The Book of the People: The Hebrew Encyclopedic Project and the National Self 9783111062464, 9783111061375

Table of contents :
Acknowledgment
Contents
Introduction
Chapter One Amass: Knowledge in the Making of a Nation
Chapter Two Introspection: Creating Singularity at the Outset of the Zionist Movement
Chapter Three Decentralization: The Breakdown of the National Utopia
Chapter Four Normality: The Migration of Knowledge to Palestine
Chapter Five Omnipotence: Making the Israeli Canon
Aftermath Zionist Historiography from a Bird’s Eye View
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Dan Tsahor The Book of the People

Studia Judaica

Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums Begründet von Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich Herausgegeben von Günter Stemberger, Charlotte Fonrobert, Elisabeth Hollender, Alexander Samely und Irene Zwiep

Volume 117

Dan Tsahor

The Book of the People The Hebrew Encyclopedic Project and the National Self

ISBN 978-3-11-106137-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-106246-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-106302-7 ISSN 0585-5306 Library of Congress Control Number: 2023934073 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

May God preserve the ancient scrolls, With life both worldly and eternal bestowed, From mildew, moths, and tyrant’s rage, Protect them well, at every age. From fools and folly, let them be kept, And from the wisdom of the simpleton, like fire swept.¹

 Nathan Alterman, “Song of the Ten Brothers” in Alterman, City of the Dove, (Tel Aviv: Mahbarot le-Sifrut, 1957) 303.

Acknowledgment During the work on this book, many institutions and people have helped me in various ways, and I am happy to have the opportunity to thank them for that. I feel lucky to have met Paul Mendes-Flohr at the Van Leer Institute library while working on my manuscript. His extensive research inspired me, and his support gave me the confidence to continue my research. The first chapters are based on a dissertation I wrote at New York University. I am grateful for the guidance and support provided by my advisor, Zvi Ben Dor Benit. His expertise and mentorship helped me navigate through the long and meticulous process of research and writing. I am also thankful for his willingness to give me creative autonomy and allow me to work independently on my study. Hanan Hever is an exceptional reader and a patient mentor. Through his guidance, I learned how to connect events within the narrow field of Hebrew encyclopedic literature to broader political and sociological contexts. Our conversations provided the initial inspiration for my ideas, and since then, Hanan has been a valuable resource for answering questions and offering guidance in developing my research. Ron Zweig taught me about the intricacies of Israeli politics and the complex relationships between the Zionist movement and Jewish communities in the diaspora. David Engel and David Ellenson also provided valuable feedback through their thorough review of my dissertation, which helped guide my future research. I am particularly thankful to Alon Confino, who played a crucial role in my decision to pursue advanced studies in history. As a visiting professor at Tel Aviv University, Alon introduced me to the field of collective memory, which proved to be essential to the development of my research perspective on encyclopedias. Years later, when I came as a visiting lecturer to the University of Massachusetts, the discussions we had at a faculty seminar and in private conversations helped me further develop this study’s theoretical framework. I would like to extend a special thanks to Marion Kaplan for introducing me to the customs and rules of the American academy. Upon my arrival at NYU, Marion was aware of my disorientation and kindly offered guidance to help me navigate the new environment. The cohort of students in the joint History and Jewish Studies Program, Sarah Zarow, Anna Koch, Allan Amanik, Donna Herzog, Shayna Weiss, and Clémence Boulouque, were both friends and colleagues who greatly contributed to my research and served as a source of inspiration. Additionally, Yiftah Elazar, Elik Elhanan, Hamutal Jackobson Girshengorn, Yifat Gutman, and Tzachi Slonim also played an instrumental role in my research and provided valuable insights. After completing my dissertation, I was a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University’s Judaic Studies Program and the Cherick Center at the Hebrew University. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-001

VIII

Acknowledgment

Throughout that period, the library at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem was a second home for me that I was always happy to return to. I would like to express my gratitude to Hillel Cohen, Assaf Shelleg, David Ohana, Amir Engel, Yamit Rachman, and Shlomi Segal for their generous support and welcoming presence. In addition to my peers, other teachers, scholars, and colleagues have also supported my work by providing valuable advice, organizing workshops, and writing letters of recommendation. Many thanks to Shlomo Sand, Shulamit Volkov, Jacques Revel, Raanan Rein, Motti Golani, Eli Yassif, Tamar Novick, Yigal Nizri, and Shay Hazkani. In my work, I made extensive use of primary sources that I found in various libraries and archives. I would like to extend my gratitude to the dedicated staff at the Israel State Archive, National Library of Israel, YIVO Archive in Manhattan, Central Zionist Archive, and the Dorot Jewish Division at the New York Public Library for their patience, assistance and for providing access to their collections. Without their help and resources, this research would not have been possible. Two of the book’s chapters are extended and revised versions of articles that I previously published in Israel Studies 23/1 (Indiana University Press, 2018) and Studies in Contemporary Jewry 31 (Oxford University Press, 2020). I want to express my appreciation to the publishers and editors of these publications for allowing me to use and expand upon the original articles for this book. I feel privileged for the opportunity to have worked with De Gruyter. I am particularly grateful for the valuable input provided by my editor, Alice Meroz. Her keen eye and expertise helped to ensure that the manuscript was well-balanced. I also extend my thanks to the anonymous readers and editors who provided guidance and feedback throughout the editing process. I want to thank my family for their unwavering support during the long period it took to complete this research. Despite spending much of that time away from home, my mother, Rivka Tsahor, and my siblings always provided a warm and loving welcome upon my return to Israel. I am also deeply grateful to my parents-inlaw, Tali and Yossi Gershy, for their constant moral support and frequent visits. Their interest and engagement in my research were invaluable. Naama, my interlocutor and companion, accompanied the research from its first stages and took an active part in formulating and developing ideas and arguments. I am grateful for her contributions and apologize for the sacrifices she had to make as we traveled between countries for years. This research would not have been possible without her love and support. The book is dedicated to three members of my family who have greatly influenced me during my research journey. My father, Zeev Tsahor, was a brilliant historian who instilled in me a deep love of history and a desire to uncover the stories and perspectives that have been lost or forgotten over time. Our discussions and debates about politics, methodology, and historical interpretation formed the foun-

Acknowledgment

IX

dation of my research, and I am grateful for the insights he shared with me. Even though we did not always agree, our discussions helped shape my understanding of the subject matter and pushed me to think critically about early Zionist history. I like to think that some of my father’s passion and energy for history are present in the pages of this book, although, unfortunately, he did not live to see its completion. Tamara and Amos came into the world while Naama and I were still students or struggling for an early career pathway. Despite the violence and injustice in the world they have inherited, their arrival has brought us immense joy and hope for a better future.

Contents Introduction 1 Scholars as Redeemers 2 The Argument 5 An Imprint of the National Self 8 Encyclopedism as a Political Position

12

Chapter One Amass: Knowledge in the Making of a Nation 16 18 The Redemptive Science Palestine: Longing for a Distant Land 29 Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles 32 46 Conclusions Chapter Two Introspection: Creating Singularity at the Outset of the Zionist Movement 48 Against the Narrative: Contesting the Book of History 50 54 Against the Myth: Contesting the Anthology of Folklore Deterritotializing the Nation: The Encyclopedia as a New Homeland The Expert: Yearning for a Jewish Polymath 71 A Hybrid Model for a Diverse Nation 75 80 The Subversive Dogma Jewish Theology and other Zionist Perplexities 89 Conclusions 94 Chapter Three Decentralization: The Breakdown of the National Utopia 96 The Demise of Unity 98 American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde 103 Worshipping the Present: A Russian Opposition to the National Utopia 124 Up Against the Zionist Utopia 130 Conclusions 139 Chapter Four Normality: The Migration of Knowledge to Palestine Berlin: An Intellectual Getaway 144

142

59

XII

Contents

Yiddish, the Language of Progress 150 154 Becoming Native Bracha Peli and the Making of a Normal Nation The Nation’s Young Vanguards 167 Conclusions 170 Chapter Five 172 Omnipotence: Making the Israeli Canon The Bible and the Cosmopolitan Levant 174 The Encyclopedic Lexicon 187 188 Light unto the Nations The Demise of the Vision 198 Aftermath Zionist Historiography from a Bird’s Eye View Bibliography Index

214

208

205

157

Introduction Abdullah ibn Salam, a seventh-century rabbi from the Hijaz who became one of the closest companions of the Islamic prophet Muhammed, is a figure hardly mentioned in rabbinic literature. To many Jewish chroniclers, the defection of ibn Salam to another religion assured that his name, like many other apostates, would erase from Jewish collective memory. However, in a 1926 prospectus of Encyclopaedia Judaica, the entry “Abdullah ibn Salam” was the opening article.¹ The positive depiction of the historical figure, written by the orientalist Josef Horovitz (1874– 1931), observed the relationships with the founder of Islam but mostly stressed aspects in ibn Salam’s intellectual work as it was reflected in Islamic canonical texts.² The inclusion of someone who had long been deemed best forgotten, deleted from the annals of Jewish memory, was part of the editors’ declared effort to enrich the common perception of Jewish history with beliefs, traditions, and people that rabbinic Judaism customarily excluded. The introduction of ibn Salam into Jewish historical discourse did not end with the German publication, as a similar biographical article later appeared in the popular Israeli ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit [Encyclopaedia Hebraica,] until this day is the bestselling work in modern Jewish literature.³ In the Hebrew article, the authors also celebrated the fact that the Jewish-born savant served as a mediator of knowledge between neighboring cultures of the ancient Middle East. In the past fifty years, however, ibn Salam seems to be once again out of fashion. Only recently, he appeared in the Hebrew version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. This prodigious encyclopedic enterprise is by now the most comprehensive literary project in its scope in the Hebrew language, with more than 320,000 entries (until 2022) that would amount to 240 hefty printed volumes. Yet, before Abdullah ibn Salam returned from Jewish oblivion, the authors of the online encyclopedia preferred to illustrate Jewish history in line with the traditional concept of a semi-secluded nation that “dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”⁴ Although the recent history of Wikipedia is beyond the scope of this study, the dynamic of inclusion and exclusion of encyclopedic knowledge and the social environment in which it takes place are the focal points of this book. Like the Wikipedians of today, the producers of the printed Hebrew encyclopedias were sensitive to the regnant cultural sensibilities of their prospective readership. They

   

Jakob Klatzkin, Enzyklopädie Des Judentums: Probeheft (Berlin: Verlag “Eschkol”, 1926). Josef Horovitz, “Abdullah ibn Salam” in Ibid. Ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit vol.32. 35. Num. 23:9 KJV.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-002

2

Introduction

hoped that the encyclopedia, with its wealth of knowledge, would be an ideal vehicle for modeling a new collective Jewish-self that would gain spiritual autonomy from both the burden of traditional Jewish cultural memory and the imperious pull of European cultural horizons. Jewish encyclopedists, therefore, often considered themselves shepherds who would lead the Jews from the decaying desert of traditional Judaism and spiritual extinction by assimilating to European culture. This vision was shared by Hebrew encyclopedists, but the type of knowledge and the political goals they aimed at achieving have been contested by rival publishers and editors during a century in which the genre has thrived.

Scholars as Redeemers The editors of Jewish encyclopedias often described their respective projects in passionate language. Many of them associated their work with eminent premodern rabbis, who were revered for healing a troubled nation by issuing a book that changed Jewish textual traditions. Like the Tannaim, who redacted the Mishnah in the aftermath of the fall of the Second Temple, and Joseph Karo, who authored the influential religious code Shulchan Aruch after the expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula, they hoped that once again, a book would redeem a battered nation. The parallel encyclopedists made between the canonical texts and their own work stemmed from what they perceived as similarities in content, knowledge organization, and modes of expression. The Hebrew encyclopedias, from this perspective, would be a modern link in a chain of Jewish literary tradition that was encyclopedic in its conceptual impulse. The editors of the encyclopedias, however, favored the analogy mostly for the heroic role that they granted their rabbinic predecessors. Like these revolutionary canonical religious codes, the encyclopedia would reintroduce Jews to a re-verified Judaism by revamping the themes, expository expression, and structure of Jewish knowledge in accordance with contemporary rhetorical norms and current cultural sensibilities. In fact, the ambitious editors had even greater expectations from the encyclopedia; in addition to the desire to remap the canon and reacquaint Jews with their history and culture, they aspired to gather an increasingly geographically dispersed people into a cohesive nation. Thus, for many editors, the encyclopedia was a cultural basis from which a new nation would emerge. A nation that would not necessarily be bound to a specific territory or political institution but rather bound by a shared cultural memory. They, therefore, understood Judaism as a vast text that increasingly augmented and crystallized over the millennia. It was the task of their encyclopedic projects to represent Judaism so understood.

Scholars as Redeemers

3

The editors’ prospects, however, were slim because their high hopes rested upon a genre whose glory days were long gone. Once a showcase of rationalism by celebrated heroes of the European Enlightenment and a means of distributing national knowledge, the encyclopedia lost its lure as a vehicle of radical thinking in the second half of the 19th century. The triumphal tone of Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert in the early days of the genre conceded to a neutral referential source of knowledge with dictionary-like entries that bore only little political weight. The national pathos displayed in early to mid-19th century publications like Encyclopédie Méthodique and The New American Cyclopædia waned in favor of the globalization of encyclopedic knowledge when major publishers licensed translations of their encyclopedias to publishers in other regions who sought to purchase ready-made knowledge. Perhaps the most symbolic act, in this regard, was the purchase of Encyclopedia Britannica—with specified geography in its very title—by an American company, which moved its operation to New York in 1901. The generic turn from the national encyclopedia to the translated encyclopedia of “imported” knowledge resulted in a thematic and perceptual change. If publishers of early 19th century encyclopedias sought to present evidence for the ability of the national language to represent all objects and national scholars to produce all knowledge, publishers of late 19th century encyclopedias candidly embraced the perspectives of centers of knowledge production in Berlin, New York, and London. This shift also resulted in a turn from the introspective outlook on the nation and its history to the universalism of the natural sciences, geography, and medicine. The global weakening of the genre was also a technical obstacle for Hebrew publishers since the economic feasibility of large encyclopedic projects depended on translations from international encyclopedias like Britannica and Brockhaus. Yet, the desire to prove the capabilities of Hebrew culture limited the use of external “foreign” sources. In addition to financial difficulties, the publishers of the first Hebrew encyclopedias struggled to prove that the genre was valuable for the emerging nation. Within the narrow borders of the Hebrew book market, they faced bitter competition from other genres branded as national books. The fiercest competition came from folklore anthologies and books of history that were well-grounded in European national cultures and, to some extent, Jewish tradition. The competitors’ strength was their proclaimed aim of providing readers with a clear roadmap that would provide orientation within the vast landscape of Jewish texts. That is, unlike the encyclopedia with its fragmented presentation of nonhierarchical knowledge, the folklore anthologies and the history book were made for a cover-to-cover read that was more useful to convey a sense of cultural unity, inspiring national ethos, and a concomitant political agenda. Jewish folklorists sought to follow the footsteps of the Grimm Brothers in illustrating a hidden collective per-

