123–124.
7. Sefer Bernstein-Kohan, ed. M. Bernstein-Kohan and Y. Koren (Tel Aviv,
1946), pp. 127–137; Simon Wolf, The Presidents I Have Known from 1860 to 1918
(Washington, D.C., 1918), pp. 187–188; Cyrus Adler and Aaron M. Margalith,
With Firmness in the Right: American Diplomatic Action Affecting Jews, 1840–1945
(New York, 1946), pp. 261–263; New York Times, May 19, 1903.
8. Eliyahu Feldman, “Plehve v’haPogrom b’Kishinev b’1903,” HehAvar,
Vol. 17 (1970), pp. 137–150; Davitt, Within the Pale, pp. 181, 187–188; Edward
H. Judge, Plehve, Repression and Reform in Imperial Russia, 1902–1904 (Syracuse,
1983), p. 55.
9. Hayim Shurer, Y. Koren, and D. Vinitski, eds., haPogrom b’Kishinev (Tel
Aviv, 1963), pp. 176–181; Noah Grois, “haYehudim b’Hayav u’v’Yetsirato Shel
Korolenko,” HehAvar, Vol. 19 (1972), pp. 83–98. Korolenko’s Dom No. 13 (Epizod
iz Kishineuskago Pogroma) was first printed illegally in Russia by the Bund in
1903, with a second edition in London. It was published in Contemporary
Review in February 1904 (Vol. 85, pp. 266–280). The essay first appeared
openly in Russia during the 1905 Revolution.
10. Davitt, Within the Pale (his first dispatch published on May 21, 1903),
pp. 107ff; Jonathan Frankel, Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the
Russian Jews, 1862–1917 (Cambridge, 1984), p. 474; Adler and Margalith, With
Firmness in the Right, pp. 263–264; Philip Ernest Schoenberg, “The American
Reaction to the Kishinev Pogrom of 1903,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly,
218 Monty Noam Penkower
Vol. 63 (March 1974), pp. 262–283. Adding a distinctive voice to this chorus,
black journals and organizations also sought thereby to call attention to the
lynching of Southern African-Americans. See Arnold Shankman, “Brothers
across the Sea: Afro-Americans on the Persecution of Russian Jews, 1881–1917,”
Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 37 (1975), pp. 114–121.
11. David Vital, A People Apart: A Political History of the Jews in Europe, 1789–
1939 (Oxford, 2001), p. 516; Prince S. D. Urussov, Memoirs of a Russian Governor:
The Kishinev Pogrom, trans. Herman Rosenthal (New York, 1970); Sefer Bernstein-
Kohan, p. 135; Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 513. Also see F. S. Zuckerman, “Self-Imagery
and the Art of Propaganda: V. K. von Plehve as Propagandist,” Australian
Journal of Politics and History, Vol. 28 (1982), pp. 68–81.
12. Wolf, The Presidents I Have Known from 1860 to 1918, pp. 191–215; Tyler
Dennett, John Hay (New York, 1934), pp. 394–400; Howard K. Beale, Theodore
Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power (Baltimore, 1956), pp. 196–197.
13. Shurer et al., haPogrom b’Kishinev, p. 21; Vital, Zionism, pp. 243–248; Shimon
Dubnov, Divrei Yemei Am Olam, Vol. 10 (Tel Aviv, 1968), pp. 192–193;
Vyacheslav von Plehve, letter to Theodor Herzl, July 20, 1903, C/15, Natan Gelber
MSS (P83), Central Archives of the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP),
Jerusalem. When an associate wrote to Herzl while visiting Kishinev soon after
the pogrom, he received the leader’s reply that the only appropriate response
would be to have a Zionist organization established there. See Nahum Sokolow,
Ketavim Nivharim, Vol. 3 ( Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 175–176. Chamberlain had earlier
expressed his sympathy with persecuted Jews in Russia and in Rumania. See
Weisbord, African Zion, pp. 129–130.
14. Alex Bein, Theodore Herzl: A Biography (New York, 1962), p. 438.
15. Hayim Shurer, ed., Bessarabia: Kovetz (Tel Aviv, 1941), p. 21; Singer, Russia
at the Bar of the American People, pp. 285–289; A. R. Malakhi, “P’raot Kishinev
b’Aspaklarit haShira b’Ivrit u’v’Yiddish,” in Al Admat Bessarabia, Vol. 3, ed. G.
Kressel ( Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 1–98; David G. Roskies, Against the Apocalypse:
Responses to Catastrophe in Modern Jewish Culture (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 77–78,
165.
16. Yisrael Halprin, Sefer haG’vura, Vol. 3 (Tel Aviv, 1950), pp. 20–21.
17. Halprin, Sefer haG’vura, pp. 21–35; Yirmiyhau Helpern, Avi, Michael Helpern
(Tel Aviv, 1964), pp. 256–257; Mivhar Igrot Weizmann, ed. B. Litvinoff (Tel
Aviv, 1986), p. 74; Kitvei Berl Katznelson, Vol. 11 (Tel Aviv, 1949), p. 38; Yitshak
Maor, HaTenua haTsiyonit b’Rusya ( Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 216–219; Ze’ev Ivinski,
Mahapeikha v’Teror (Tel Aviv, 1989), pp. 176–181. Dashevsky died in a Soviet
prison in June 1934. See Davar, July 29, 1934.
18. Steven J. Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet: Ahad Ha’am and the Origins of Zionism
(Berkeley, 1993), pp. 202–203; Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Autobiografia ( Jerusalem, 1947),
pp. 44–47. For Pinsker, see Monty Noam Penkower, The Emergence of Zionist
Thought (Millwood, N.Y., 1986), pp. 31–40.
19. Igrot Ahad Ha’am, Vol. 3 (Tel Aviv, 1924), pp. 115, 120–121, 124–125.
20. Kol Kitvei Ahad Ha’am ( Jerusalem, 1956), pp. 501–502.
21. Igrot Ahad Ha’am, p. 127; Simon Dubnow, “Megillat Setarim Shel Ahad
Ha’am,” in haPogrom b’Kishinev, ed. Hayim Shurer et al. (Tel Aviv, 1963),
pp. 111–112.
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 219
22. Simon Dubnow, “Ninth Letter: A Historic Moment (The Question of
Emigration),” in Nationalism and History, ed. Koppel S. Pinson (Cleveland, 1961),
pp. 192–199.
23. Sefer Shimon Dubnow, ed. Shimon Rawidowicz ( Jerusalem, 1954), pp. 332–
333. For Spektor’s earlier activity, see Israel Oppenheim, “The Kovno Circle of
Rabbi Yitshak Elhanan Spektor: Organizing Western Public Opinion over
Pogroms in the 1880s,” in Organizing Rescue: National Jewish Solidarity in the Modern