4

Introduction

sona with specific attributes, emotions, and beliefs that lay within culture, while Jewish historians linked their readers to familiar individuals and events of the past with long narratives that reached back to the Bible and extended to the present. In contrast, encyclopedists presented a multitude of theological perceptions, religious practices, and political positions. Judaism, as presented in Jewish encyclopedias, was a multifarious culture with a long history of divergent developments and often internal conflicts. Despite the competition and the enormous financial commitment, a few Hebrew publishers were determined to produce multi-volume encyclopedias. Although they worked in different parts of the world with distinct commercial and intellectual environments, their intentions were by and large similar. The first goal shared by all these publishers was to make a profit. Though encyclopedias were expensive to produce, publishers expected them to be lucrative enterprises because they anticipated a dramatic growth in readership, with the ever-increasing flight of Jews out of tradition into the modern world forged by the Enlightenment, cosmopolitan vistas, and science. The encyclopedia, so they thought, would be the ultimate vehicle for this social change because the seemingly subversive knowledge it fostered would be packed into large folio-sized volumes similar to the biding of the Talmud and thus familiar to Jews with traditional backgrounds. The second shared goal was the hope of securing Jewish knowledge in a time of cultural decline. Though many encyclopedists perceived their task as a basis for a new beginning, some early producers of Hebrew encyclopedias held a pessimistic view of the prospect of Jewish culture and society. They described a grim future in which social assimilation would erode the remaining boundaries of cultural integrity, and as a result, Jewish knowledge would be lost to oblivion. The encyclopedists’ solution was to gather and preserve all knowledge on their printed pages, where the memory of a vanishing culture would be conserved like in a time capsule. With some degree of contradiction to the antiquarian ethos of preservation, the third shared goal was the desire to contribute to the fostering of a new, posttraditional Jewish cultural and national identity. These publishers hoped that the encyclopedia would reach all corners of the Jewish world, facilitating their readers to embrace a new national identity. The encyclopedia was, in this regard, an eclectic skein of narratives, customs, myths, and symbols in the service of an emerging nation. Thus, its success depended mainly on how well the book would be received by different sectors of Jewish society and if the readers would find the presentation of national knowledge appealing. Though the desire to make a book that would be at the same time a profitable business enterprise, a vault of Jewish knowledge, and a canon for a new nation, motivated

The Argument

5

publishers, it was often a point of contention as business partners, editors, and readers clashed over priorities. The determination of the Hebrew encyclopedists proved to be well-founded. Despite numerous obstacles, the genre attracted public interest, became popular among Hebrew readers throughout the diaspora, and profoundly influenced Israeli culture during the first decade after statehood. In the middle of the 20th century, when encyclopedias reached record sales, the genre became popular among children and adults alike, with sales of thousands of copies. Encyclopedias were also an essential part of every private and institutional library. However, the heydays of the Israeli encyclopedias were short as in the 1960s, the overall sales began to decline, and publishers ceased to initiate new multi-volume encyclopedias. Instead, they printed translated encyclopedias. The last commercial all-inclusive Hebrew encyclopedias went out for print at the end of the 1980s, and by the start of the following decade, bookstores no longer sold encyclopedias.

The Argument The theoretical premise of this study is that the encyclopedia, a mass-produced body of knowledge, must reflect widely agreed depictions of reality. To convey truths about the world, the editors of the twentieth-century Encyclopedias had to fulfill an unwritten contract with the readers about the type of language they could use and the thematic spectrum in which they could operate. The editors, therefore, were especially attuned to Zionist public discourse in selecting the subjects to be dealt with on the pages of the encyclopedias and were sensitive to the changing taste of how they were presented. To fulfill their side of the contract, they have often offered a detailed overview of the mechanics of objectivity in the introduction, with a thorough explanation of the rationale of their prose and ideational exposition. They thus sought to assure their readers that their publication was a reliable source of knowledge by explaining editorial decisions regarding word choices, grammar, transliterations, and translations, and the reasoning behind referential devices, such as bibliography and cross-references. Such devices were part of encyclopedias’ claim to objectivity, indeed, the epistemic norms that all encyclopedias had to conform to within a certain timeframe. The epistemic norms of encyclopedic literature—like any other epistemic norms—set the boundaries for the ways in which knowledge has been produced and standardized. That is, within a certain society, all editors of encyclopedias had to abide by rigid expositional standards despite frequent differences in language and thematic packaging. For example, in the late 1940s, publishers in the newly established State of Israel developed multi-volume academic encyclopedias—such as Encyclopaedia Hebraica and

6

Introduction

Encyclopaedia Biblica—that turned into best sellers and greatly influenced the genre for years to come. Other encyclopedias adopted similar expositional standards and presented detailed bibliographies and cross-references. This academization of the field had even reached sub-generic writing of youth encyclopedias and geographical lexicons that previously were not intended to be branded as scholarly objectives. As I will discuss shortly, the stabilization of epistemic patterns allows me to take a further analytical step in identifying the self-perceived image of the collective national subject by examining encyclopedias’ rhetoric and thematic structure. Each of the following chapters closely examines single epistemic shifts in Hebrew encyclopedic literature. These tectonic moves in public perceptions of knowledge radically transformed how the content was produced and presented in all publications at a given time. Like Thomas Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm shift, irreversible changes in the epistemology of encyclopedias were consequences of the purported inadequacy of a prevailing expositional model to represent new phenomena.⁵ In other words, when the object of inquiry reveals itself in a light that was unfamiliar to the readership, the perceptions of the phenomena considered change, and, as a result, the modes of its representations were altered. One of the clearest examples of an epistemic shift within Hebrew encyclopedias is changes in the representations of the Land of Israel. Early encyclopedias followed common rabbinic perceptions that viewed biblical territory as quasi-real, with limited references to the actual geography of Palestine. Thus, in early encyclopedias from the turn of the 19th century, entries about the region described mainly its historical significance and were often accompanied by romantic art that amplified the depiction of the “Holy Land” with mythical overtones. However, after the establishment of Jewish colonies in Palestine, the factual reality of the region gradually informed the contemporaneous Hebrew encyclopedists, who would now highlight aspects related to its physical condition and economic development potentiality. In turn, the romantic portrayal gave way to statistical data and photographic depictions of Palestine. Yet, unlike paradigm shifts in the natural sciences, expositional transitions of the Hebrew encyclopedias were not only a consequence of the position of the subjective view but were often a result of a change in the observer’s self before encountering a given topic. Although, throughout the historical period that the study examines, the sociological background of the readers was relatively similar (e. g., proponents of general education, Zionists, traditional religious upbringing,)

 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

The Argument

7

their perceptions of their surroundings and the operative conclusions they drew from them had dramatically shifted. Early encyclopedists like Isaac Goldman and Ahad Haam, who designed their projects in turn of the 19th century Warsaw, had considerably different perceptions of Jewish history and envisioned a different future for the Jews than encyclopedists who worked only a decade later. Within the century-long history of the genre, Jews in different parts of the world experienced dramatic social changes and political upheavals that influenced how they perceived the world around them. The disintegration of traditional communities changed collective Jewish perceptions of their past, fate, religious ceremonies, and Jewish symbols. Persecutions, political turmoil, and the Holocaust greatly influenced how they perceived their non-Jewish neighbors and altered their understandings of Jewish solidarity and political institutions. If at the end of the 19th century, when Hebrew encyclopedic literature began to emerge, the authors of Jewish encyclopedias presented the Bible as a reliable source of historical knowledge and treated figures like biblical Moses and Amos as historical figures, by the first decade of the 20th century, all leading encyclopedias represented them with a dispassionate academic language that challenged the historical veracity of religious sources. Although the disintegration of the traditional social corporations—which Jacob Katz described as cognitive migration “out of the ghetto”— preceded the Hebrew encyclopedias by over a century, the belated disappearance of rabbinic authority indicates how slow the social change was. The publisher of the first Hebrew encyclopedias in the 19th century sought to address the needs of yeshiva students with knowledge about Jews and Judaism and some insights about medicine and geography. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, the encyclopedias’ rhetoric and thematic structure radically changed when readers were more versed in fields of knowledge that were not necessarily considered Jewish, such as the natural sciences and philosophy. At the same time, the increasing migration of Jews and cultural integration also left their marks on the mechanism of encyclopedic representation as editors sought to expand thematic sections such as geography, medicine, and the social sciences. The most evident instance of the shift of the observer’s outward gaze occurred after the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel when the interest in the previously thriving diasporic communities such as Bialystok and Warsaw had been reduced to sites of persecution and economic hardships. Although the editors have partially substituted the “old” geographies of the Jews with their present locations in Israel and the United States, they have led a more dramatic thematic shift in which the focal interest turned from a reflective outlook on Jews to a universalistic view on the world. By the 1960s, this tendency reached a pivotal moment when all newly multi-volume publications were, in fact, Hebrew editions

8

Introduction

of leading general encyclopedias with only limited adaptations for the Israeli market.

An Imprint of the National Self The strong connection between the genre and the community of readers is also noticeable in the ways in which the books were designed and marketed. Readers left their mark on the pages of the encyclopedia either through direct participation in production by composing entries or through indirect attempts to influence editorial decisions through complaints, lawsuits, boycotts, and even demonstrations. Aspiring to have their publications ratified by the public as “objective,” editors of encyclopedias were often inclined to attune the content to public demand. To some extent, editors acknowledged the authoritative role of the readers through one of the most important features of encyclopedic literature: the anonymity of the authors. Early modern European editors have already marketed encyclopedias as the work of a large community of anonymous writers to detach encyclopedic knowledge from any bias associated with a single writer. It was the primary tool in the transformation of an encyclopedic entry from an “idea” or “opinion” to objective knowledge and from the writer’s own thoughts and beliefs to facticity. When the readers perceived the knowledge that the encyclopedia enshrined as the work of a vaguely defined group, it gave the impression that the encyclopedia was a product of an entire national society. Thus, 19th-century national movements recognized encyclopedias as an emblem—alongside other national symbols, like a flag and an anthem—that declared the autonomy of national culture and marked its borders. In the case of the Hebrew encyclopedias, authorial anonymity had an additional value, as it replicated the work of Jewish canonical texts—like the Talmud, the Mishnah, and to a degree, the Bible—which were not associated with a single writer but were ascribed to schools of thought and even to an entire culture. “The book”—i. e., the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud—was the product of a collective work of the Jewish nation. In turn, the intimate relationships between Jews and their traditional canon granted them the status of ideational integrity and signified the cultural importance of the written text. The commonly used Hebrew term “Am ha-Sefer” [People of the Book], appropriated from the qur’anic reference to religions with early scriptural revelations, emphasized the strong linkage between Jews and their books. To maintain a sense of collective work, publishers of large encyclopedic projects often took a few measures to brand their product as a national book. That includes composing their editorial board and cohort of authors from people of all sides of the political map and different ethnic backgrounds; obscuring the authors’ identity by crediting articles with initials that only an enthu-

An Imprint of the National Self

9

siastic reader would bother to decipher, adapting content composition and exposition standards and style to public demand. In portraying Hebrew encyclopedias as a distinctive national project, the present study seeks to address a scholarly desideratum, a neglected field of study in the historiography of Zionism. Most existing scholarship fails to view Zionism as a distinct social or cultural phenomenon. To some extent, this is a consequence of the paramount influence of two long-lived methodological trends in the historiography of Zionism: the primacy of social history and the prominent focus on its political-historical trajectory. Many studies of the social history of Zionism considered the category of “Zionist” as too broad for research and hence, consequently divided it into smaller sub-categories such as the Zionist working class or Revisionist Zionism.⁶ In addition, because political movements had a central role in establishing Zionist social institutes, there was a certain slippage of identity that bound together the social history and political history of Zionism. As a result, political figures maintained key roles in narratives presented by social historians, and Zionist society had not been portrayed as a web of actors. The lack of a substantial scholarship that discusses the long trajectory of Zionism and the focus on a specific historical event or on a short period of time (most often politically framed) has resulted in emphasizing the historical roles of a few actors that belong to the cultural, political and the economic elite. In the limited scholarship that does portray a history of long duration, Zionist figures are placed mostly in supporting roles in a historical reality shaped by the deeds of others.⁷ More recently, scholarship in the fields of cultural history and the history of science attempt to portray a collective Zionist subject and to provide Zionists with an agency by looking beyond a narrow political discourse.⁸ In this study, I seek to add to this recent historiographical

 Shulamit Volkov argues that studies in social history has fragmented Jewish historiography to a point in which there is no autonomous Jewish subject. Amos Funkenstein relates the same problem to a trend in western scholarship that resulted in a reduction of the political and moral implications of historical realities. See: Shulamit Volkov, “The Modernity Project of European Jews” in S.N. Eisenstadt and Moshe Lissak (ed.), Zionism and the Return to History: A Reappraisal [Hebrew], (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1999) 292. Amos Funkenstein, “Jewish History among Thorns” [Hebrew]. Zion 60 (1995), 346 – 347.  See for instance: Yossi Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs, 1882 – 1948: A Study of Ideology, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987); Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881 – 1999, (New York: Knopf, 1999); Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881 – 1948, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).  These include, Nahum Karlinsky, California Dreaming: Ideology, Society, and Technology in the Citrus Industry in Palestine, 1890 – 1939, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005); Boaz Neumann, Teshuḳat ha-Halutsim, (Tel Aviv: Am-Oved, 2009); Toledot ha‐Yishuv ha‐Yehudi be‐Eretz Yisra’el me‐Az ha‐Aliya ha‐Rishona: Beniyata shel Tarbut Ivrit, ed. Zohar Shavit (Jerusalem, 1989);

10

Introduction

trend a longue duree portrayal of Zionist subjectivity that has hitherto been largely absent in the existing literature. This book draws on the increasing scholarship about encyclopedias in the past three decades. The immense popularity of Jewish encyclopedias has served as a backdrop for studies focusing on editorial boards and the intellectual connections between encyclopedias and other cultural projects. The study of Shuly Rubin on the Jewish Encyclopedia provided me with the necessary appreciation of the work of its editor Isidore Singer, who initiated the most influential Jewish encyclopedia of the period.⁹ Similarly, Jeffrey Veidlinger’s study on the Russian Evreiskaia entsiklopedia and Arndt Engelhardt’s work on the German Encyclopaedia Judaica have brought to my attention the intellectual links between Hebrew encyclopedic projects and Jewish encyclopedias in other languages.¹⁰ Zeev Gris’s article about the prolific (yet often overlooked) editor Abraham Shalkovich illuminated the work of a Hebrew publisher involved in many of the projects discussed in the first chapters.¹¹ Finally, Shimeon Brisman’s bibliographical study on Hebrew and Jewish encyclopedias was the most important source for this study.¹² Although Brisman provided only a brief description for each of the publications, he included an abundance of footnotes where he disclosed valuable details about the work of editorial boards, the role of publishers, and the reception of leading encyclopedias. Curiously, however, encyclopedias, in general, have received only scant scholarly attention beyond the realms of Jewish studies and the study of the French Enlightenment. Unlike other topics in the production of knowledge (e. g., universities, intellectuals, and archives), only a few historians, philosophers, and sociologists have written about the and Tom Segev. 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East, (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007).  Shuly Rubin Schwartz. 1991. The emergence of Jewish scholarship in America: the publication of the Jewish encyclopedia. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press.  Veidlinger and Engelhardt took part in a conference about Jewish encyclopedias at the Dubnow Institute in Leipzig (2009) and published their works in the Institute’s Jahrbuch that dedicated a special issue to Jewish encyclopedias. In another issue of the Jahrbuch, Engelhardt published his complete study about the Judaica. 405 – 426; Shimeon Brisman, A History and Guide to Judaic Encyclopedias and Lexicons (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1987). Arndt Engelhardt, “The Encyclopaedia Judaica (1928 – 1934): A Cultural Arsenal of Knowledge at an Existential Junction”, in Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 9 (2010). Arndt Engelhardt and Ines Prodöhl, “Kaleidoscopic Knowledge: On Jewish and Other Encyclopedia,” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 9 (2010).  Zeev Gris, “Abraham Leib Shalkovich (Ben Avigdor) ve-ha-Mahapekha be-Olam ha-Sfarim ha-Ivriyim be-Reshit ha-Mea ha-Esrim” in Goldshtain, Yosi Salmon Yosef (editors). Yosef Daat: Mehkarim be-Historyah Yehudit Modernit Mugashim le-Prof. Yosef Salmon le-Hag Yovlo [in Hebrew]. BeerSheva: Ben-Gurion University, 2010. 305 – 328.  Shimeon Brisman. 1987. A History and Guide to Judaic Encyclopedias and Lexicons.Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press.

An Imprint of the National Self

11

history of encyclopedias or their social and political impact. Even the existing scholarship is not a cohesive field of study because the meaning of “encyclopedia” as an object of research varies, often rather substantially, in each study. In Umberto Eco’s work on the semiotics of encyclopedias, for instance, encyclopedias are any body of knowledge for referential purposes; Peter Galison and Lorraine Daston— in their study about scientific encyclopedias—limited the scope of the genre to supportive literary research tools that have been accepted as an authority in a given field (and may include: lexicons, dictionaries, and atlases); Richard Yeo and Robert Darnton, on the other hand, discuss a specific literary genre of multi-volume all-inclusive encyclopedias.¹³ They sought to define and characterize the genre by juxtaposing premodern referential compendia to books from the eighteenth century that bore the title “encyclopedia.” Although Yeo and Darnton do not provide a clear epistemological distinction between the old and the new, they agree on one aspect that binds together the genre: modern encyclopedias presented knowledge that was set to define and characterize the national society in which they were produced and disseminated.¹⁴ Thus, the encyclopedias became a showcase in which a national language could manifest its linguistic spectrum and national writers their scholarly virtues, and its wide distribution was a valuable tool for inculcating the readership with patriotic sentiments and political agendas.

 Most studies of the history of encyclopedias discusses pre-modern works and especially the encyclopedias of the Enlightenment in France, England, and Germany. Anna Sigrídur Arnar, Chicago University of, and Library, Encyclopedism from Pliny to Borges (Chicago: University of Chicago Library, 1990); Robert Lewis Collison, Encyclopaedias: Their History Throughout the Ages; a Bibliographical Guide with Extensive Historical Notes to the General Encyclopaedias Issued Throughout the World from 350 B.C. To the Present Day (New York: Hafner Pub. Co., 1964); Roger Hahn, “Science and the Arts in France: The Limitations of an Encyclopedic Ideology,” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 10 (1981); Frank A. Kafker, Notable Encyclopedias of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Nine Predecessors of the Encyclopédie (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1981); Tom McArthur, Worlds of Reference : Lexicography, Learning, and Language from the Clay Tablet to the Computer (Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Richard R. Yeo, “Reading Encyclopedias : Science and the Organization of Knowledge in British Dictionaries of Arts and Sciences, 1730 – 1850,” Isis / Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University. 82 (1991); Encyclopaedic Visions : Scientific Dictionaries and Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Umberto Eco, “Metaphor, Dictionary, and Encyclopedia,” newlitehist New Literary History 15, no. 2 (1984); Robert Darnton, The Business of Enlightenment. A Publishing History of the Encyclopédie. 1775 – 1800 (Cambridge: Mass – London Belknap XIV, 1979).  Although in the eighteenth century, alphabetically organized encyclopedia became the customary way of classifying encyclopedic entries, alphabetically ordered indexes and dictionary like compendia existed from early Middle Ages.

12

Introduction

In this study, I found that the role of the genre as an ultimate depiction of the nation’s people and culture was particularly salient in the case of Hebrew encyclopedias. The encyclopedias’ editors often expressed a desire to design their publications as a mirror that presents readers with their own reflections by portraying their collective history, current reality, and future political ambitions. These reflections, however, were not necessarily flattering images of intrepid national subjects with a stable set of beliefs and clear goals. On the contrary, the perceptions of Zionists as they appeared in the encyclopedias were often complex and multifaceted because the books mirrored the intricate dilemmas that Jews faced throughout the tumultuous 20th century. The Book of the People examines the contents and structure of encyclopedias to study Zionist self-image as it was presented over the course of the century in which the genre was published. It analyzes the epistemic linkage between modern encyclopedias and other bodies of Jewish knowledge, the differences in readership and purpose, and the ways in which Jewish nationalism influenced knowledge production.

Encyclopedism as a Political Position Publishers of Hebrew encyclopedias had often expressly ascribed their publications the task of changing the political reality of the Jews. This dramatic assignment, however, had different interpretations and political ramifications throughout the history of the genre. If the first encyclopedists sought to unite a nonterritorial nation with the help of a newly created canon, later generations had undermined the need for a well-defined canon or any form of Zionist monoculture. Instead, they offered a national society of diverse cultural backgrounds and political affiliations that the encyclopedia—with its non-thematic organization and numerous entries —would represent and serve as the primal national literary emblem. The change in purpose caused the genre to drift in its political image, from publications closely identified with the official political establishment to subversive books affiliated with opposition movements to the ruling Zionist party by the middle of the 20th century. The idea of uniting a nation with the help of knowledge was not foreign to the first encyclopedists, for it affirmed both the importance of the traditional Jewish canon in premodern Jewish society and pari passu, the German concept of Bildung that had a significant influence on the work of Eastern European intellectuals at the end of the 19th century. The continuous reference and reverence of the traditional Jewish canon was one of the few shared cultural presuppositions of premodern Jewish society and, indeed, one of the only claims for any argument on premodern Jewish collectivity. The encyclopedia would, therefore, be a modern

Encyclopedism as a Political Position

13

national book that would appeal to Jews along their vast geography of scattered communities. For Goldman and his successors, the idea of making a “national book” rested on a German ideal of developing a clear cultural entity (Kulturnation) within a German geographical sphere of numerous small political entities. The attempts to produce a publication that would serve to create a shared German cultural identity resulted in seminal literature, among them some of the earliest encyclopedias.¹⁵ The first Jewish encyclopedists wanted to make similar use of the encyclopedia to forge and define Jewry as a post-traditional national cultural identity. The challenge of creating a new national community was even greater than that of the German Romantics because Jewish society lacked cohesive territory and was so deeply stratified that it was difficult to point out common ground among its constituents. To some leading Jewish intellectuals, the solution was resorting to a common Jewish past reaching back to antiquity through the publication of historical narratives and novels on biblical figures, while others attempted to compile folkloric tales to reveal a primordial national soul. On the margins of these efforts were the encyclopedias, which offered more diverse knowledge to satisfy readers from different backgrounds. Other publishers, however, issued encyclopedias in local vernaculars to distill local identities of German Jews, Russian Jews, etc. The conflict between the two encyclopedic approaches, which often took on a vituperative polemic debate, was a literary reflection of opposing views on the future of Jewish culture: while proponents of the canonical Zionist encyclopedia sought to create what Jana and Aleida Assmann call “cultural memory”—a book that encompasses a comprehensive knowledge of Judaism that would replace tradition—other encyclopedias sought at most to preserve the social bonds within local communities.¹⁶ The Book of the People examines the entire history of the genre of Hebrew encyclopedias. It begins with the first publications that appeared at a time when national Jewish identity was in the process of being formed, analyzing the idyllic national image as it reflected on the printed pages of some of the early modern referential compendia. The first chapter lays out the historical background for the emergence of the genre and explores the social and political context in which it was created. The chapter describes the unique history of ha-Eshkol, the first modern Hebrew encyclopedia that was published in Warsaw by a group of

 One of the most renowned efforts of making a national book was the Bavarian minister of education, Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer, request from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe to author a book that would unite the German people (1808). Paul Mendes-Flohr, German Jews: A dual identity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999) 11– 2.  A. Assmann, Arbeit am nationalen Gedaechtnis. Eine kurze Geschichte der deutschen Bildungsidee (Frankfurt: Campus, 1993).

14

Introduction

religiously observant Jewish intellectuals with an uncommon political agenda. It explains why, at the end of the 19th century, Hebraists created this new literary genre and examines the editors’ proto-Zionist agenda and their perceptions of an ideal modern Jewish persona. Chapter Two shifts the focus to encyclopedic projects initiated after the founding of the Zionist Movement (1897). The chapter examines closely a public debate over the purpose and nature of national knowledge, which would unfold alongside the Jewish knowledge promoted by 19th-century encyclopedists, folklorists, and historians. Besides differences in content, the rivals offered the young nationalist movement different political horizons and different perceptions of the national cultural and demographic landscape. In that regard, the encyclopedia—the genre that prevailed and increased its popularity through the second decade of the 20th century—promoted the notion of a federalist national society. That is, like the encyclopedia’s nonhierarchical alphabetical order that provides a structure for multiple themes, so would the future nation be a framework for contrasting ideas, different beliefs, and values. Reflecting the multiple cultural backgrounds of the diaspora. Chapter Three probes the way publishers initiated and produced encyclopedic projects after the breakdown of the national encyclopedia’s vision. Despite heavy investments by entrepreneurs and donors, and the consistent attention of Hebraists, national encyclopedic projects failed to materialize. Instead, publishers concentrated their efforts on developing multi-volume Jewish encyclopedias for local book markets. The chapter examines the impact of the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901– 1906) on the genre and explores the encyclopedic projects that followed its publication, focusing on two major projects of very different content and clientele. Chapter Four describes the history of interwar encyclopedias. After World War One, much of the prewar enthusiasm of Jewish publishers had abated, leaving only two centers of encyclopedic production: Berlin in the 1920s and the early 1930s—where two major Jewish encyclopedias were produced—and Palestine. The second was a direct result of the demise of the first, as the political turmoil in Germany led some leading German-Jewish intellectuals to move to Palestine. The chapter investigates this process in order to identify the motivations and interests that resulted in the founding of the genre in Palestine. Finally, Chapter Five follows the work of editors and publishers during the heyday of the genre in the State of Israel. The chapter looks closely at the four decades of Israeli encyclopedias, from the inception Encyclopaedia Biblica in the early 1940s to the publication of the last commercial Hebrew encyclopedias in the 1980s. Throughout this period, the meaning of a “national encyclopedia” and the content that it entailed were products of negotiation between publishers, authors, and readers. The chapter describes the effect of dramatic political events

Encyclopedism as a Political Position

15

on the public status of the encyclopedias as a supreme staple of truth and objectivity. It focuses primarily on the story of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit, for which the production of its thirty-five volumes lasted more than forty years and involved thousands of scholars, artists, scientists, and Israeli politicians. This study incorporates quotes and information from various sources, including encyclopedias, correspondence between editors, and archival documents. The majority of these sources are in Hebrew; however, some are in Yiddish, German, Russian, and English. All translations used in the study are done by the author unless explicitly noted otherwise. I am grateful to Mossad Bialik and the Central Yiddish Culture Organization (CYCO) for granting me permission to utilize the illustrations and photographs from their historical publications.

Chapter One Amass: Knowledge in the Making of a Nation Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (also known by the acronym Netzi″v; Mir, 1816 – Warsaw, 1893) was a meticulous scholar of the Bible and rabbinic literature who demanded a similar degree of rigor and erudition from his many disciples. As the dean of the Volozhin Yeshiva, he was renowned for promoting significant changes in the teaching methods and curricula of Lithuanian yeshivas and was also a staunch critic of Jewish Enlightenment’s thought known as Haskalah. However, in his later years as the head of the yeshiva, the state demanded that Berlin expose his students to general knowledge and bestow them with Russian language skills. “If the state will require them to pursue secular studies,” he wrote, “The studies will be conducted under the supervision of the Rabbi and other leaders in Israel, to ensure that they are conducted with a reverence for God.”¹ Berlin ensured that his students would engage with general studies only after they had fulfilled their other weekly requirements because “It’s difficult to achieve greatness in Torah when one’s attention is divided among other pursuits.” By forbidding his students to read academic books and books of philosophy and popular science, the rabbi, in fact, followed the religious imperative to set a distinction between the holy and the secular. That is, spatial separation between sacred knowledge and secular writings through a physical distinction of separated libraries and sometimes the use of different languages. Berlin applied the religious imperative to monitor the content to which the students were exposed and to prevent direct exposure to what he perceived as abhorred literary works. However, a posthumous account of the rabbi claimed that among the many Haskalah books, there was only one book he considered legitimate and deserved to be read by his students. “This is a good book,” the Lithuanian rabbi is purported to have told followers and even claimed that he “learned a great deal from it.”² The book that the Rabbi praised so enthusiastically was ha-Eshkol, the first modern Hebrew encyclopedia, published in Warsaw in 1888. This statement seems, however, to be fabricated by a maskilic writer for the daily newspaper ha-Tsfira. It seems unlikely that Berlin, who fought bitterly with maskilic intellectuals over the curriculum of his yeshiva, would warmly approve an all-inclusive encyclopedia that did not maintain a clear distinction between the sacred and the profane. Publicizing such a statement in a popular daily news-

 Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, Shu“T: Meshiv Davar (Warsaw M.Y. Halter, M. Eisenshtadt, 1894). 44.  Anonymous, “Ma Neesa le-Sifrutenu” ha-Tsfira, 21 August 1894, 2. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-003

Chapter One: Amass

17

paper was meant to illustrate that students of the prestigious yeshiva could share a common ground with maskilim and that a fragmented Jewish society could be reunited through the literary genre of the Hebrew encyclopedia, a genre that had so far been absent from the Jewish book market. The first attempt to publish a Hebrew encyclopedia—the one which Rabbi Berlin allegedly praised—was indeed intended to revive the idea of a common “Jewish bookshelf,” which would be physical proof of the feasibility of a collective Jewish identity. The idea, as we shall see in this chapter, was to use the encyclopedia as an instrument in the creation of a new Jewish collective identity that would be based on knowledge, as the political, theological, and geographical separation of the various Jewish communities will be consolidated through a single book that addressed all the different shades of Judaism. To enable an inclusive identity and allow many to enter through this melting pot of knowledge, the publishers of ha-Eshkol aspired to produce an encyclopedia accessible to all Jews, provided they could read Hebrew. By designing ha-Eshkol as an affordable and accessible publication, the publishers hoped that it would be distributed throughout the continent and, eventually, become a powerful instrument in the making of Jewish cultural autonomy. Disappointed with the idea of emancipation but at the same time seeking social, commercial, and political contacts with the state and their non-Jewish neighbors, the publishers sought to present two distinctly different bodies of knowledge in the encyclopedia. First, knowledge about Jews and Judaism aimed to introduce readers to an ideal reflection of a new Jewish collective self. This introspective gaze was intended to fortify an autonomous Jewish identity by blurring content concerning the differences between Jewish communities while highlighting content related to historical Jewish unity. Second, universal knowledge was intended to equip the Hebrew reader with a basic understanding of scientific terms and knowledge of the world through numerous entries in geography. The publishers believed that this type of knowledge could enhance the social status of their readers by improving their prospects of being accepted into reputable educational institutions and facilitating their integration into the labor market. The publishers and editors of haEshkol, therefore, aspired to produce a new hybrid Jewish persona that seeks to strengthen its particular characteristics while breaking through the ghetto walls to become a citizen of the world. Like Janus, the two-faced Roman god, the ideal Jew of the encyclopedia simultaneously gazes inward and observes the world around, preserves the customs of the traditional world and anticipates the changes brought by science and technology, and immerses itself in its past while facing the future. The publishers knew that issuing a project of this size required enormous financial efforts. Due to their small Hebrew readership, they had little hope of creating profits or stirring public attention beyond their small republic of letters. Up

18

Chapter One: Amass

to this point in time, non-religious Hebrew books, such as booklets of popular science and books of belles-lettres, targeted small readerships of a few thousand Eastern European maskilim at most. Nevertheless, they were determined to issue haEshkol because they perceived the encyclopedia as a first step in creating a new national culture. This chapter will describe the history of the first modern Hebrew encyclopedia and explain the reasons that brought Hebraists to develop this new literary genre. The chapter will also explore the debate that accompanied the early days of Hebrew encyclopedias between those who stressed the need to produce “Jewish knowledge” encyclopedias and those who advocated for “general knowledge” encyclopedias. The often-fuzzy definitions of these puzzling categories were the basis of bitter debates between rival encyclopedists that reflected different political positions over the role of Jews in the general society and the character of a collective Jewish identity.