Period, ed. S. I. Troen and B. Pinkus (London, 1992), pp. 91–126.
24. Joseph Klausner, “Sifrutenu,” haShiloah, Vol. 10 (1902–1903), pp. 434–
452; H. N. Bialik, Shirim (Tel Aviv, 1970), pp. 9–11, 29–30, 32–35, 67–68, 69,
313–333, 340–349. Ahad Ha’am did not publish Bialik’s “Bikhrakai Yam” in
haShiloah because he considered it dismissive of Herzl. See Ketavim Genuzim Shel
H. N. Bialik (Tel Aviv, 1971), pp. 131, 355n131.
25. Bialik, Shirim, pp. 152–153; Pinhas Lahover, Bialik: Hayav v’Yetsirotav, Vol.
2 (Tel Aviv, 1955), p. 426n.
26. Sefer Bernstein-Kohan, p. 138; Pesah Auerbakh, “H. N. Bialik b’Ir
haHareiga,” in haPogrom b’Kishinev, ed. Hayim Shurer et al. (Tel Aviv, 1963), p.
28; Igrot H. N. Bialik, Vol. 1, ed. P. Lahover (Tel Aviv, 1938), pp. 180–181;
Lahover, Bialik, pp. 424–425.
27. Bialik, Shirim, pp. 350–360; Y. H. Ravnitski, “H. N. Bialik,” in Sefer Bialik,
ed. Yaakov Fikhman (Tel Aviv, 1934), p. 130. I have used the English translation
by A. M. Klein, reprinted in David Roskies, ed., The Literature of Destruction: Jewish
Responses to Catastrophe (Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 160–168.
28. Roskies, The Literature of Destruction, p. 146. Incisive analyses of “b’Ir
haHareiga” can be found in Hillel Barzel, Shirat haTehiya: Haim Nahman Bialik
(Tel Aviv, 1990), pp. 257–282; Alan Mintz, Hurban (New York, 1984), pp. 129–
154; Roskies, Against the Apocalypse, pp. 86–91; Shmuel Verses, “Ben Tokhaha
l’Apologetika—b’Ir haHareiga Shel Bialik u’miSaviv La,” Mehkarei Yerushalayim
b’Safrut Ivrit, Vol. 9 (1986), pp. 23–54; and U. Shavit and Z. Shamir, eds.,
b’Mevoei Ir haHareiga: Mivhar Ma’amarim al Shiro Shel Bialik (Tel Aviv, n.d.). For
examples of self-defense that Bialik had transcribed while in Kishinev, see
Goren, Eduyot Nifga’ei Kishinev keFi ShehNikhtevu Al Yedei H. N. Bialik v’Haverav,
pp. 94, 96, 106–107, 111, 114, 123, 141, 211–212, 217–218, 229. For the censorship,
see Igrot H. N. Bialik, pp. 189, 192–193.
29. Lahover, Bialik, pp. 433–438; Michael Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin de
Siecle (Berkeley, 2001), pp. 187–196; Malachi, “Pra’ot Kishinev,” p. 86. For Brenner’s
earlier praise of Bialik’s poetry, see Igrot Y. H. Brenner, Vol. 1 (Tel Aviv,
1941), p. 127. Curiously, the preeminent Jewish historian to succeed Dubnow
refers to Frug as “the leading Jewish poet of the age” when quoting from “Hut
Rahmones” and says nary a word about Bialik or his decisive influence on Jewish
self-defense after the Kishinev pogrom. See Salo W. Baron, The Russian Jew under
Tsars and Soviets (New York, 1978), pp. 57–59. Is this because Bialik sharply
negated the Exile in “b’Ir haHareiga” and other poems, whereas Baron’s monumental
volumes on Jewish history throughout millennia champion Jewry’s myriad
achievements outside of Eretz Israel?
30. Lahover, Bialik, p. 439; Yisrael Berman, “Im H. N. Bialik b’Kishinev,” in
Bessarabia: Kovetz, ed. Hayim Shurer (Tel Aviv, 1941), pp. 160–164; Zalman
220 Monty Noam Penkower
Shazar, Or Ishim, Vol. 1 ( Jerusalem, 1964), p. 88; Y. H. Biltski, H. N. Bialik v’Yiddish
(Tel Aviv, 1970), pp. 126–131; Shirat H. N. Bialik: Antologia, ed. Haim Orlan
(Tel Aviv, 1971), pp. 216–217, 220–221. Klausner informed the poet that he
was very disappointed with the Yiddish version (also undertaken because Bialik
did not approve of I. L. Peretz’s translation), for Bialik had not restricted himself
to the use of “our national speech.” See Moshe Ungerfeld, “Keitsad Hiber
Bialik et ‘Al haShehita’ v’et ‘b’Ir haHareiga,’ ” in Measef: Mukdash l’Yetsirat H. N.
Bialik, Vol. 10, ed. H. Barzel (Tel Aviv, 1975), pp. 337–341.
31. Complete Diaries of Herzl, ed. R. Patai, trans. H. Zohn (New York, 1960),
pp. 1522–1524, 1534–1540.
32. Bein, Theodore Herzl, p. 444; Vital, Zionism, p. 282; The Diaries of Theodor
Herzl, ed. and trans. M. Lowenthal (New York, 1962), pp. 404, 407.
33. Vital, Zionism, pp. 285–308; Helpern, Avi, Michael Helpern, pp. 258–259;
Bein, Theodor Herzl, p. 456; The Diaries of Theodor Herzl, pp. 408–409. Tisha b’Av
in the Jewish calendar marks the destructions of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem
by the Babylonians (586 B.C.E.) and the Romans (70 C.E.).
34. Dubnow, Divrei Yemei Am Olam, p. 193; Halprin, Sefer haG’vura, pp. 46–62;
Vital, A People Apart, pp. 528–532. Plehve, aware of this new manifestation, sent a
circular to local government officials outlawing any Jewish self-defense. See
Maor, HaTenua haTsiyonit b’Rusya, pp. 214–215.
35. Vital, A People Apart, pp. 532–535, 582; Louis Greenberg, The Jews in Russia:
The Struggle for Emancipation, Vol. 2, ed. M. Wischnitzer (New York, 1976),
pp. 48, 82, 103, 108; Urussov, Memoirs of a Russian Governor, pp. 42–43.
36. Vyacheslav von Plehve, interview by Lucien Wolf, October 26, 1903, file
68, Wolf-Mowshowitch MSS, YIVO, Center for Jewish History, New York.
37. Jewish Encyclopedia, pp. 513–514; Singer, Russia at the Bar of the American
People, pp. 248–283; Judge, Easter in Kishinev, chap. 6. A secret government
report admitted that Kishinev’s Jews gathered for self-defense, not to attack the
Christian population. See Maor, HaTenua haTsiyonit b’Rusya, p. 211.
38. Cohn, Warrant for Genocide, pp. 65–67. The czar initially embraced the
“Protocols” as authentic but rejected their use by the Black Hundreds for propaganda
once a secret official inquiry proved the document’s spuriousness. See
Cohn, Warrant for Genocide, p. 115.
39. Shlomo Lambroza, “Jewish Responses to Pogroms in Late Imperial Russia,”
in Living with Antisemitism: Modern Jewish Responses, ed. J. Reinharz (Hanover,
N.H., 1987), p. 267; Abraham Rabinovich, “Jubilant over Japan,” Jerusalem Post
Magazine, April 9, 2004, pp. 32–33; Maor, HaTenua haTsiyonit b’Rusya, pp. 276–