The Redemptive Science In the summer of 1888, Isaac Goldman³ (Jasinowka 1813 – Warsaw 1888), a Jewish printmaker from Warsaw, decided to publish a multi-volume Hebrew encyclopedia. The 75-year-old Goldman knew the project, which he gave a mixed Hebrew-Yiddish title “Ha-Eshkol Allgemeine Encyclopedia” [The Cluster General Encyclopedia], had no precedent in Hebrew literature in its intellectual scope or its cost. He declared that ha-Eshkol would be an essential milestone for the national resurrection as it would “significantly broaden our language and demonstrate to all that our tongue is not prevented from expressing all reason and all knowledge.”⁴ Goldman, therefore, did not only want to create a referential compendium but to infuse epistemological and semantic forms of realism into the Hebrew language. In practice, this meant that the encyclopedia would expand the ability of Hebrew to represent the objective world (mimesis) by providing it with popular registers, enriching its lexis, and simplifying its grammar and syntax. For Goldman, the language of the encyclopedia was not only a mediating tool for the distribution of knowledge but also an end goal. He claimed that in ha-Eshkol, Hebrew would no longer be a liturgic language or a code language of a small maskilic elite but a language accessible for a broad stratum of readers that would constitute a new national movement.

 Known also as Goldmanen.  Entsiklopedyah ha-Eshkol: Hoveret 1 – 6, (Warsaw: Goldman, 1888).

The Redemptive Science

19

Goldman adopted the title from Sefer ha-Eshkol [Book of the Cluster], a halakhic book attributed to the Medieval Rabbi Avraham ben Isaac of Narbonne (also known as Raavad II; Montpelier c. 1110 – Narbonne 1179). In 1867, Zvi Benjamin Auerbach (Neuwied, 1808- Halberstadt, 1872), a prominent German Rabbi, claimed to prepare Sefer ha-Eshkol out of a manuscript he found, and it quickly became an authority of Halakah (until the book was described as a work of forgery at the beginning of the twentieth century). The scholarly interest in Sefer ha-Eshkol centered on its innovative organization of Halakahic knowledge in subject-matter sections that preceded Maimonides’ organization of knowledge in the seminal work Mishneh Torah. ⁵ Goldman hoped that his ha-Eshkol would similarly improve the accessibility of both Jewish and general knowledge in Hebrew and be “a useful tool and ‘a book of books’ to our nation.”⁶ Moreover, the literary meaning of the encyclopedia’s title, “cluster,” marked the publisher’s ambitious goal of assembling all knowledge into a single publication. Like a cluster, he claimed, the encyclopedia would hold together “all the educational, practical and academic pearls of wisdom with all the scientific knowledge and discoveries and all the things and matters that ever occurred in this world….”⁷ Aware of the enormous financial needs that the project would require, he asked his son-in-law, H. Akrent, to sponsor the encyclopedia. Akrent, an affluent businessman who made steady profits from the publication of popular science books and the Polish economic newspaper Gazeta Handlowa, possessed more than three decades of experience in the publishing industry. He noticed that the rising influence of Polish Positivism, a literary movement that advocated the abandonment of the former romantic style for the exercise of reason, had left its mark on the publishing market, whereas books such as dictionaries, lexicons, and other literary genres that sought to produce ‘objective’ knowledge enjoyed a wide readership.⁸ The most significant project in this trend was Encyklopedyja Powszechna

 In 1909, the Talmudic scholar Shalom Albeck claimed that such a manuscript never existed, and Auerbach used this it as a cover story for his forgery. In response, leading Orthodox Rabbis wrote Tzidkat ha-Tzadik in defense of Auerbach’s work. Yet, according to most scholars Sefer ha-Eshkol is indeed a work of forgery based on several early modern sources. Shapiro, Marc B. “Forgery and the Halakhic Process.” In The Seforim Blog, 2007.  “Modaa Odot ha-Eshkol”, 2.  Ibid. At the same year, Goldman initiated the publication of a literary journal that used a name of a similar sematic field: “ha-Kerem” (the vineyard). Both names may allude to a Kabbalistic perception of the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge as grapes. See: The Zohar (Sefer ha-Zohar), 1 (73).  ‘Pozytywizm warszawski’ is the name commonly used to describe a literary movement that had a considerable influence from the failed January 1863 Uprising to the turn of the twentieth century. The movement rejected the poetics and political visions of previous romantic writers like Adam Mickiewicz, who called to end foreign rule by establishing a coherent national subject. Instead,

20

Chapter One: Amass

(Universal Encyclopedia), issued by the Polish-Jewish publisher Samuel Orgelbrand (Warsaw, 1810 – Warsaw, 1868) in the years 1859 – 1868.⁹ Akrent sought to expand his supply by importing a lucrative genre into the emerging Hebrew literature. He had reason to believe there was commercial potential in publishing an encyclopedia similar to that of Orgelbrand for Jewish readers, as encyclopedias had recently become popular among emerging national communities in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.¹⁰ During the late 19th century, possessing a national encyclopedia became essential for any society seeking to assert its cultural independence from other cultures. Encyclopedists attempt to demonstrate this cultural autonomy by attesting to the capability of the national language to express all knowledge and by emphasizing national symbols and myths as well as the local geography and history. The genre emerged in the late 18th Century when editors tried to modify earlier referential works to accommodate the rise of national identity in Western Europe. Hence, the enormous Encyclopédie Méthodique (published from 1782 to 1832,) a successor of Denis Diderot’s Encyclopédie, had a more significant national character than the previous universal work of the Enlightenment.¹¹ Similarly, many 19th Century British encyclopedias focused on national themes, like the National Cyclopedia of Useful Knowledge (published from 1847 to 1851), and American encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Americana (completed in 1833) were revised versions of earlier, more universal publications. The focus on national themes peaked in the 1860s through the 1880s. During that time, numerous publishers in other parts of Europe and the Middle East sought to issue encyclopedias to overturn the dominance of the ruling foreign power. Encyclopedias, such as the

writers like Bolesław Prus and Aleksander Świętochowski called to abandon the hopes for uniting Poland through political and militaristic actions for the sake of a cultural resurrection. More about Polish Positivism: Czeslaw Milosz, The History of Polish Literature ([New York: Macmillan, 1969).  Samuel Orgelbrand, Encyklopedyja Powszechna T. 1-. T. 1 (Warszawa: naklad, druk i wlasnosc S. Orgelbranda ksiegarza i Typografa, 1859).  In addition to Orgelbrand’s encyclopedia, Antoni Schneider, a Polish scholar made attempt to publish a Galician encyclopedia in 1874 (more about his project in Wolff ’s The Idea of Galicia). Antoni Schneider, Encyklopedya Do Krajoznawstwa Galicyi Pod Wzgledem Historycznym, Statystycznym, Topograficznym, Orograficznym, Geognostycznym, Etnograficznym, Handlowym, Przemyslowym, Sfragistycznym, Etc. Etc. T. 2 T. 2 (Lwów: Wys. Wydzial Krajowy pod zarzadem ustanowonego ku temu celowi Komitetu, 1874); Larry Wolff, The Idea of Galicia : History and Fantasy in Habsburg Political Culture (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2010). 236.  To appeal to the local taste, Charles-Joseph Panckoucke, publisher of the Méthodique, dedicated full volumes to French current affairs and hired mostly French editors and Robert Darnton, The Business of Enlightenment: A Publishing History of the Encyclopédie, 1775 – 1800 (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1979). 440 – 1.

The Redemptive Science

21

six volumes Muhit al-Muhit [Ocean of Oceans] published in Beirut in 1867 by the Arab scholar Butrus al-Bustani in an effort to set an alternative to sources of knowledge in Turkish and induce a sense of Levantine identity (al-Nahda) and the 24 volume Nuova Enciclopedia Italiana that was published in Turin between 1875 to 1888 to present the post-Risorgimento Italian culture as unified and independent.¹² Unlike other projects, however, Akrent and Goldman planned to publish their encyclopedia in a tongue that was hardly in use and, even among Jews, was, at best, a secondary language. Moreover, for more than a century, the number of Jews who possessed reading proficiencies in ‘non-Jewish’ languages steadily grew as more maskilim made Russian, Polish, German, or Hungarian their “high culture” language. European languages were primarily used for education and significant literary works, while “folk culture” remained within the domain of Yiddish. Indeed, small printing houses, like Goldman Publishers, made profits from religious books—a field in which Hebrew continued to be the lingua franca—as well as from publications of belles letteres and journals intended for a small group of Hebrew enthusiasts. But because Hebrew was used mainly as a language of liturgy, its grammar, registers, and lexis were not well-suited as linguistic tools for modern encyclopedias. This was a challenging obstacle for publishers who attempted to produce popular science books and encyclopedias because, unlike other languages, Hebrew lacked the grammatical and syntactic properties that have been developed in other languages over two centuries of scientific writing. With the rise of the natural sciences as a field of study separate from philosophy, a unique scientific epistemology developed due to the sentiments of the profession to eliminate the subject (i. e., the ‘scientist’) from any representation of the object (i. e., ‘nature’). Objectivity requires the author of the scientific text to portray the observation of nature and describe experiments in concise language to present quantifiable data.¹³ The complex sentence structure and flowery phraseology of rabbinic Hebrew posed severe problems for those who sought to use it as a transparent, rational agent. Previous attempts to write science in Hebrew were much smaller in scale, so the publisher of ha-Eshkol had to develop a new scientific register for the Hebrew language. The question therein is: why did Goldman and Akrent

 Butrus al-Bustani. 1876 – 1900. Kitab Dairat al-Maarif. Beirut: Dā r al-Ma’rifa; Nuova enciclopedia italiana ovvero, Dizionario generale di scienze, lettere, industrie, ecc. 1875. Torino: Unione tipografico-editrice torinese.  That is, the use of numbers as well as adjectives and verbs that refers to measurements and change as opposed to adjectives and verbs that refers to a static quality (e. g., preferring ‘to grow’ over ‘big’).

22

Chapter One: Amass

decide to publish the encyclopedia in Hebrew despite the obvious linguistic limitations? The answer is twofold. First, the publishers of ha-Eshkol decided to initiate the project because they estimated that Hebrew literature was about to thrive, and second, they believed that the encyclopedia would be a valuable tool for national revival. Although Goldman and Akrent established their encyclopedic enterprise decades after the first modern Hebrew novels were published, the readership of such publications was small. But, in the 1880s, there was a short moment of optimism in which both Hebrew newspapers and books enjoyed a gradual increase in readership. Until the early 1880s, popular Hebrew journals struggled to maintain a circulation of a few hundred volumes for their weekly or biweekly editions, but, during the first half of the decade, the major Hebrew newspapers, ha-Tsfira and ha-Melitz, became daily newspapers after a dramatic increase in circulation to more than 10,000 copies.¹⁴ Similarly, the sales of other Hebrew publications (e. g., novels, popular science books, and literary journals) increased steadily.¹⁵ Goldman capitalized on the evolving Jewish book market to diversify the range of books offered in his catalog. The printing house, which he opened in 1864, published more than 300 books in its first two decades.¹⁶ Most were encyclopedia-like compendia of Halakah and popular science and geography books. Initially, his most popular publications were religious books, such as Yosef Albo’s Sefer ha-Ikkarim, the aggadic compilation Yalkut Shimoni, and Rabbi Yehuda Halevi’s Kuzari. Gradually, Goldman added to his catalog textbooks and popular science books written by leading Hebrew Maskilim, such as Avraham Mapu’s Hebrew textbook Hinukh la-Noar, Nechemya Dov Hoffman’s Sipurey ha-Teva, and Nahum Sokolow’s textbook in geography Metsokey Aretz, novels and plays written by early maskilic writers like Yossef Haefrati’s Me-

 Dan Miron, Bodedim be-Moadam: li-Deyoknah Shel ha-Republikah ha-Sifrutit ha-Ivrit bi-Tehilat ha-Meah ha-Esrim (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1987). 70.  Eyn le-Falpel!: Iton ha-Tsefirah ve-ha-Modernizatsyah shel ha-Siah ha-Hevrati ha-Politi (Yerushalayim: Mossad Bialik: ha-Merkaz le-heker toldot Yehude Polin ve-tarbutam, ha-Universitah haIvrit bi-Yerushalayim, 2007). 39.  Yakh“u, Yikra de-Shkavi, R’ Yitzhak Goldmanen, ha-Assif, Year 5 (1889) 96 – 7. Goldman was originally from Jasionówka, a village near Bialystok, and moved to Warsaw in 1835. For thirty years he worked in different Hebrew publishers, teaching Hebrew at a rabbinical school and was hired as a censor. In 1856, he published, together with another investor, an edition of the Babylonian Talmud. In 1864, he joined as a partner an existing printing house, owned by Elkana Kelter and Shlomo Rethamel, to form what was soon to be known as Goldman Publishers. That was the largest Hebrew publishing company in Warsaw at the time and from its office at 16 Moranovska Street, Goldman oversaw the manufacturing and distribution of his books. See: Bernhard Friedberg, Toldot haDfus ha-Ivri be-Polanyah: me-Reshit Hivasdo bi-Shenat 294 ve-Hitpathuto Ad Zemanenu (Tel-Aviv: [H. mo. l.], 1950). 112– 115.

The Redemptive Science

23

lukhat Shaul, and Naphtali-Herz Wessely’s Shirey Tiferet, Bar Mitzvah gift books such as Moshe Yakob Acatriel’s Toldot ha-Hamtzaot ha-Hadashot, and translated works like Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s The Jews and Ivan Krylov’s Fables. In addition, he printed ha-Tsfira in the early 1880s and, from 1883, published the almanac ha-Aasif, edited by Nahum Sokolow (Wyszogród, 1859- London, 1936), who was also the editor of ha-Tsfira. A look at the expansion of the Goldman catalog over the years indicates that the publisher changed the business model of his company from a conservative publishing house that printed only Jewish religious books to a business that did not hesitate to take risks by printing mainly translated books and works of maskilic writers. Throughout the years, he made considerable efforts to introduce more readers to the new poetic and linguistic avenues of the Haskalah by marketing books for readers that other Hebrew publishers had neglected, such as poetry enthusiasts, readers of popular science, and youth. His encyclopedia was supposed to be the culmination of these efforts, in which all fields of knowledge would be incorporated into a single publication intended for all readers of Hebrew. The increase in circulation of newspapers and the publication of titles in popular science suggests a change in the social background of the readership, as Hebrew turned from an intellectual instrument of a small elite to a language used by the broader society. Until the 1860s, Hebrew was mainly the territory of small circles of maskilic elite in the urban centers of Europe. The maskilic Hebraists wrote poetry and novels, translated plays and novellas, and debated literary matters in their journals. The publication of the daily newspapers ha-Melitz (est. Odessa, 1860) and ha-Tsfira (est. Warsaw, 1862) indicate an attempt to take the language into other territories beyond religion and literature. Although Hebrew was far from being a popular or everyday language like Yiddish, it gradually gained popularity and had become the property of readers outside of maskilic literary circles. Publishers issued popular novellas and short stories for a wide-middle-class readership, and newspaper editors simplified the sentence structure to describe current events clearly and concisely. The increase in sales and the optimism of publishers rested upon a belief that Hebrew writers had finally managed to offer the proper vocabulary and grammar that meet the needs of the modern Hebrew reader. From the time of Moses Mendelssohn (Dessau, 1729 – Berlin, 1786), Jewish Hebraists sought alternative linguistic formulae to traditional rabbinic literature. The Maskilim’s main linguistic “enemy” was the pilpul, a rhetoric instrument commonly used in Ashkenazi tradition within the work of drash (a form of traditional exegesis that sought to reveal a hidden textual layer of the Bible and other canonical texts) and aimed to supply a critical interpretation of the text through emphasizing a colloquy of scholars about a matter in stake. From the late Middle Ages, the pilpul became a leading method of

24

Chapter One: Amass

studying the Talmud in German yeshivas. Rabbi Yaakov Polak (c. 1470 – Lublin, 1541) incorporated different styles of pilpul to create what was later known as the hilukim method, which his students in Eastern European yeshivas popularized. Hilukim’s primary purpose was to reconcile different Halakahs and ideas by focusing on the controversy and not necessarily on understanding religious law.¹⁷ The often extensive debates and sometimes indefinite conclusions that characterized pilpul were, to many Maskilim, nuisances that should be eliminated.¹⁸ Although opposition to pilpul also came from within rabbinic circles, the attacks made by the Haskalah not only sought to create a different epistemology but to establish a new Jewish collective self that would stand as an opposite to that of the Ashkenazi yeshiva student. The call of early maskilim to spread the Enlightenment’s ethos in Jewish schools and promote the writings of various fields of knowledge in Hebrew was one of the first expressions of a modern Jewish national sentiment. The collapse of traditional social corporations, together with Frederic II’s tolerance of ethnic minorities, enabled some Jewish scholars from the urban centers of Prussia to explore knowledge beyond the rabbinical curriculum and discuss the ways in which Jewish culture would prompt Jewish solidarity.¹⁹ In Berlin, Königsberg, and Breslau, a few scholars gathered to establish “Hevrat Dorshey Leshon Avar” [Association of the Seekers of the Ancient Language] and its journal ha-Meassef. This later became known as the moment in which the Haskalah commenced as a literary movement. In their articles, writers like Isaac Abraham Euchel (Copenhagen, 1756 – Berlin, 1804), Joel Löwe (also known as ‘Joel Bril’; 1760 – Breslau, 1802), and Naphtali Herz Wessely (Hamburg, 1725 – Hamburg, 1805) analyzed the political and social condition of Jewish communities in Europe and called for profound changes in the structure of Jewish society and the dissemination of universal knowledge in Jewish schools. By exploring new frontiers such as geography, natural sciences, history, and ethnography, the early writers of the Haskalah sought to develop rational thinking in Jewish society, change the structure of the Jewish schools, and create political sensibilities in their readers. Unlike the introspective outlook of rabbinic literature, early maskilim sought to portray Jewish existence within a broad social context that observed the interactions between Jews and

 Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud (New York: Basic Books, 1976). 273 – 276.  More about the call against pilpul among late nineteenth century Maskilim see: Oren Soffer, Eyn le-Falpel!: Iton ha-Tsefirah ve-ha-Modernizatsyah shel ha-Siah ha-Hevrati Ha-Politi (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007). 7– 35.  Dan Miron, From Continuity to Contiguity : Toward a New Jewish Literary Thinking (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2010). 58 – 9.

The Redemptive Science

25

their neighbors.²⁰ In the mid-19th century, Maskilim in Eastern Europe presented a more ambitious linguistic challenge of entering new frontiers that Hebrew literature did not have a significant foothold. This is particularly evident in non-fiction literature and especially in popular science books. Writing science in Hebrew, however, demanded the creation of a new ‘transparent’ language that would act as a hidden mediator between reader and nature (or “reality” in belles-lettres).²¹ Monthly literary journals, almanacs, and non-fiction books were the central arena in which this ambitious project took place. When the Hebrew publisher Hayyim Selig Slonimski (Bialystok, 1810 – Warsaw, 1904) established the journal haTsfira in the early 1860s, his aim was to create a language that could demystify the secrets of nature and communicate knowledge across all branches of the natural sciences. He declared the agenda of disseminating all knowledge through his journal’s subtitle: “A Periodical Letter that Announces the News among the People of Israel: in Issues that Concern Them, State Matters, Science, Knowledge of the World, and Nature.”²² For many maskilic Hebraists, avoiding pilpul and presenting a “transparent” language meant refraining from employing the grammar and vocabulary of rabbinical Hebrew and instead adopting those of biblical Hebrew. Although medieval exegesis already stressed that the grammatic differences between biblical and rabbinic Hebrew are an essential component in the distinction between the two exegesis methods of pshat—the literary meaning of the text—and drash, maskilim perceived the separation between them as a chasm between two conflicting world views. They argued that the Hebrew of the Bible was created in a harmonic reality of rational order, while that of the Talmud and rabbinic literature was the result of social and political chaos. As the language of the script, biblical Hebrew was clear and lacked hidden agendas, while the language of the Talmud and Midrash was associative and metaphoric. Hence, Maskilim invested significant efforts in studying the language of the Bible and called to readopt its linguistic form in fiction and non-fiction literature. Early maskilim, sought to use words that occur only once in the script (Hapax legomena) and created neologisms based on Biblical roots. However, a writer who used this “pure” form of Hebrew had to cope with the difficulty of making the archaic language a representative instrument in the illustration of contemporary reality. That is, the Bible could not offer a wide range of registers and a rich enough vocabulary to portray the reality of Europe in the nineteenth century. Thus, while Hebrew novels, like Abraham Mapu’s Ahavat Zion

 Ibid.  Ibid. 34.  Soffer. 54.

26

Chapter One: Amass

(1853), whose plotline is situated in late First-Temple Palestine, could rely on the lexis of the Bible, writers that attempted to present their own historical time had only a limited vocabulary and insufficient grammar with which to work. Hence, Mapu’s attempt to write a narrative set in contemporary Russia in his next book (Ayit Tsavua, 1858) was jarring because of the disparity between an archaic language and a familiar reality. The problem was even more acute for authors and translators of the slowly emerging non-fiction literature, who had to transliterate many of the terms from European languages. As a solution, some writers attempted to amalgamate rabbinic and biblical Hebrew and form a new style known in the historiography of literature as ‘synthetic Hebrew.’ The Yiddish and Hebrew writer Sholem Yankev Abramovich (better known by his pen name Mendele Mokher Sforim; Kapyl, 1835 – Odessa, 1917) laid the foundation for the synthesis in his three volumes Sefer Toldot ha-Teva [History of Nature]. Relying on the three volumes of the German lexicon Naturgeschichte, Abramovich decided to use only Hebrew words.²³ But since Hebrew terminology of the natural sciences was virtually nonexistent, he created hundreds of zoological, botanical, and mineralogy neologisms, mainly from talmudic and midrashic words. To be sure, although he paved the path for synthetic Hebrew, Abramovich did not call other writers to fuse the two styles together and even considered the blend a ‘linguistic heresy.’ Instead, he advocated for the use of ‘pure’ biblical grammar and syntax of short sentences in the order of verb-subject-object (VSO) and extensive use of biblical Hapax legomena. However, due to the limits of biblical vocabulary, he lifted the maskilic ban of using the lexis of the Talmud simply because he considered it a lesser evil than transliterating terms from European languages. By expanding the vocabulary with a new set of terms, Abramovich managed to untie the Hebrew of the Haskalah from its strong connections with the language of the Bible, fractured the taboo that prohibited the combination of the two styles, and, eventually, paved the way for a national language. In doing so, he transformed Hebrew from a sacred language of the script into a communication tool between Jews that eventually served as the infrastructure for a new national culture. To use Benedict Anderson’s words, by making Hebrew an accessible everyday language and challenging the axiom that only a “script-language offered privileged access to ontological truth,” Abramovich enabled “the very possibility of imagining the nation.”²⁴

 Harald Othmar Lenz, Gemeinnützige Naturgeschichte Bd. I-Iii & Iv 2te Abth. Bd. I-Iii & Iv 2te Abth (Gotha1835).  This achievement was acknowledged by Hayim Nahman Bialik (Radi, 1873 – Vienna, 1934), who claimed that Abramovich was the first to portray “the essence of national genius” and, as such, was “the first national artist in our literature.” Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London; New York: Verso, 1991). 36. Hayim Nahman Bialik,

The Redemptive Science

27

The absorption of Synthetic Hebrew was slow, however, as many late 19th-century Hebrew writers continued to use the linguistic patterns of the Haskalah. The expansion of the Hebrew press and non-fiction literature was a catalyst in making it a national language. For Goldman, Hebrew was simultaneously the material of which he made his business and a path for a utopian destination for the Jewish nation. As mentioned, he believed that making Hebrew an everyday language was part of a cultural and political ‘revival’ of Jewish nationalism. Goldman was also involved in local Jewish politics and was one of the co-founders of the Warsaw chapter of Hibbat Zion. But he was not always a Jewish nationalist. Similar to other Maskilim of his time, Goldman initially strongly supported Polish nationalism and aspired for a free Poland where Jews would have equal rights. He even took part in the January Uprising of 1863 against Imperial Russia. Goldman obtained funding from affluent Jewish families in Warsaw and used the resources to print propaganda pamphlets and posters that were disseminated throughout Poland.²⁵ He also published manifestos issued by the Polish revolutionary government in Hebrew and Yiddish, and his four sons joined rebel guerilla units that operated in the woods surrounding Warsaw to confront the Russian Army.²⁶ After the Uprising was suppressed, the police arrested two of his sons, Bernard and Jerzy, who helped their father with printing and distributing, and deported them to Siberia.²⁷ Following the futile Uprising, Goldman withdrew his previous hopes for the complete assimilation of the Jews into Polish society. Instead, he supported a more limited form of assimilation in which Jewish schools would include the study of European languages and scientific knowledge in their curriculum. At the same time, he sought to provide European Jewish culture with a degree of autonomy by promoting the use of Hebrew. Goldmanʼs shift from advocating for a violent uprising in support of Polish nationalism to promoting the development of Jewish cultural identity was in line with the values of the influential Polish Positivism movement. This movement emerged in response to the unsuccessful uprising and called for the advancement of Polish education, an increase in

“Mendele VeShloshet HaKrakhim” in Hayyim Nahman Bialik, Kol Kitve H.N. Bialik (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1938). 249. More about Bialik’s attitude toward synthetic Hebrew see: Shachar Pinsker, “Intertextuality, Rabbinic Literature and the Making of Hebrew Modernism” in Anita Eliav Yaron Z. Norich, “Jewish Literatures and Cultures : Context and Intertext” (Providence, R.I., 2008). 206 – 8.  Yisrael Bartal, Me-“Umah” le-“Leom”: Yehude Mizrah-Eropah, 1772 – 1881 ([Israel]: Misrad ha-Bitahon, ha-Hotsaah la-Or, 2002). 109.  Jacob Shatzky, Di Geshikhte Fun Yidn in Varshe. 2, 2 (New York: Yiddish Scientific Institute-YIVO, 1948). 262.  “Reshimot Bibliografiyot”, ha-Tsfira, 23 January 1914, last page.

28

Chapter One: Amass

literacy rates, and modernization. The Positivists rejected the calls to arms of the romantic intellectuals who had influenced previous generations. Even before the break of the January Uprising, Goldman established himself as the highest authority in the Hebrew language in Warsaw. He taught Hebrew, Aramaic, and Talmud at the Rabbinical Seminary, and the Czarist authorities appointed him as a censor of Hebrew publications. In 1857, he convinced Samuel Orgelbrand, the publisher of the Polish Universal Encyclopedia, to issue an edition of the Babylonian Talmud that Goldman prepared for print.²⁸ Later, amid the violent period of the January Uprising, Goldman, together with two partners—Hayim ben Elkana Kelter and Shlomo Rathmell—established a printing house dedicated to Hebrew literature with a strong emphasis on textbooks of general knowledge. He single-handedly edited all the publications, and for an extended period, he served as a Hebrew proofreader and editor for other publishers in Warsaw.²⁹ In 1868, he sold his shares to Kelter and established his own printing house that quickly became the largest Hebrew publishing house in the world. For Jews who hoped to integrate within the larger society, the pogroms that raged the Ukraine and Poland in 1881– 1882 and the May Laws that followed them were much more severe setbacks than the 1863 Uprising. Following the anti-Jewish riots, many joined socialist movements that offered to open political avenues to minorities. Others joined Hibbat Zion or cultural establishments that sought to construct a new and distinct national identity for the Jews. In this context, the Hebrew and Yiddish small ‘Republic of Letters’ was created. The production, consumption, and discussion of literary works were no longer limited to a small group of enthusiasts who also served as critics and readers. Instead, a much broader audience from diverse regions in Russia and beyond participated in these activities. Some Hebrew and Yiddish writers, poets, journalists, editors, and literary critics became household names in the intellectual circles of Eastern European Jewry, and Hebrew literary journals were distributed throughout the continent. This also affected Goldman’s printing house. He began to publish original works of contemporary Hebrew poets and writers and turned his attention to journalism. His publishing house gradually became a center of Hebrew knowledge production that attracted writers and editors from Warsaw, Odessa, and Petersburg. He hoped that the reputation of his publishing house would also enable him to recruit well-known editors from all over Eastern and Central Europe to ha-Eshkol.