277, 279–280; Arthur Ruppin, Die Juden der Genenwart (1904), reprinted in
English as The Jews of Today, trans. M. Bentwich (London, 1913), p. 300.
40. Lambroza, “Jewish Responses to Pogroms in Late Imperial Russia,”
p. 268.
41. Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland (Philadelphia,
1920), pp. 128–129; Maor, HaTenua haTsiyonit b’Rusya, pp. 313–314; Lambroza,
“Jewish Responses to Pogroms in Late Imperial Russia,” pp. 268–269; Semenov,
The Russian Government and the Massacres, pp. 149–160, 195–224. At the request of
the World Zionist Organization, Leo Motzkin published a book, mostly written
by him under the name A. Linden, about Russian anti-Jewish violence from the
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 221
early nineteenth century through the pogroms of 1905–1906: Die Judenpogrome
in Russland, 2 vols. (Cologne, 1910). Also see files 1–28, Leo Motzkin MSS (P10),
CAHJP, Jerusalem.
42. Lambroza, “Jewish Responses to Pogroms in Late Imperial Russia,”
pp. 269–271; Vital, Zionism, p. 387; Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 14 (Jerusalem,
1973), pp. 1125–1127; Lucy S. Dawidowicz, ed., The Golden Tradition (New York,
1967), pp. 383–388; Kol Kitvei Y. H. Brenner, Vol. 6 (Tel Aviv, 1927), pp. 29–33.
Proceeds from the sale of the latter story, as the author’s dedication notes, went
to “Jewish self-defense in Russia.”
43. Richard Charques, The Twilight of Imperial Russia (London, 1958), pp. 83–84;
Judge, Easter in Kishinev, p. 144; Yaakov Mazeh, Zikhronot, Vol. 4 (Tel Aviv,
1936), pp. 96–108.
44. Lambroza, “Jewish Responses to Pogroms in Late Imperial Russia,” pp.
272–273; Vital, A People Apart, pp. 518–520; Maor, HaTenua haTsiyonit b’Rusya,
pp. 306–309. For a detailed analysis of Russian leftist opposition to the Bund, see
Frankel, Prophecy and Politics, chap. 4.
45. Naomi W. Cohen, A Dual Heritage: The Public Career of Oscar S. Straus (Philadelphia,
1969), pp. 132–133. For the economic and political considerations that
dovetailed with Schiff’s hostility to the anti-Semitic regime, see Daniel Gutwein,
“Yaakov Schiff u’Mimun Milhemet Rusya-Yapan: Perek b’Toldot haDiplomatia
haYehudit,” Zion, Vol. 54 (1989), pp. 321–350.
46. Frankel, Prophecy and Politics, pp. 487–492; Morris Waldman, letter to
Cyrus Adler, May 28, 1933, German Policy Committee files, American Jewish
Committee Archives, New York City.
47. Aryeh Yodfat, “Memshelet Artsot haBrit u’Praot 1903–1906 b’Russya,”
HehAvar, Vol. 22 (1977), pp. 51–52; Cohen, A Dual Heritage, pp. 146–148.
48. Cohen, A Dual Heritage, p. 135. For the poet Naftali Herz Imber, whose
“Tikvatenu” (1884) would later become Israel’s national anthem, “HaTikva,”
Japan’s historic victory inspired an ode that included this stanza: “Tell ye the tidings,
to nations proclaim / How Ivan the Terrible fell, / Revenge for Kishinev’s
crime / To all tongues the tidings tell.” See Rabinovich, “Jubliant over Japan,”
p. 33.
49. Maurice Samuel, Blood Accusation: The Strange History of the Beiliss Case
(Philadelphia, 1966); files 29–36, Motzkin MSS, CAHJP; Zvi Gitelman, A Century
of Ambivalence: The Jews of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the Present (New
York, 1988), p. 78.
50. Vital, A People Apart, p. 584.
51. Naomi W. Cohen, Not Free to Desist: The American Jewish Committee,
1906–1966 (Philadelphia, 1972), chaps. 3–5; Morris Waldman, letter to
A. C. Ratshesky, June 27, 1933, Max Kohler MSS, Box 11, American Jewish
Historical Society (AJHS), Center for Jewish History, New York City.
52. Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 9 ( Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 328–330; Kitvei Yaakov
Cahan, Vol. 1: Shirim (Tel Aviv, 1938), pp. 292–295; Maor, HaTenua haTsiyonit
b’Rusya, pp. 287–288; Yaakov Goldstein, “haHitgonenut, haShmira v’Irgunei
‘Bar Giora’ v’haShomer’ baAliya haShniya,” in haAliya haShniya, Mehkarim, ed. Y.
Bartal (Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 435–481; Yosef Gorny, “haShinuyim b’Mivneh
222 Monty Noam Penkower
haHevrati v’haPoliti Shel ‘haAliya haShniya’ baShanim 1904–1940,” haTsiyonut,
Vol. 1 (1970), pp. 231–232.
53. Vital, Zionism, pp. 309–310, 313–320, 459–462, 467–475; Zipperstein, Elusive
Prophet, pp. 211–212; Maor, HaTenua haTsiyonit b’Rusya, pp. 315–319.
54. Maurice Wohlgelernter, Israel Zangwill: A Study (New York, 1964), pp.
146–174; Weisbord, African Zion, p. 158. One month before Great Britain issued
the Balfour Declaration, pledging that government to facilitate the establishment
in Palestine of a “Jewish national home,” Zangwill cautioned in the Menorah Journal
that “either the Arabs must trek or there will be an Arabized Judea in no
way corresponding with the Zionist dream.” See A120/463, Central Zionist
Archives (CZA), Jerusalem. For his subsequent favoring of equal national status
between Jew and Arab in a “semitic Switzerland,” rather than political Zionism,
see Speeches, Articles and Letters of Zangwill, ed. M. Simon (London, 1937),
pp. 343–357.
55. Israel Zangwill, The Melting Pot (New York, 1910). Zangwill himself would
marry a Christian woman. Wohlgelernter errs in quoting the British author as
publishing an eyewitness account of the Kishinev pogrom of 1903 (Israel Zangwill,
p. 138). The citation, quoted in an appendix to a later edition of Zangwill’s
famous play, is taken from a nurse who witnessed a pogrom in Odessa some time
after the massacre in Kishinev. See Israel Zangwill, The Melting Pot (London,
1914), pp. 190–191.
56. New York Times, September 12, 1908; reviews in A120/164–165, CZA;
Wohlgelernter, Israel Zangwill, pp. 174–186.
57. Wohlgelernter, Israel Zangwill, pp. 261–291; Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet,