 Friedberg, Toldot ha-Dfus ha-Ivri be-Polanyah: me-Reshit Hivasdo bi-Shnat 294 ve-Hitpathuto Ad Zemanenu. 113 – 4.  Ibid.

Palestine: Longing for a Distant Land

29

Palestine: Longing for a Distant Land Goldman appointed Abraham Shalom Friedberg (Grodno, 1838 – Warsaw, 1902) as the encyclopedia’s editor-in-chief. A diligent writer and editor, Friedberg managed in his short career in Hebrew journalism to write dozens of articles and essays in literary journals and newspapers; he also served as the vice editor for ha-Melitz and ha-Tsfira. In addition to his demonstrated editorial skills, Goldman selected Friedberg as his collaborator because they shared a common background. Both had migrated from small shtetels east of Warsaw, served as censors of Hebrew books, and were affiliated with the Hebrew writer Avraham Mapu. There was also an ideological similarity as both supported a novel and radical idea at that time: a revival of Jewish nationalism in Palestine. Their call for colonizing Palestine was different than mainstream opinions heard in meetings of Hibbat Zion, which ranged from support of establishing agricultural settlements in Russia to a total rejection of the idea of resettlement. On January 1881, before the outbreak of the Pogroms, Friedberg wrote in a letter to the poet Yehudah Leib Levin (also known as ‘Yahalal’; Minsk, 1844 – Kyiv, 1925): I do not believe that the actions of some of our leaders, to establish colonies for our brethren in any random country, where the inhabitants are likely to become our enemies and eventually use it to accuse us of blood libel, will benefit our cause. It would have been better if they opened the sealed fund to settle our nation in the ancient land of the patriarchs.³⁰

In an essay published a year later in ha-Melitz, he argued that the “Jewish question” might receive an answer “only by colonizing the Land of Israel… As long as we are still looking to lay our feet upon a ground that belongs to another, our lives would be subject to… plans to throw us aside and take us down the abyss.”³¹ In the 1880s, he wrote numerous essays in ha-Melitz and the literary journal Mitzpe where he continued to voice his support for the cause of establishing colonies in Palestine.³² Friedberg’s position became the editorial line of ha-Melitz, which placed the newspaper in stark opposition to the political stance of its main rival, ha-Tsfira. While ha-Tsfira had a wider circulation, ha-Melitz was more influential within Hibbat Zion circles, where the idea of establishing colonies in Palestine gained ground.

 Letter to Yehudah Leib Levin (Yahaleal) January 26, 1881. From: Z. Maymon, Avraham Shalom Friedberg (Har-Shalom): 20 years to his death, ha-Toren, year 9 (4) May-June 1922, 91.  Avraham Shalom Friedberg, “ha-Hzon la-Moed”, ha-Melitz 1882 (year 18) vol 7– 9.  Published in sections titled “Halikhot Olam” and “Khutz le-Artzenu”.

30

Chapter One: Amass

Friedberg and Goldman intended to use the encyclopedia as a medium for promoting the idea of colonizing Palestine. In the prospectus of ha-Eshkol, they stated that the future encyclopedia would present many entries about the history and geography of Palestine. The entries would “explain the names of all objects and towns in the Land of Israel, describe the characteristics of its historical and current inhabitants, [present] historical maps of the Land of Israel and maps about its flora and fauna.”³³ In addition, Friedberg appointed Shaul Pinchas Rabinowitz (better known by the acronym “Shefe“r”; Tauroggen, 1845 – Frankfurt am Main, 1910), who was known for being a Palestine enthusiast, as his chief assistant and secretary of the editorial board. An unusual figure in Jewish intellectual circles, Shefer was, on the one hand, a devoutly observant of Jewish law who graduated from the Vilna Rabbinical School of Yisroel Salanter (Zhagory, 1810 – Königsberg, 1883) and, on the other hand, a liberal who called for incorporating nonJewish curriculum in traditional Jewish schools. He also agitated radical political ideas and called to disband the Russian Empire in the name of self-determination. In 1881, Shefer published a German pamphlet that condemned the Russian authorities and blamed them for initiating the Pogroms.³⁴ Although the pamphlet initially urged Jewish subjects of the Russian Empire to immigrate to the United States, Shefer was captured by the idea of Palestine shortly after. Together with Goldman, he was one of the founders of Warsaw’s chapter of Hibbat Zion and, in 1884, was a delegate to the Kattowitz Conference that sought to promote the colonization of Palestine. Unlike other supporters of the idea, Shefer did not perceive Palestine as a mere shelter for Jews who escaped Europe but rather as a tool for inducing the creation of Jewish national culture. Like Ahad Haam (Skvyra, 1856 – Tel Aviv, 1927), who emerged a few years later as the founder of Cultural Zionism, Shefer encouraged decision-makers not to invest all efforts in political means but to establish cultural institutions. He managed to convince the delegates at the Kattowitz Conference to allocate funds for the literary journal Knesset Israel which would present scholarly articles in history and sociology. Shefer, who edited the journal while working at ha-Eshkol, sought to use it to disseminate national knowledge among readers and to mobilize support for Hibbat Zion. Knesset Israel was critical of the Haskalah and its premises. According to its editor, the knowledge produced by the Haskalah led readers to lose interest in Judaism and encouraged assimila-

 “Modaa al Odot ha-Eshkol”, published in ha-Eshlol, III.  Yitzchak Nissenbaum, Ale Heldi: 1868 – 1929 (Warsaw, 1929). 202. Shefer’s son was arrested in 1881 for being an active member of Narodnaya Volya and was expelled from Poland for 18 years.

Palestine: Longing for a Distant Land

31

tion.³⁵ In the introduction to the first volume, he stated that the editor’s “ambition is to open the eyes of our fellow Hebrew readers to look at themselves as a society that strives to live a good life of virtue… whose infrastructure is knowledge and education in the spirit of the Enlightenment.³⁶ He described national knowledge as having two major characteristics: first, it was historical, and second, it was rational. Producing this knowledge exposed what was out of sight for a long time as it rested within a dormant “Jewish soul” that had remained in hibernation for two millennia. Shefer recognized that the Jewish body (i.e. Jewish nation) and the Jewish soul (i.e. Jewish culture) emerged and developed in antiquity, but he contended that they have remained inactive or inert ever since. Only the production of “national knowledge” would wake the dormant soul and body and enable their unification. Thematically, he claimed that national knowledge was mostly about Judaism and was genuinely old as it was created in antiquity. Yet, although Shefer sought to reproduce knowledge concerning long-forgotten themes, he did not call for regression to traditional epistemology. On the contrary, the culture of the ‘revived’ nation would be based upon knowledge created according to strict standards imposed by the Enlightenment. Although Shefer did not elaborate on the exact qualities of this knowledge, he made clear that it would not be an intertextual inquiry of the sort of pilpul. Instead, he described the knowledge that should be produced with adjectives such as “direct,” “true,” “pure,” and “clear” to suggest that it should be the result of direct exploration of the object uncontaminated by the observer’s opinion, and presented in a lucid and concise language.³⁷ Hence, national knowledge would combine traditional themes with modern scientific epistemology. Within the three years of its existence, Knesset Israel failed to influence to meet its goals, and its impact on the Hebrew readership was minimal. Shefer hoped that ha-Eshkol, with its extensive resources and a potential broader readership, would be able to produce national knowledge and bring about real social change. To create scientific mimesis in Hebrew, the publishers of ha-Eshkol recruited talented editors and translators and sought to base much of the scientific content upon encyclopedic sources from other languages. Like other Eastern European publishers who attempted to produce encyclopedias to emerging national cultures, the publishers of ha-Eshkol reached an agreement with the publisher of the German encyclopedia Brockhaus Enzyklopädie to translate entries. Goldman and Ak-

 See for instance the article of Wolf [Zeev] Yavetz, who co-edited the volume with Shefer, where the author presented the history of Haskalah as a process of national decline. Wolf Yavetz, “Migdal ha-Mea,” Knesset Israel (1886) 89 – 152.  Saul Phinehas Rabbinowitz, “Petakh Davar,” Keneset Yisrael: Sefer Shenati le-Torah ve-le-Teudah (1886). xviii.  Ibid.

32

Chapter One: Amass

rent believed that access to the German encyclopedia’s large repository of articles and the appointment of a group of translators would enable them to complete the project promptly. But they were wrong. As soon as the rumor about the encyclopedia spread, critics demanded that the encyclopedia will include only original content about Jewish culture and Jewish people, particularly about the ethnography and history of the communities of Eastern Europe.³⁸ To appease the critics, the publishers called for more experts in Jewish studies to serve on the editorial board.³⁹ Since the printing house could not facilitate the expanded editorial board, Goldman hired more translators and decided to move the administration to the spacious offices of Akrent’s Gazeta Handlowa at 22 Muranowska Street.⁴⁰ The library of the Rabbinical Seminary, where Goldman was previously a Hebrew and Aramaic teacher, opened its doors to the writers and editors of the encyclopedia.⁴¹ In addition, Goldman appointed his son Jerzy (“Yurek”) Goldman—a physician who recently returned from his exile in Siberia under the condition that he would not practice medicine—as the publisher’s representative at the editorial board, who was in charge of the production and distribution of the booklets.⁴²

Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles To mend the epistemic separation between Jewish studies and the sciences, Shefer asked the publisher to hire Joseph Judah Lö b Sossnitz (Biržai, 1837 – New York, c. 1910), who was proficient in both fields. The editor hoped that Sossnitz, with his sensitivity to the grammatic nuanced of both areas, would succeed where the Has-

 See: “Bina be-Sfarim”, ha-Melitz, December 16, 1887; Ben David “Politon: Letters from a Travel”, ha-Melitz, 25 Dec 1892.  Goldman and Akrent also hired the Talmudic scholar Zeev Rabinavitz (1853 – 1932) to edit a section dedicated to the natural sciences and appointed three graduates of traditional Lithuanian schools: Eleazar Atlas (Beisagola, 1851 – Bialystok, 1904), who frequently wrote to ha-Tsfira and was at that time the editor of the short-lived periodical ha-Kerem, to edit entries related to rabbinic literature. Yossef Rasenthal (Suwalk, 1844 – ?), who was known as a critic of traditional Lithuanian rabbis, was to be the editor of Jewish and “general” law. See: Y. Zak. “Maasim Bekol Yom”, ha-Melitz. 18 Apr 1888. 2– 3; Yossef Rasenthal, “El Roey Israel” “Kol Anot”, ha-Melitz, Nov 1888, 1– 4; Politon: “Letters from a Travel”, ha-Melitz, 25 Dec 1892.  A generic letter from Shefer to potential translators. Warsaw. July 18, 1887. In A. R. Malakhi (ed.), Igrot Sofrim. 1932. (New York: Shmuel Miler Publishers). 72.  Ben David, “Politon: Letters from a Travel,” ha-Melitz, 25 Dec, 1892. 3.  A letter from Shefer to Nahum Sloshetz, August 2, 1887, in A. M. Haberman, and Baruch Krupnik (editors). 1969. Genazim: Kovets le-Toledot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ba-Dorot ha-Aḥaronim. Vol. 3. Tel Aviv: Agudat ha-Sofrim ha-Ivriyim be-Yisrael. 118.

Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles

33

kalah had failed in presenting a single Hebrew language for all knowledge.⁴³ Known for his polemic essays that questioned the theories of Charles Darwin and Ludwig Büchner, Sossnitz edited in ha-Eshkol a section about Kabala and took part in editing the many entries in the natural sciences.⁴⁴ Sossnitz, who agreed to take a part-time position under the condition that Goldman would continue to publish his studies, noticed significant inconsistencies in how entries were edited and arranged to oversee all proofreading. He distributed among all translators and editors a manual of basic linguistic rules and a list of scientific terms in Hebrew. He adopted many of the neologisms created by Abramovich in Sefer Toldot ha-Teva, and made his own inquiries in Talmudic literature to coin dozens of other scientific neologisms.⁴⁵ However, despite his efforts, Sossnitz was unable to create the desired encyclopedic register. As we shall see in the following chapters, throughout the genre’s history, the epistemic divides between these two fields of knowledge have persisted, and polymath scholars such as Sossnitz will continue to hold crucial positions in comprehensive encyclopedias as they work to bridge the gap between the two modes of expression.⁴⁶ Now that a list of editors had been finalized, the publishers sought to build a cadre of writers. Goldman and Akrant hoped to recruit dozens of educated young people who were exposed to knowledge in various fields from the expanding maskilic literature. In August 1887, Goldman published in ha-Tsfira a call for eligible writers to join the project: …we hereby call you – a wise, capable man who seeks good for his people and sincerely wants them to be educated – to join us and to choose the fields of study and pearls of wisdom that are closer to your heart and spirit, to write, edit and contribute your own articles… we hope that all devout or enlightened persons would accept our appeal and would support us in this necessary trial. In this enormous enterprise, we put our hope in the sages of our nation…

 Shaul Pinkhas Rabinovich to Joseph Judah Lob Sossnitz, July 1887. NYPL, Doroth Archive, Sossnitz Archive, box 1.12.  Sossnitz (sometimes spelled “Zasnitz” or “Zesnitz”) was known for his book Akhen Yesh Adonay [Indeed, there is God], where he attempted to offer an answer to Ludwig Büchner’s call for atheism and scientific materialism. Sossnitz called other maskilim to use scientific knowledge, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, as evidence to the existence of God and to show how some of modern scientific knowledge were already mentioned in the Bible and halakhaic literature. Akhen Yesh haShem le-Hagen al ha-Dat Neged ha-Kofrim be-Elohim u-ve-Khol Koah ha-Nisgav (Vilna: Bi-defus Y.L. Mets, 1875). Reuven Brainin wrote a short obituary about Sossnitz, whom he considers as his teacher: http://benyehuda.org/brainin/zosnits.html  NYPL, Doroth Archive, Sossnitz Archive, box 1.12, file 1:7.  See, for instance, the important role of Yeshayahu Leibowitz in Masada Publishers at the last chapter.