pp. 155–157; Asher Ginsberg (Ahad Ha’am), letter to Simon Dubnow, November
9, 1907, in Ahad Ha’am, Mikhtavim b’Einei Eretz Yisrael, 1891–1926, ed. S.
Laskov (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 237–238; Ahad Ha’am, “The Negation of the
Diaspora” (1909), in The Zionist Idea, ed. Arthur Hertzberg (New York, 1964),
pp. 270–277. For an extended analysis of the distinctions between Dubnow and
Ahad Ha’am, see David H. Weinberg, Between Tradition and Modernity: Haim Zhitlowski,
Simon Dubnow, Ahad Ha-am and the Shaping of Modern Jewish Identity (New
York, 1996), chaps. 3–4.
58. Sefer Shimon Dubnow, pp. 335–336; Shimon Dubnow, “Historia Shel Ish
Tsva Yehudi MiMa’arkhot Shnat 1915—Vidui Shel Ehad MeiRabim,” haTekufa,
Vol. 1 (1918), pp. 617–630; Materialy dlia istorii antievreishikh pogromov v Rossii, ed.
S. M. Dubnow and G. Ia. Krasnyi-Admoni (Petrograd, 1919). A second volume
under the same title, published in Moscow in 1923, was devoted to the post-Kishinev
pogroms.
59. Dubnow, “Historia Shel Ish Tsva Yehudi MiMa’arkhot Shnat 1915,”
p. 617; Gitelman, A Century of Ambivalence, pp. 99–106. Yeshayahu Klinov’s
account of pogroms that struck Ukrainian Jewry in 1920 was published by Bialik
in the collection Reshumot. See Moshe Kol, Morim v’Haverim ( Jerusalem, 1968),
pp. 126–127.
60. Jabotinsky, Autobiografia, pp. 47–51, 68–72, 83–88; Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Ketavim
Tsiyonim Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1949); Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Feuilletonim
( Jerusalem, 1954), pp. 33–51; Jabotinsky, quoted in Shirat H. N. Bialik, p. 220;
Refaela Bilski Ben-Hur, Kol Yahid Hu Melekh, HaMahshava haHevratit v’haMedinit
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 223
Shel Ze’ev Jabotinsky (Tel Aviv, 1988), pp. 22–23, 183–184; Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Al
Sifrut v’Omanut ( Jerusalem, 1948), pp. 97–120; Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Mikhtavim (Tel
Aviv, n.d.), p. 37.
61. Yosef Nedava, ed., Ze’ev Jabotinsky: haIsh u’Mishnato (Tel Aviv, 1980);
Penkower, The Zionist Revolution, pp. 120–132.
62. Bialik, Shirim, pp. 110–111, 166–167, 172–174, 186–187, 204–208, 218,
221–224, 261–264, 370–391; Yosef Klausner, H. N. Bialik v’Shirat Hayav (Tel
Aviv, 1950), pp. 123–125; Sefer Shimon Dubnow, p. 336. Also see Kol Kitvei Reuven
Brainin ben Mordekhai Brainin, Vol. 2 (New York, 1936), p. 168; and Dan Miron,
H. N. Bialik and the Prophetic Mode in Modern Hebrew Poetry (Syracuse, 2000).
63. Igrot H. N. Bialik, p. 181; Yosef Oren, Shevivim (Tel Aviv, 1981), pp. 135–
145. See also books cited in note 1. For Jabotinsky’s later thoughts about Bialik’s
poetic silence, see Jabotinsky, Al Sifrut v’Omanut, pp. 263–279. For Bialik’s lack of
hope in the revolutions that engulfed Russia, see Hamutal Bar-Yosef, “‘Lanu
HaYehudim Hashkafa Aheret’: H. N. Bialik B’Zman HaMahapekhot B’Russya
V’Yahaso LeRa’ayon HaMahapekha,” in MehVilna Ad L’Yerushalayim, Mehkarim
B’Toldotehem U’VeTarbutam Shel Yehudei Mizrah Eiropa, Mugashim L’Professor Shmuel
Verses, ed. D. Asaf, R. Shenfeld, and A. Holtzman. (Jerusalem, 2002), pp. 427–448.
64. Israel Zangwill, “The Jubilee of Bialik” (n.d.), A120/134, CZA, Jerusalem;
A. S. Orlans, “Siha Im H. N. Bialik” (n.d.), file 61, Yehoshua Ravnitski MSS (4/
1185), Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem; Igrot H. N. Bialik,
p. 180; H. N. Bialik, Devarim ShehBa’al Peh, Vols. 1–2 (Tel Aviv, 1935), esp. Vol. 1,
pp. 49–55. Gorki was quoted a year before the Kishinev pogrom as follows: “I am
told Zionism is a Utopia. I do not know; perhaps. But inasmuch as I see in this
Utopia an unconquerable thirst for freedom, one for which the people will
suffer, it is for me a reality. With all my heart, I pray that the Jewish people, like
the rest of humanity, may be given spiritual strength to labor for its dream and
to establish it in flesh and blood.” See Maccabean, Vol. 2 (April 1902), p. 213.
65. Avraham Broides, “b’Mehitsato Shel H. N. Bialik,” in Measef: Mukdash
l’Yetsirat H. N. Bialik, Vol. 10, ed. H. Barzel (Tel Aviv, 1975), pp. 350–352; Henrietta
Szold, letter to sisters, July 20, 1934, Henrietta Szold files #1, Hadassah
Archives, New York City. For Ahad Ha’am’s singular influence on Bialik, see
Bialik, Shirim, pp. 143–145; Igrot H. N. Bialik, p. 168; Bialik, Devarim ShehBa’al
Peh, Vol. 2, pp. 191–210; and Aliza Klausner Bar, “Al Hashpa’ato Shel Ahad-
Ha’am al Haim Nahman Bialik,” in Measef: Mukdash l’Yetsirat H. N. Bialik, Vol.
10, ed. H. Barzel (Tel Aviv, 1975), pp. 315–333.
66. Nedava, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, pp. 309–314; David Ben-Gurion, letter to Arthur
Wauchope, July 9, 1934, David Ben-Gurion Archives, Sdeh Boker, Israel.
67. Yaakov Fikhman, Shirat Bialik ( Jerusalem, 1953), pp. 60, 83; Yaakov
Fikhman, Sefer Bialik (Tel Aviv, 1934), pp. 141–158; Shazar, Or Ishim, pp.
135–141; Shimon Rawidowicz, Sihotai Im Bialik ( Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 28–30;
Boaz Arpeli, “ ‘Meiot b’Shanim Yarku Eleh (haGoyim) haMetoavim b’Fanenu,
vaAnahnu Mahinu et haRok’: Bialik, Brenner, Atsag,” HaAretz, literary section,
October 10, 2003.
68. Roskies, Against the Apocalypse, pp. 276–281; Shavit and Shamir, b’Mevoei Ir
haHareiga, p. 130; Grace Cohen Grossman, Jewish Art (New York, 1995),
p. 282. The Israel Museum, in Jerusalem, featured Pann’s “Jug of Tears” (not
224 Monty Noam Penkower
shown in seventy-five years), together with his later romantic pastels of biblical
heroes and heroines, in fall–winter 2003.
69. Philip Guedella, Supers and Supermen (New York, 1924), p. 81; Anita Shapira,
Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948 (New York, 1992), pp.
111, 176–177.
70. Governing Council minutes, March 30, 1933, Zionist Organization of
America MSS, Box 2, AJHS; Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, April 9, 1933,
CZA, Jerusalem; Hayim Greenberg, The Inner Eye (New York, 1953), pp. 219–
229. On the other hand, Jabotinsky asserted that in light of the Palestinian Arab
revolt, which began in April 1936, Bialik’s call for self-defense in “b’Ir haHareiga”
now had to be replaced with the Yishuv adopting an offensive ethos
against such sustained attack. See Yaakov Shavit, ed., Havlaga O Teguva
( Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 71–73.
71. Greenberg, The Inner Eye, pp. 230–238; Leni Yahil, “The Warsaw Underground
Press,” in Living with Antisemitism: Modern Jewish Responses, ed. J. Reinharz
(Hanover, N.H., 1987), pp. 436–437; Roskies, Against the Apocalypse, pp. 207,
211–212; Documents on the Holocaust, ed. Y. Arad, Y. Gutman, and A. Margaliot
( Jerusalem, 1981), p. 433. And, speaking to Mapai youth in Palestine a few
months before his death in August 1944, Labor Zionist ideologue Berl Katznelson
emphasized the significance of the Kishinev pogrom, “b’Ir haHareiga,” and
other related calls in 1903 as critical in stimulating armed resistance among
Jewish youth in Russia and in Palestine. See Kitvei Berl Katznelson, pp. 36–38.
Kristallnacht, the “Night of the Broken Glass” on November 9–10, 1938, witnessed
the deportation of at least 30,000 Jews to Nazi concentration camps and
the destruction of hundreds of synagogues, shops, and houses in Germany and
Austria. Ninety-one Jews were reported dead, and many were severely
wounded. Following that planned action, the Jews had to pay the Hitler
government an “indemnity” of one billion reichsmarks, as well as insurance
benefits for their destroyed property (another 250 million reichsmarks), and
were completely evicted from German economic life.
72. Yitshak Zuckerman (“Antek”), A Surplus of Memory: Chronicle of the Warsaw
Ghetto Uprising, trans. and ed. B. Harshav (Berkeley, 1993), p. 72. On the eve of
World War II, Dubnow saw no fundamental distinction between totalitarian rule
and previous absolutist regimes and maintained his faith in autonomous Jewish
life in the Diaspora. See Y. Meirson, “Siha Im Professor Shimon Dubnow,”
Davar, July 19, 1939.
73. Dubnow, Divrei Yemei Am Olam, p. 300; Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6
( Jerusalem, 1973), p. 252, and Vol. 10, p. 1068; Yehuda Bauer, A History of the
Holocaust (New York, 1982), p. 335.
74. Penkower, The Emergence of Zionist Thought, pp. 63–73; Eliezer Schweid,
“The Rejection of the Diaspora in Zionist Thought: Two Approaches,” Studies in
Zionism, Vol. 5 (spring 1984), pp. 43–70; Shalom Ratzaby, “The Polemic about
the ‘Negation of the Diaspora’ in the 1930s and Its Roots,” Journal of Israeli History,
Vol. 16 (1995), pp. 19–38; Shapira, Land and Power, pp. 330–341; Nili
Keren, “The Impact of She’erit Hapletah on the Holocaust Consciousness of
Israeli Society,” in She’erit Hapletah, 1944–1948, Rehabilitation and Struggle, ed. Y.
Gutman and A. Saf ( Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 427–436; Yehiam Weitz, “Yishuv,
The Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 225
Gola Shoa—Mitus u’Metsiut,” Yahadut Zmanenu, Vol. 6 (1990), pp. 133–150;
Gershon Shaked, “Between the Western Wall and Masada: The Holocaust and
the Self-Awareness of Israeli Society,” in Major Changes within the Jewish People in
the Wake of the Holocaust, ed. Y. Gutman (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 553–566; Dalya
Ofer, “Ma v’Ad Kama Lizkor Min haShoa: Zikhron haShoa b’Medinat Yisrael
baAsor haRishon l’Kiyuma,” in Atsmaut: 50 haShanim haRishonot, ed. A. Shapira
( Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 171–193.
75. Henry Roth, Mercy of a Rude Stream: A Star Shines over Mt. Morris Park
(New York, 1994), pp. 74–75. By contrast, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred
Years Together echoes the Tsarist version: A drunken mob, provoked by Jews,
carried out an attack that left a very small number of victims. Witnesses did not
confirm the “heartrending” details in the newspapers, which were nothing more
than exaggerated stories on the part of the Russian revolutionaries, who took
advance of the pogrom as “an opportunity to attack the government.” See Boris
Sandler, “The Reaction to the Kishinev Pogrom, Three Perspectives: Leo Tolstoy,
Vladimir Korolenko and Alexander Solzhenitsyn,” November 4, 2003, conference,
YIVO, New York City.
76. Jerusalem Post, May 29, 2003.
77. Roskies, The Literature of Destruction, p. 154.
78. Kitvei Yehuda Leib Gordon, Shira (Tel Aviv, 1950), pp. 31, 103–111;
Goren, Eduyot Nifgaei Kishinev keFi ShehNikhtevu Al Yedei H. N. Bialik v’Haverav;
Gershon Shaked, The Shadows Within: Essays on Modern Jewish Writers (Philadelphia,
1987), pp. 123–132. In May 1096, at the beginning of the Catholic Church’s First
Crusade to redeem the Holy Land from Muslim rule, over 1,000 Jews died in
Mainz (some at the hands of crusaders and many, after an armed and spirited
resistance, by suicide as an act of sanctifying the Divine name, Kiddush
haShem). The synagogue and Jewish quarter were also burned down. For
Shaul Tchernihovsky’s poetic response to that martyrdom, “Baruch of
Mainz” (1902), which was hailed by his contemporaries as a prophetic
response to the Kishinev pogrom one year later, see Mintz, Hurban, pp. 123–
129. Also see Yaakov Bahat, “Kiddush haShem b’Yetsirato Shel Tchernihovsky,”
Moznayim, Vol. 17 (November, 1963), pp. 432–437.
79. Adler and Margalith, With Firmness in the Right, p. 264; Mivhar Igrot
Weizmann, pp. 117–118; Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error (New York, 1949),
pp. 79–80.