34

Chapter One: Amass

The experts who will send their articles can use any language [they choose], and writers, educated in science and rabbinical studies, will translate them into our holy language at our publishing house.⁴⁷

At the end of 1887, the publisher issued a second call for writers as a supplement to the encyclopedia’s prospectus. In the prospectus, which also included a few sample entries and a description of the project’s goals, Goldman asked “people who are well-versed in their fields” to join his team of writers.⁴⁸ The call for writers received a cold reaction from critics at the ha-Tsfira and ha-Melitz, who questioned the skills of potential Hebrew writers. In ha-Melitz, a hostile reviewer cast doubts on the ability of Goldman to execute a project of this size: We just received a pamphlet titled “An Ad about ha-Eshkol” issued in Warsaw by the printers Goldmanen (with his son) and their partner, which made us very happy. The honorable Isaac Goldmanen has been known for a long time as a businessman of great enterprises; We could never have imagined, even in our most visionary dreams, anyone else from our nation that would immerse himself in this type of enterprise. However, by engaging in such intense work, he may appear overly ambitious. An encyclopedia in our Holy Language! And not just a “Jewish encyclopedia” but a comprehensive general encyclopedia… This book that would be rightfully called Kol-Bo [all-inclusive] and “The Book of Books” seems to us as the summit of a mountain range – taller than hills that no man has ever reached… [Yet] we would not hide the fact that when the publisher had disclosed his thoughts – (he notified us) earlier in a letter – we asked him secretly: “do you know what you are doing and what should you expect? You should anticipate a tall and monstrous mountain with a steep incline! And whom do you have with you? Who will climb this mountain with you and reach its summit? Editing a book of this scope requires a Sanhedrin of 71 sages; each one of them knows 70 languages and the knowledge of witchcraft. We do not think that the publisher found them among the dwellers of Tahkemony or that the angel Gabriel came to teach [the potential writers] the Hebrew language, and the prophet Elijah came to build his castle there.⁴⁹ From the ad in front of us, however, we learn that the honorable Goldmanen has not given up and is now ready to move big stones to build this house of giants…⁵⁰

The reviewer was right to suggest that Goldman and Arkant would have difficulty finding expert writers. Despite the publicity that the prospectus received, the call for contributors did not raise any attention. The publishers, therefore, decided to  The pamphlet was distributed throughout Russia and part of it was published in ha-Tsfira. See: “Divrey Sofrim”, ha-Tsfira, August 11, 1887, 1.  The German encyclopedia would not only be the source for scientific entries but served as “eyes to our writers in their work.” That is, rhetoric and references would be employed as a model for the writing of Jewish related entries. “Modaa al Odot ha-Eshkol”.  Tahkemony was a Rabbinical School in Warsaw where Goldman was a teacher of Hebrew and Aramaic and later served as a working space for ha-Eshkol’s writers and editors.  “Bina be-Sfarim”, ha-Melitz, 16 December 1887.

Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles

35

limit their search to contributors in the field of Jewish studies to produce mostly biographical entries and articles about major communities and to depend on the Brockhaus for all other entries. To obtain up-to-date information about Jewish communities throughout Imperial Russia, the editors published a third call for contributors to write about their communities: To our educated readers… We request all the honorable writers in our country to produce accurate information about their towns, communities, and colonies, [to write about] the history of their excellent rabbis, captains, and leaders. [Our] only [request is] that the writings would be clear and good enough to be included in ha-Eshkol, of which we have great hopes, for expanding our knowledge about the history of our nation in Russia and Poland, countries in which our brothers have dwelled for centuries with great numbers and outstanding achievements and yet they did not leave a significant mark on the written history of our nation…“⁵¹

The call to draw public attention to the larger Jewish communities of Eastern Europe was part of a romantic movement of Russian intellectuals that began to emerge in the 1880s. Poets like Simon Frug (Babroyv-Kut, 1860 – Odessa, 1916) and writers like Abramovich and Sholem Aleichem (Pereyaslav, 1859 – New York, 1916) have presented a comprehensive picture of the Jewish community with detailed portraits of people and institutions. During the same years, the Jewish journal in Russian Voskhod served as a platform for the first ethnographic writings on the Jewish towns in the Pale of Settlement, a region where Jews could permanently settle. The editors of ha-Eshkol envisioned their book to be the first comprehensive referential tool that classifies large communities, religious movements, and cultural objects. However, unlike the romantic intellectuals of the Voskhod, who came from the city to portray the “essence of the nation” of the periphery, Goldman and Arkant hoped that their encyclopedia would be a manifestation of the periphery itself. That is, the authors would be members of communities in the Pale of Settlement and describe the landscape and people around them without the mediation of the intellectual elites. The tone of the plea, however, suggests that the publishers gave up their expectations to find experts and settled for novice writers. Yet, apart from the two entries ‘Odesa’ and ‘Ukraine’ written by the then 15 years-old Nahum Slouschz (under the pseudonym Nahum Baharav; Smarhon, 1872 – Gedera, 1966), the plea failed to attract writers.⁵² Therefore, with the

 Ha-Eshkol, vol. 1. March-April 1888. 2.  See an addendum to the third booklet. “El Korey ha-Eshkol”. May 1888. 2. The word “Odessa” is written in Yiddish transliteration while the title of the entry is in Hebrew transliteration. This is probably because the addendum was an appeal written in an official language and was separated from the rest of the encyclopedia in its language. Thus, Hebrew was not a colloquial language ac-

36

Chapter One: Amass

publication of the fifth booklet, Goldman and Akrent decided to make their appeal more attractive by offering to type the initials of the potential authors’ names at the end of each entry and to present their full names at the beginning or the end of the encyclopedia. This would allow an author “who has not yet become known in our literature” to publish an article in a literary undertaking of substantial magnitude. To make it easier for the amateur writers, the publishers added a set of instructions on how to write an encyclopedic entry about communities that included an emphasis on major historical events, significant figures among its “rabbis and leaders,” and quantitative data on its demography.⁵³ The last call for contributors may have stirred more attention, but it did not lead to the expansion of ha-Eshkol’s staff because the encyclopedia ceased to exist only a few weeks later. Some historians have made an effort to elucidate the publishers’ abrupt termination of a project that had required significant financial investment. One historical account claims that the project dissolved due “to the death of the editor, Isaac Goldman, who was the main figure behind the enterprise.”⁵⁴ This claim, however, is unfounded because Goldman passed away six weeks before the first booklet was issued, and the editorial board continued to work thereafter for months with Jerzy as the executive director while Friedberg and Shefer continued to run the editorial work. In fact, the editors, writers, and translators were so productive after Goldman’s death that they managed to progress far beyond the rate at which the booklets were issued, producing enough content for more than the 24 booklets that were enough to fulfill the commitment for the subscribers for at least a year and to complete four out of the ten volumes of the encyclopedia.⁵⁵ It is more likely that the decision to end the project resulted from technical problems, financial difficulties, and epistemic discrepancies. Long before the publishers issued the first booklet, they had to deal with many technical obstacles. Among them is the publishers’ lack of experience in producing a general encyclopedia and the difficulties of communicating with writers who reside in different places in Europe. The publishers could not follow the initial sched-

cording to the publishers. That was the first article published by Slouschz, who will later become a leading orientalist and archeologist. See: Tidhar, D. (1947). Entsiklopedyah le-Halutse ha-Yishuv uBonav (Vol. 1, 237).  “Le-Hitvadea u-Lehegalot”, ha-Eshkol, August-September 1888 (vol.5), 2.  Abraham Meir Habermann. 1981. Me-Pri ha-Et ve-Haet: Kovetz Maamarim ve-Reshimot bi-Sde ha-Sifrut ve-Hatarbut. (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass). 135.  The six booklet’s last entry was “Ursins” (Marie Anne de La Trémoille, princesse des Ursins), which was still at the beginning of the letter aleph list of entries while all the entries to the end of the letter dalet (fourth letter) were already written and edited. See: Ben David “Politon: Letters from a Travel”, ha-Melitz, 25 December 1892.

Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles

37

ule of issuing a booklet every two weeks, and instead, it appeared sporadically. In addition, Goldman and Akrent had trouble finding agents willing to distribute the encyclopedia. Leading Hebrew book agents in Imperial Russia did not sell ha-Eshkol due to pre-existing exclusivity agreements with other Hebrew publishers.⁵⁶ Thus, Goldman and Akrent tried to reach out to potential vendors in ads that called individuals to become agents even if they did not have experience in this type of commerce.⁵⁷ Like the calls for writers, these ads did not focus on the potentially lucrative aspects of the job but on the contribution to a Jewish national movement. Eventually, a few small peddlers took the challenge and offered the encyclopedia as part of their merchandise. Shmuel Zvi Herzdanski, a peddler from Kovno in Lithuania, for instance, offered ha-Eshkol as part of his random merchandise in his store (Fig. 1).

Figure : “Anyone who wishes to subscribe to ha-Tsfira, ha-Aasif, and Hoyz-Frayend, as well as Sefer haEshkol (encyclopedia)… or to buy the famous wall paint ‘Exicator’ that heals the damages of rot and decays of houses and purifies the air from deadly flies and house mice should come visit. Shmuel Zvi Herzdanski from Kovno.”⁵⁸

The publishers also tried to self-distribute the booklets through a marketing strategy that was new to Hebrew literature. Due to the high costs of the encyclopedia, they offered an annual subscription plan that cost 7 rubles and 20 kopeks in addition to a security deposit of 30kop. In exchange, subscribers would receive 24 booklets annually of 16 pages each. The subscription plan was designed to “continue until the completion of the project within a few years.”⁵⁹ However, only a few weeks after the publication of the first booklet, the publishers raised the price for new subscribers by more than a third due to a significant rise in postage costs, which amounted to 10kup for each booklet (2RUB and 40kop annually.)⁶⁰ De This might be a consequence of the hostility that Nahum Sokolow, editor of ha-Tsfira, had for this project. He stated that this hostility in literary circles. “Ma Neesa le-Sifrutenu” ha-Tsfira, 21 august 1894, 2; “ha-Tsofe Lebeit Israel”, ha-Tsfira, 5 June 1890, 1.  “le-Hitvadea u-Lehigalot”, vol. 5; “Modaa Odot ha-Eshkol.” 5.  “Modaa”, ha-Tsfira, 21 May 1888. 4.  “Modaa Odot ha-Eshkol”. 4– 5.  A Message to the Subscribers. Added to Booklet 2 of ha-Eshkol, 1888.

38

Chapter One: Amass

spite the steep price, the publishers were successful in attracting over 1,800 subscribers from various communities in East and Central Europe and other social and intellectual circles. From maskilic readers to Reform communities and even Orthodox yeshiva students, ha-Eshkol had a diverse readership unheard of in Hebrew literature. A review in the conservative weekly ha-Megid praised the encyclopedia as the only publication in Hebrew that was accessible to all Jewish communities, including those who avoided maskilic writings: “Even those among our brothers who are afraid of the temptations of approaching a Hebrew book or journal – even them, took this book home after they noticed that it is innocent of any epicurean intention.”⁶¹ Another reviewer wrote that while visiting a major Jewish bookshop he noticed that “people of all parties came to ask about ha-Eshkol: Misnagdim and Hasidim, rabbis and Maskilim, old and young,” and as previously mentioned, even the head of the Volozhin Yeshiva had been reported as a supporter of the encyclopedia.⁶² Nevertheless, the 1,800 subscribers were insufficient to sustain the growing costs of the encyclopedia. According to a posthumous review, 2,000 subscribers would have been enough to carry on with the work, while the publishers estimated that to gain profits, they needed at least 3,000 subscribers.⁶³ In addition to the problem of low subscriber count, the publishers had to face unexpected technical issues that caused considerable delays in production. Due to the novelty of the genre and the limited vocabulary of scientific terms in Hebrew, the editors required that each entry in the natural sciences would have the term printed in its original language next to its Hebrew title. However, Goldman’s printing house did not have printing types in languages other than Hebrew and Polish, and, therefore, the publishers had to rent sets of types. Nevertheless, Warsaw printers did not have all the necessary types, and the editors had to refrain from using certain graphical signs.⁶⁴ Moreover, the expansion of the cadre of editors caused further delays. While the work in the Warsaw office of the encyclopedia had already begun, the publishers decided to expand the already large editorial board by adding renowned German scholars to promote ha-Eshkol in Central Europe. Shefer explained this to one of his disgruntled editors in Warsaw in an uneasy tone: “you must understand that, in fact, we benefit only from work done by scholars like you, but the names of [certain] scholars are essential to projects like

 Avraham Makavski, “letter from Russia”, ha-Megid, 31 Jan 1889, 4.  Zephaniah Ben-Nahum, “Safa Akhat ve-Dvarim Akhadim”, ha-Melitz, 11 March 1890, 2; Anonymous, “Ma Neesa le-Sifrutenu” ha-Tsfira, 21 August 1894, 2.  Politon: “Letters from a Travel”, ha-Melitz, 25 Dec 1892.  A letter from Shefer to N. Sloshetz, August 2, 1887, in Gnazim: Kovetz le-Toldot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit Vol. 3, Kro and Haberman (editors), 1969. (Tel Aviv: Masada), 118.

Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles

39

this.”⁶⁵ The enlistment of distinguished scholars turned out to be a hindrance, as it slowed down the pace of production. The slow postal services and frequent withholding of manuscripts by customs officials made communication between German writers and the Warsaw office arduous.⁶⁶ Yet, the main reason for the small clientele, negative reviews, and, eventually, the termination of the project was that the editors failed to introduce a suitable epistemology for their publication. That is, Goldman and Arkant did not present a language accessible enough to the expanding Hebrew readership. As mentioned, the editors set to perform two epistemological revolutions: first, they sought to invent a language that would have the mimetic power to describe various fields of science, and second, they aspired to assemble the knowledge that would be suitable for readers who were in the process of formulating their national identity. Although the scientific revolution in Hebrew literature began in early Haskalah and progressed with the work of Abramovich, ha-Eshkol was a more ambitious literary project because it was set to present all fields of human knowledge. Hence, its editors had to invent a ‘neutral’ language free of disciplinary jargon and suitable for both the study of Kabbalah and entomology. However, the attempt to create a path in this new linguistic terrain showed only limited success. Initially, the editors wanted to use their publication in order to demonstrate the possibility of a linguistic transformation in which remnants of rabbinic phonology, syntax, and vocabulary would be removed. However, the idea of applying the new language to all fields of knowledge while rejecting deeply rooted linguistic traditions has infuriated Hebrew intellectuals. In a review of the first booklet published in ha-Tsfira, the writer praised the ambitious project but complained about the language employed by the editors. The reviewer, who was probably the editor of ha-Tsfira, Nahum Sokolow, blamed the publishers for alienating their readers with their decision to distance the grammar and syntax from Yiddish in, among other instances, favoring the letter Alef ('‫ )א‬over the letter Ain (’‫ )ע‬to represent the vowel 〈e〉.⁶⁷ Sokolow also argued that the editors invented too many neologisms instead of relying on transliterating familiar foreign terms, and, as a result, it was nearly impossible for the reader to find most of the entries. If the people of ha-Eshkol aspired to alter the ways in which foreign words are written—in particular names of geographical sites—to revive Hebrew grammar, they should have first ne-

 A letter from Shefer to N. Sloshetz, 5 August 1887 in Gnazim, 1969. (Tel Aviv: Masada), 119. The emphasis appeared in the original text.  Ibid.  As we shall soon see, Sokolow wrote a series of articles about different attempts to publish Hebrew encyclopedias before he will initiate his own project of a general encyclopedia.

40

Chapter One: Amass

gotiated it among scholars and experts in order to formulate agreeable definitions and distribute the new Hebrew orthography among the readers of our language. Even if their celestial wisdom does not allow them to descend to the level of humans and negotiate this question, they should have at least dedicated a section in the introduction of ha-Eshkol that would clarify the text. Because without it, readers–not familiar with proper secular names–would be unable to pronounce the words correctly.