אומ]־שולדיק]

2008-04-25T14:11:00.006-07:00

אַ ניו־יאָרקער ריכטער האָט רײנװאַשן די דרײַ חזירים װעלכע האָבן אומגעברענגן שאָן בעלל. פֿופֿציק קױלן און אײן טױטער מענטש איז גוט און שײן אױב איר זײַט אַ גרופּע פֿון שיכּורע חזירים. אַ קללה אױף די שולדיקע חזירים. אַ קללה אױף דער ריכטער

שפּריכװערטער

2008-04-22T23:47:00.002-07:00

"פֿון יעדן לויט זײַן פֿעיִקייט, צו יעדן לויט זײַנע באַדערפֿענישן"

"מײַנס איז דײַנס, און דײַנס איז דײַנס"

אַרטיקל

פּסח

2008-04-19T14:45:00.001-07:00

שמות

גראַמאַטיק

2008-04-18T00:08:00.001-07:00

http://www.dovidkatz.net/dovid/PDFLinguistics/2-1987-Grammar-Yiddish.pdf

די גאַנצע מגילה‏

שפּריכװאָרט

2008-04-15T19:27:00.001-07:00

אַ ביסל און אַ ביסל װערט אַ פֿולע שיסל

בראָשור

2008-04-09T23:19:00.009-07:00

דרוק! ...און דערצײל מיר גראַמאַטיק פּראָבלעמן

געדענק

2008-04-09T22:56:00.000-07:00

!אָך, אַ צרה, אַ גזירה מיט די ראַזיריעדן

ביאַליק

2008-04-08T23:24:00.024-07:00

פֿינף יאָר צופֿיל

2008-03-21T22:36:00.002-07:00

?װוּ איז מײַן גראָשן

2008-03-21T00:36:00.002-07:00

http://faujsa.fau.edu/jsa/search_music_LP.php?jsa_num=402873&queryWhere=jsa_num&queryValue=402873&artisttext=&artist=contains&titletext=a%20gut%20yomtov&title=contains&selectgenre=&selectlanguage=&musiconly=&id=&select=title&side=B&track=01&fetch=&pagenum=1

אַנטי־מלחמה בלעטלעך

2008-03-20T11:32:00.000-07:00

איראַק מלחמה

2008-03-18T00:42:00.003-07:00

װוּ פֿײַער, האַק און אײזען האָבן נעכטען
אױף דער בלוט־חתונה אַ װילדען טאַנץ געשפּילט

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq18mar18,1,3193189.story

שלאָפֿלאָזאיקײט פֿאַרבאַנד

2008-03-13T21:59:00.002-07:00

.איך אָנהײב אַ גלות נאַציאָנאַליסטע פּאַרטײ

!טרעט אַרײַן איצט

שלאָפֿלאָזאיקײט פֿאַרבאַנד

I am starting a Diaspora Nationalist party.

Join Now!

מעשׂה

2008-03-12T23:15:00.005-07:00

שבת פֿאַרנאַכט. דאָס גאַנצע שטעטל איז אין שול. ס'איז די צײַט װען מען זאָגט תּהילים. אַ ייִד שטײט פֿאַרן עמוד און זאָגט פֿאָר, הױך אױפֿן קול, און אַלע זאָגן אים נאָך מיט אַ ניגון. ס'איז גוט פֿינצטערלעך. מע זאָגט דעם תּהילים אױף אױסװײניק. מע זאָגט מיט אַ האַרציקן טרױעריקן ניגון. די פֿענצטער פֿון די שול זײַנען אָפֿן. טראָגט זיך דער ניגון אַרױס און דערגרײכט צו די אױערן פֿון אַ ייִנגל. װאָס שטײט באַהאַלטן אין פֿאָרהױז פֿון זײַן טאַטנס שטוב. דאָס ייִנגל איך צעשראָקן: אַלע ייִדן זײַנען אין שול און זאָגן תּהילים, טוען תּפֿילה צו גאָט, און זײַן טאַטע איז אין דער הײם, שטײט גאָר בײַם פֿענצטער און לײענט מיט אַ ניגון פֿון תּהילים דײַטשישע לידער פֿון שילער און געטע. עס באַפֿאַלט דעם ייִנגל אַ שרעק. גאָט װעט דאָך ניט פֿאַרשװײַגן דעם טאַטנס זינד. דער טאַטע װעט דאָך גוט באַשטראָפֿט װערן אױף יענער װעלט. מע װעט אים שמײַסן ניט אײַזענע ריטער. דאָס ייִנגל װײנט אין זיך. װי ראַטעװעט מענ דעם טאַטן פֿון אַזאַ אַומגליק?ס'איז געװאָרן גוט פֿינצטער. דער ניגון אין שול האָט זיך אײַנגעשטילט. דער טאַטע האָט פֿאַרמאַכט דאָס בוך. אין אָנגעהױבן זיך קלײַבן אין שול. דאָס ייִנגל האָט פֿרײַ אָפֿגעאָטעמט. דער טאַטע איז נאָך ניט אַזױ שטאַרק זינדיק, ער גײט דאָך אין שול. אין שול האָט ער נאָכגעקוקט דעם טאַטן צי ער דאַװנט. יאָ, ער דאַװנט טאַקע. גײַם ייִנגל איז אָראָפּ אַ שטײן פֿון האַרצן.אױף מאָרגן האָט דאָס ייִנגל װײַטער געכאָפֿט דעם טאַטן באַ אַן עבֿירה. ס'איז געװען גאַנץ פֿרי. מע האָט געשטעלט דעם סאַמאַװאַר און די מאַמע האָט צוגעשטעלט קאָכן קאַרטאָפֿל. דער טאַטע האָט אָנגעטאָן טלית און תּפֿילין און זיך געשטעלט דאָװנען. די מאַמע האָט זיך געפֿאָרעט אַ װײַלע אין שטוב און איז אַרױס אין מאַרק. װי נאָך די מאַמע איז אַרױס פֿון שטוב, האָט דער טאַטע אױסגעטאָן טלית און תּפֿילין, און זיך געזעצט בײַם טיש און זיך פֿאַרטיפֿט אין אַ דײַטש ביכל.דאָס ייִנגל איז געבליבן שטײן אַ פֿאַרציטערטער. דער טאַטע האָט דאָך גאָרניט געדאַװנט! שפּעטערצו האָט דאָס ייִנגל זיך נאָך מער דערשראָקן:ער װאָלט געשװאָרן, אַז װען דער טאַטע האָט זיך געװאָשן האָט ער ניט געמאַכט קײן ברכה. דאָס ייִנגל איז געזעסן בײַם טיש און זיך געװאָרגן מיטן ביסל.װײ, װײ נאָך אַ מאָל, װי זינדיק דער טאַטע איז. װײס ער ניט, אַז גאָט װעט אים באַשטראָפֿן? אַ גאַנצן טאָג איז דאָס ייִנגל אַרומגעגאַנגענאַ צעשראָקענע. ער האָט זיך פֿאַרגעשטעלט װי נאָכן טױט זינדן אַלע, ער, אַבֿרהמל, די מאַמע, די ברידער, און שװעסטער, אין גן־עדן. זײַ עסן טײַערע פֿישן און גוטע פֿלײַשן. זײ גײען אָנגעטאָן אין גאָלד און זײַדנס. איבער זײ די בלױקײט פֿון הימל און העלקײַט פֿון דער זון יעדער האָט, װאָס זײַן האַרץ גלוסט, ער דאַרף נאָר אױסשטרעקן די האַנט װערט זײַן פֿאַרלאַנג דערפֿילט. מלאכים שװעבן אַרום גרײט. יעדן צדיק צו באַדינען.
אָבער ערגעץ טיף אין דער ערד ברענט אַ שטענדיק פֿײַער. דאָרטן שטראָפֿט מען די זינדיקע לאַפּיטוטן מיט לאַנגע עקן לױפֿן אַרום מיט אָנגעברענטע אײַזערנע ריטער. מע שלאָגט, מע שמײַסט, אַלע די װאָס זײַנען אױף דער װעלט ניט געװען פֿרום. און דאָס ייִנגל באַשטימט בײַ זיך: נײן, ער װעט ניט לאָזן דעם טאַטן אָפּקומען אױף יענער װעלט. ער װעט אים ראַטעװען פֿון גיהנום.

דאָס ייִנגל שפּילעט פֿאַנענדער זײַן רעקל, נעמט אָן אַ ציצה פֿון טלית־קטן. מיט די ציצה אין האַנט פֿאַר אַן עדות, שענקט ער אַװעק זײַן אײגענעם חלק יענע װעלט דעם טאַטן. דאָס ייִנגל באַרויִקט זיך, װיפֿל דער טאַטע װעט ניט זינדיקן װעט ער אַלץ האָבן

אַ חלק אױף יענער װעלט.

אין אָװנט פֿאָרן שלאָפֿן לײענט דאָס ייִנגל די תּפֿילה. ער לײענט פֿרום, צײלט די װערטער. ער זאָגט: "אין דײַנע האַנט גיב איך איבער מײַן נשמה", און שטעלט זיך אָפּ אַ דערשראָקענער. ער גײט שלאָפֿן און גיט איבער גאָט די נשמה. װי אַז גאָט װעט ניט װעלן אַומקערן אים צוריק די נשמה אין דער פֿרי פֿאָרן אױגשטײן? װי, אַז גאָט װעט װעלן אַז ער, אבֿרהמל, זאָל גאָר שטאַרבן הײַנטיקע נאַכט אין שלאָף? ער װעט שטאַרבן און קומען פֿאַר גאָט אַ נאַקעטער אָן מצװת. אַ נאַקעטע נשמה, װאָס האָט קעין אײן מצװה ניט, לאָזט מען ניט אַרײַן אין גיהנום אפֿילו. און ער, אַבֿרהמל, װעט דאַרפֿן זײַן אין כּף־הקל אַרומװאַנדערן איבער דער װעלט אָן אַ ציל. שטענדיק זיך אַרומשלעפּן איבער אַלע װיסענישן, װוּ טאָגן ניט נעכטיקן. אַ שױדער באַפֿאַלט דעם ייִנגל. און ער ברעכט אױס אין אַ געװײן. די שטוביקע דערשרעקן זיך. מע לױפֿט צו צום קינד, מע הױבט אים אָן אױספֿרעגן, װאָס טוט אים װײ. דאָס ייִנגל ענטפֿערט ניט. װי קאָן (קען) ער זײ דערצײלן דעם אמת װעגן טאַטן? אַלע װעלן זיך דערװיסן, אַז דער טאַטע איז אַ זינדיקער. פֿאַרגײט זיך דאָס ייִנגל אין אַ גרעסערן געװײן און

קױם מיט צרות געלינגט דעם טאַטן, אין דער שטיל, אַרױסצוקריגן פֿון ייִנגל דעם אמת. דער טאַטע לאַכט זיך אױס פֿון ייִנגלס שרעק. ער גיט זיך אַזױ שפּאַסיק אַ זאָג: ־ איך גיב דיר צוריק דײַן חלק פֿון יענער װעלט און מײַנעם אױך. דאָס ייִנגל שעפּטשעט שטיל: ־ דײַן חלק װיל איך ניט. דײַנעם ניט, און מײַנעם װיל איך אױך ניט צוריק אינגאַנצן. נאָר אַ העלפֿט נעם איך צוריק, איך זאָל ניט קומען קײן נאַקעטער אױף יענער װעלט. דאָס ייִנגל ענדיקט לײענען קריאת־שמע און שלאָפֿט אײַן מיט אַ קינדערישן, געשמאַקן שלאָף. דאָס ייִנגל, אבֿרהמל, איז דער איצטיקער באַרימטער שרײַבער אבֿרהם רײַזען. ער איז דאַן אַלט געװען אַ יאָר זעקס.

קעשי מעשי

2008-03-12T15:22:00.001-07:00

אינטערעסאַנטע לעקציע

2008-03-11T21:24:00.005-07:00

http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/news/radio/podcast/lecture_59.mp3

"From Chaim Potok to Philip Roth, Jewish American writers have contributed memorable works to the modern literary landscape. However, Hana Wirth-Nesher, professor of English at Tel Aviv University, believes earlier Jewish American stories are misunderstood, and not read in the way older writers, like Lamed Shapiro intended them to be read. In a lecture at the CUNY Graduate Center, Wirth-Nesher, Director of the Goldreich Family Institute for Yiddish Language, Literature and Culture, reads from Shapiro’s 1919 short story 'New Yorkish,' and describes some of the complexities of the Yiddish and Hebrew languages that get lost in translation."

אידענטיפֿיצירונג

2008-03-07T20:21:00.000-08:00

"The son of the Ghetto might have worn his badge with pride, for in truth it was a medal of distinction awarded by the papal Church to the Jews, for dauntlessness and courage. The awkward, puny Jew in his way was stronger and braver than a German knight armed cap-a-pie, for he was penetrated by the faith that "moves mountains." And when the worst came to the worst, he demonstrated his courage. When his peaceful home was stormed by the bestialized hordes of Armleder, or the drunken bands of the Flagellants, or the furious avengers of the "Black Death," he did not yield, did not purchase lifeby disgraceful treason. With invincible courage he put his head under the executioner's axe, and breathed forth his heroic spirit with the enthusiastic cry: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One.'" - Simon Dubnow

I wear peyos. I have been wearing peyos since last May, but more officially since last September (when I mastered the twisting technique). When I started twisting them in a way that made them unmistakable, I felt a sense of pride. I was distinguishing myself, in a Jewish way, from the society at large. Peyos were always something that I have had an interested. I always thought it was strange that such a unique, and in my opinion, cool looking hairstyle was restricted to such a minute section of world Jewry.

Having not been raised ultra-religious (whatever that means), I was afforded the right to make a lot of decisions regarding my Jewishness on my own. That fact that I wasn't raised in a particularly Jewish community also contributed to my freedom to make these decisions.
Despite this freedom, when I arrived at college last Fall I was at a loss. The reputation and respect I had accumulated in High School was worthless in this new place and I desperately needed to establish myself. Soon enough came the High Holidays, where for the first time I began to grasp the complexities of Jewishness. I realized (partly due to my horrendous Hebrew school education) that I didn't understand a lot of the traditions of Yom Kippur in particularly. I was on the verge of either losing faith in the religious system or completely devoting myself to understanding it. Instead I resolved to read Talmud and understand the traditions. But my confusion remained.

I was unable to establish myself like I had in High School. I had no means to. I reverted to my Jewish identity as a way for me to define myself in this new environment. But already involving myself in Talmud, Yiddish, et al I turned to identification. I finally figured out a method to twist my peyos so they would look good, and I gave up shaving. (Since the time I realized that shaving is not permitted under Jewish law, I felt a little guilty ever time I shaved. More so on Saturdays.)

Having had long hair for a number of years, I felt more comfortable with peyos than suddenly wearing a yarmulke (something I never did outside of religious ceremonies). However from October through December my peyos were about the same length (give or take an inch or two) as the rest of my hair. They stood out enough whereas they were noticeable, but not like a yellow Lamborghini. I got ridiculed only once during this period. An older fellow at synagogue after finding out that I was not Khassidic, made the comment “So those are fake peyos”. This, obviously anti-intellectual, statement had only a minor effect on me. I found, however, when I was around an older group that there perceptions of my were often confused because of my seemingly contradictory appearance. I was even asked by a Conservative Rabbi if I was Yemenite.

I knew I was sending bizarre messages to this section of Jewry, but back at school my fellow Jews did not see much of a problem with my peyos wearing.

Lack of community, in a sense, drove me to this expression of self. I recall a conversation I had with my non-Jewish Aunt about my peyos being a reaction against the society I have been placed in. Having not been raised with a premier Jewish education, or close Jewish community, I found myself drowning in a vast ocean of American culture. Unwilling /“too aware” to completely associate myself with American culture I forced myself to grab at any shard of my non-American culture (Jewish) that I thought could keep me afloat. This had included a kosher diet, the Yiddish language, and recreational Talmud/Torah study. If I grew up in the pre-wat Poland of my grandparents, I told my Aunt, I wouldn't be caught dead with peyos. It simply wouldn't be something that I would have felt the need to have, nor would have been able to “get away with” having. In its place, I would have a way of life, a vibrant culture, and a language of my own. To this my Aunt respond, ‘well isn’t great that here you can decide you like peyos one day, and wear them the next without too much trouble?’ I answered that I did not know. This seemingly artificial being I have forced myself to create is free, but is it better off than those who had community (but less freedom)? I can choose to do whatever I want, but to the same extent I cannot comfortably be just yet (...another essay).

During the winter break, this inner struggle was taken to another level. I got a haircut, making my peyos a good 4 inches longer than the rest of my hair. This resulted in strange reactions from my friends who were not completely aware of my inner-conflict back at college. At first I felt uncomfortable with such distinctive peyos, especially on Saturdays. I kind of felt like a fish out of water back in an environment where I had a history. It was almost as if my signs were void or superfluous.

In the new college environment far from home, I was around people who would never have that same understanding of my past that those who grew up with me had. In retrospect it is almost as if my peyos (and beard too a lesser extent) were to pose a reminders to these others that I have a history. It was as if my peyos were yelling, “I am a member of a historic people! Although you might not know my personal history, I am a Jew and this makes me more than a face and a name!” Such declarations would over course be strange and unnecessary back in New York where these facts went without saying.

My struggles through “freedom” of expression were amplified again last weekend at a Yiddish Culture Club of Los Angeles lecture. After arriving I took a seat next to an older fellow whom I would later find out was named Eliazar. When I sat down he asked me a number of questions in Yiddish: do you understand Yiddish? What country are you from? What country are your parents from? What country are your grandparents from? What is your mother tongue? Do you go to Yeshiva? Do you know Hebrew? Do you pray daily? Then came the big one, why do you have payos? I told him that they make me happy. Then the lecture started.

Following the lecture and poetry reading it was coffee, tea and snack time. I spoke with a couple of people at my table. But I was drawn back to Eliazar (partly because I think I am sick of being praised and told, “youll do great things”, I need the criticism sometimes, even if it hurts). He asked me again how it came about that I have peyos. I told him that when I was little I always admired peyos and every couple of years I would ask my mom if I could have them. Eliazar was amused with my back and forth story telling. But after I finished he told me a story. I didn’t understand it completely, but what I got was this: He told me how the Germans killed all his family, running through the list of family members. Then he went on about how after the war he went to university and then became an engineer (I think he was talking about himself) without peyos. He couldn’t understand why a “handsome young man” is going around with peyos. He kept repeating “ס'איז ניט קלוג” its not smart (to have peyos) and tapping his head. He said, ‘I can understand if you are in Yeshiva, or a Khassid, or a Rabbi, but not just a student at college’ . I told him that I want peyos so that people should know I was Jewish, I repeated the Yiddish/Hebrew word for signs, which is what the Yemenite Jews call peyos. He replied, that Jewishness is in one’s heart, not his peyos. He then told me that he has two children, a son and a daughter. He said if his son ever came home with peyos he would put him over his knee and hit him on the tukhus. After he was finished talking to me, he got up to go, finally introducing himself. I asked him for his phone number, to which he replied in Yiddish “Why should I give you my phone number?” I told him that I wanted to talk with him more in Yiddish. Mumbling something about when I cut my peyos and shave my beard he said “Be heathly” and left.
Back in the spring/summer/winter my mom had given me a similar set of arguments, but to hear it in Yiddish from someone that lived in Poland, went through the Holocaust, and lived through the Soviet Union (he came to the US in 1992) was different.

Following that conversation I had a lot of thinking to do. I seemingly violated two aspects of identification in this man’s mind (and thus in the minds of many others). First of all I am not a member of any of the groups that traditionally wears peyos. To him I was looking like something I wasn't. Secondly, I was showing off my Jewishness to the world at large; something that, for a survivor of the Holocaust and Soviet Union, isn't the smartest (or most desirable) thing to do. Interestingly Eliazar himself wore his baseball hat the entire duration of the lecture, and long sideburns but no beard.

The reason I took Eliazar’s critique to heart was because of my respect for his generation. He has lived a life a lot “realer” than the shielded semi-communitiless life I have led to this point. In addition, he was a Yiddish speaker and critiqued me in Yiddish.

I have long been an opponent of the way in which American culture takes “foreign” cultures and dilutes it into it’s melting pot sludge. As an American (self-loathing, but American nonetheless) was I unwittingly taking part in the very practice of diluting my own culture (which I had seen as my escape from American sludge)?
.איך װײס נישט

!צעמער

2008-03-02T19:37:00.004-08:00

http://www.2shared.com/file/2929208/91ef3f70/html_code.html

^ html code for שרײַבערקע

שרײַבערקע

2008-03-02T18:34:00.000-08:00

The typewritter works on pc's now!

Hooray!!!!