Sokolow argued that this type of literature did not have the freedom to experiment with language, as did vanguard institutes that declared the making of a national language as their primary goal, such as Eliezer Ben-Yehuda’s journal ha-Tzvi. …When ha-Tzvi, published in Jerusalem, presents such novelties… it does it because it is written for a small circle of readers and the [linguistic] innovations are where its reputation comes from. Even if some of ha-Tzvi’s readers failed by this grammar to properly pronounce certain foreign words, nothing wrong would happen. Yet this is not true for a comprehensive book that attempts to teach and serve as a tool to all of our brothers. The most crucial objective of this book is its usefulness, while the caprice of the language experts is of secondary importance. In this booklet, we can see that the essence was shadowed by the secondary…⁶⁸

Sokolow was right to claim that the many neologisms made the first booklet nearly impossible for readers to navigate through. The editors, who were sensitive to this critique, rarely applied neologisms in the titles of entries from the publication of the second booklet. Instead, they chose to transcribe foreign terms. This, however, did not necessarily make the use of the encyclopedia any easier because the editors transcribed words randomly from German, Greek, Latin, and sometimes English and Russian. The result was a mishmash of different types of spelling and phonetics and made it nearly impossible to browse the encyclopedia. For instance, an article about “grassland” used the Hebrew neologism “avel” [‫ ]אבל‬of biblical and French origins, an entry about the optical element “objective” presented a German transliteration [‫]אביקטיף‬, and an entry about the 18th-century Portuguese converso Diego Pereira d’Aguilar had its title transcribed in standard Yiddish (‫דיעגא‬ ‫)אגוילאר‬.⁶⁹ Therefore, the editors adopted Sokolow’s advice and added a glossary of neologisms and some of the transliterated words at the end of each booklet with a translation to Russian and Polish.

 Ha-Tsfira, 6 April 1888. 3.  See: ‘avel’ (‫ )אבל‬ha-Eshkol. Vol.1, 119. ‘Objective’ (‫ )אביקטיף‬113; Absolutism (transliterated to a hybrid of German-Hebrew: ‘absolutisma’ ‫ )אבסולוטיסמה‬213; Diego Pereira d’Aguilar, (‫ )דיעגא אגוילאר‬310.

Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles

41

Figure 2: Races of Humans – an illustration from the entry “Human.”

Despite the critics’ assertion that ha-Eshkol was a reckless attempt to transform the language, the editors were cautious not to undermine linguistic conventions. Most

42

Chapter One: Amass

“Jewish” entries maintained the complex rabbinic language and argumentation.⁷⁰ These entries were installed alongside the concise entries taken from Brockhaus, presenting two different models of encyclopedic editing. Sometimes the editors constructed hybrid entries by simply stitching together a translated entry and an article from ha-Eshkol, without making any attempt to integrate the two into a coherent entry.⁷¹ For example, the long entry “Human” presented a translated ‘scientific’ article followed by a traditional midrashic analysis. The former began with a detailed taxonomy of humans, continued with the geographical distribution of human races, and ended with philosophical outlooks of different aspects of human existence. The original article’s authors used concise and informative language and presented quantitate data of the latest studies in comparative anatomy. The entry even had a rare full-page illustration of the facial features of the human race (Fig. 2). The scientific description, however, is accompanied by an incoherent discussion of the purpose of man as it appeared in Jewish sources. The editors of ha-Eshkol decided to replace the original passage from Brockhaus that presented a more current philosophical discussion of the purpose of man with early rabbinic perspectives of the matter.⁷² The result was a thick intertextual discussion passage, undivided into sentences with several literary references: The vocation of man – Even those who abstain from the prohibition vows⁷³ and stop searching for the purpose of creation as a whole, or those who say that there is no purpose at all, should set a goal and a purpose for all their work, this purpose will then elevate their status; The purpose of man derives from the duality of the human existence in both body and mind. The general purpose of man, according to the canon, is to cultivate the land, as it was written: “God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” and “rule over the fish in the sea, etc.” and to “conquer the land” (animal farming). This purpose, however, is only for the sake of making a living; man must strengthen his powers and be healthy and tidy (Shabbat), and God does not rest his holy spirit only upon the wise and brave with a proud stature (Nedarim) and man should not embellish his actions and characteristics (Maimonides, Yesodei ha-Torah), as it was written, “whatever is harmonious for the one who does it, and harmonious for mankind” (Avot); added to this, too, are the qualities mentioned by Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair—the first of which is agility and the last is a holy spirit (Sotah); quoting: “consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy” and only this would

 See for instance, Violation (‫ )אונס‬618 – 620, ‘Light’ (Kabbalistic concept, ‫ )אור‬750 – 752, ‘Abba’ (Kabbalistic concept, ‫ )אבא‬24– 26, ‘Loss’ (Talmudic concept, ‫ )אבדה‬42– 44, Abbahu (Talmudic scholar, ‫ )אבהו‬9 – 11.  See “Human” (‫ )אדם‬383 – 393 and “Library” (‫ )אוצר ספרים‬707– 724.  The title of the section, “The Vocation of Man” ("‫)"תעודת האדם‬, alludes to Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s influential book that carried the same name.  A set of vows known as “konam”, where a person prohibits himself from making a certain action.

Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles

43

honored the word “man” in its total sense, because it is said that “A wild animal does not have power over a person unless that person seems to the wild animal like an animal” (Shabbat) that your pride and fear and sage etc “and they said,”if the righteous wish to do so, they can create a world” (Sanhedrin) according to the idea laid here, “with the king in his work sat there, for they build the world “(Yalkut Bereshit) and a man called” a small world“(Avot of Rabbi Natan), and the wisdom of the world—that we would find useful—they called “divine knowledge” (Pesahim), and said “fifty gates of wisdom were created in the world” “(according to Nehunya ben ha-Kanah and Rabbi Butryl to Sefer Yetzirah, these are the questions that God asked Job, who are all questions about the laws of nature)⁷⁴, of which forty-nine were given to Moses (Rosh Hashanah), which lead to the recognition of the glory of creation and its many splendors, and the Mishna (Avot) says: “for such purpose (learned much Torah) were you created.”⁷⁵

Unlike the original article, which maintained a critical position while discussing metaphysical and theological issues, the added section presented a moral assertion that the purpose of man was to study the Torah and worship God. In addition, the rhetoric of this section was puzzling, as it was all a single paragraph with random quotations from Jewish sources and numerous acronyms. It was readable only for those familiar with all the nuances of rabbinic sophistry and acquainted with Talmudic Aramaic and Hebrew acronyms. Hence, despite the editors’ declaration of intent, ha-Eshkol did not signal a new epistemic path of scientific Hebrew, as many of its entries preserved the complexity of rabbinic grammar and the intertextuality of the pilpul. Yet the main problem with ha-Eshkol was unrelated to language and terminology but to its thematic content. Despite the publishers’ commitment to dedicate much of the encyclopedia’s content to Jewish national themes that reflected a Jewish collective subject, they gave scant attention to Jewish social organizations or political institutions. Within the 766 printed columns of the encyclopedia, the geography and history of Palestine were mentioned in a mere handful of articles. Although the editors included comprehensive entries about small villages in Western Europe and European colonies in Africa—among these were Uttoxeter (a small market town in the West Midlands, England) and Usambara (a region in presentday Tanzania)—entries about Palestine comprised no more than one or two sentences.⁷⁶ Nearly all of the geographical information was based on the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie and, as such, reflected German readers’ understanding of their national habitat and its vicinity. Thus, most of the geographical entries dealt with

 This comment is unclear. Ha-Kanah, who was a first century tanna, did not write about Sefer Yetzirah. He is regarded, however, as the writer of other texts important to Jewish mysticism.  “Human” (‫)אדם‬. 391.  See “Ono” (‫“ )אונו‬Ophir” (‫)אופיר‬, 696 – 697.

44

Chapter One: Amass

Figure 3: “Adansonia [Baobab], its flowers and its leaves.” The illustration, taken from the Brockhaus, is one of the many entries about the geography of Eastern Africa. In terms of encyclopedic epistemology, it represents a rather early stage (late eighteenth century until the mid- nineteenth century) of scientific objectivity. It presents a branch of an Adansonia [Baobab] with both the tree’s fruit, flower, and bud that cannot be captured through the lens of a camera simply because they represent different growth stages that take place in different periods of time. “Adanosia”, ha-Eshkol, 409.

Central and Western Europe as well as German colonial interests in Africa (Usambara was, for a short while, under the control of German East Africa). In addition, whereas the geographical material taken from Brockhaus focused mainly on cur-

Explaining the Ways of the Gentiles

45

rent geological, climatic, and social conditions and contained detailed quantitative data, the entries about sites in Palestine relied exclusively on the Bible and other Jewish religious texts. Other entries on Jewish matters were mainly short biographies of biblical figures and leading exegetes, which were primarily based on premodern lexicons and encyclopedias (e. g., Seder ha-Dorot and Pahad Yitzhak). As mentioned, even the continuous efforts of the editors to recruit authors from within the communities of the Pale led only to the writing of two short entries. The failure of ha-Eshkol to present Jewish knowledge was all more apparent by the fact that it was published during a time when Jewish-themed books from different genres governed the field of Hebrew literature. Shefer, for instance, began the project of translating to Hebrew the monumental work of Heinrich Graetz (Poznan, 1817 – Munich, 1891) History of the Jews while working at the editorial board of ha-Eshkol, and Hebrew scholars published books about the geography of Palestine decades before Goldman launched his encyclopedia. In late December 1888, after the number of subscribers slightly dwindled, Arkant stopped his support; the work at the printing house halted before packages with the seventh booklet of ha-Eshkol were sent to agents and subscribers⁷⁷. The workers of the publishing house, who had not received their wages for a few months, sued the publishers, but the matter was settled out of court after Jerzy Goldman agreed to pay most of his editors, writers, and printers. As a result, Goldman Publishers went bankrupt after nearly 30 years as the leading Hebrew publisher in Eastern Europe.⁷⁸ Between publishing the prospectus and disbanding the project, ha-Eshkol received primarily negative reviews. Reviewers appreciated the work of writers and editors but harshly criticized what they perceived as disqualified publishers with limited knowledge of Hebrew literature.⁷⁹ Few reviewers valued the project as the first comprehensive attempt to publish a popular Hebrew book of this size. They hoped this would set the infrastructure for a new national culture. All reviewers, as mentioned, attacked the epistemic pattern of ha-Eshkol. They argued that the encyclopedia’s linguistic structure was an impossible attempt to achieve two contrasting goals of preservation (traditional language) and novelty (the genre itself ). The sad result was a dysfunctional book that could not serve the cu-

 See a short news report at the end of ha-Eshkol: “Maasim be-Khol Yom”, ha-Melitz, 25 December 1888, 5.  Ibid.  Politon and many others. See for instance: Zfania Ben Nahum, “Ezrat Sofrim: Safa Achat veDvarim Achadim”, ha-Melitz, 12 March 1890. 1; “Tafasta Merube Lo Tafasta”, ha-Melitz, July 22, 1892, 1.

46

Chapter One: Amass

rious Hebrew reader.⁸⁰ After the project ceased to exist, however, some reviews praised it as a tremendous achievement of Hebrew culture that was prematurely terminated and called other publishers to continue the encyclopedia from the point it stopped. They argue that the production and distribution of the future publication would be easier than that initiated by Goldman and Arkant because it would rely on the existing infrastructure laid by the publishers of ha-Eshkol and even enjoy a potential clientele that already expressed its willingness to purchase a Hebrew encyclopedia. One critic claimed that a publisher taking this challenge would benefit from the fact that at least a quarter of the content had already been created, as per a former undisclosed editor of the disbanded encyclopedia.⁸¹

Conclusions Ha-Eshkol failed because its producers could not delineate a coherent image of the encyclopedia’s potential user. Like other national encyclopedias of the 19th century, its publishers sought to use the encyclopedia as an instrument in the creation of a new national identity, and therefore its themes and structure had to reflect the social hopes and national aspirations of their readership. In practice, however, the printed pages of ha-Eshkol presented a multi-faceted conflicting personality whose ambitions were unclear. On the one hand, the publishers had embarked on a project with the romanticist intentions of presenting a distinct ethnic group with a clear territory of origins and its own autochthonous language. The attempt to encompass all forms of Judaism, on the other hand, had impeded uniform identity from burgeoning, and the financial constraints and lack of expert writers on the encyclopedia’s rooster had virtually shattered hopes of creating a national encyclopedia. Yet despite its failure, the publication of ha-Eshkol was a rare moment of cooperation within the Jewish republic of letters. For a few months, the small office on 22 Muranowska Street was a global center for Jewish knowledge production. The publishers had established it with the aim of overcoming the long-standing barriers of language, geography, and denominational affiliations that had kept European Jews separated for generations. While the editorial board never quite fulfilled their hopes of serving as a modern version of the Yavneh Council, which sought to formulate a new canon for a new social order, it did spark a debate over the possibility of creating national knowledge and national literature.

 Politon and Zfania Ben Nahum.  Ibid.

Conclusions

47

The failure of ha-Eshkol, however, wiped out the genre of the general encyclopedia from the Hebrew book market for nearly half a century. Publishers were no longer interested in the maskilic ideal of “educating” the masses, orienting the Jews within their immediate gentile surroundings, and inducing their integration. Instead, they sought to produce knowledge whose primary purpose was to provide their readership with its collective reflection of an autonomic Jewish nation. Therefore, publishers’ catalogs presented various books about Jews and Judaism in which the new genre of the Jewish encyclopedia rose to prominence. The following chapter explores how the formation of Zionist political institutions, alongside the expansion of the Hebrew republic of letters, brought about a thematic shift and what this shift reveals about the Jewish national identity.

Chapter Two Introspection: Creating Singularity at the Outset of the Zionist Movement On August 22, 1902, prominent Russian Zionists convened in Minsk in an effort to resolve ideological disputes that threatened the future of the national movement. Two recently established political parties—the religious Mizrachi Movement and the liberal Democratic Fraction—called to reevaluate the national movement’s goals and offered ideological paths considerably different from Zionism’s main avenue of Herzl and his associates. The two parties, however, presented themselves as ideological opposites. The Mizrachi, on the one hand, called to strengthen the ties between the national movement and Jewish tradition, while the Democratic Fraction perceived Zionism as a necessary break from the Jewish past. To many Russian Zionists, the rivalry between the parties was an important struggle over the characteristics and goals of the recently established national movement. One of the journalists who covered the conference described it as rife with tension, where “delegates on both sides were fraught with anxiety, and the war between them was immense.”¹ The quarrel between the parties was mainly about the form and role of Zionist culture and education. The Democratic Fraction demanded that the Zionist Organization dedicate resources towards establishing new cultural institutions and a network of Hebrew schools. The Mizrachi Movement, on the other hand, claimed that the political establishment should not engage in such issues, worrying that secular cultural institutions would keep observant Jews from joining the Zionist movement. Herzl, who wanted to prevent the dismantling of the Zionist Organization, of which Russian Jews were an important component, tried to counteract some of the tension and bring the parties to a compromise by separating the discussion of national culture into two committees—religious Zionists and secular Zionists—that would run separately.² Both sides had accepted the separation as a reasonable compromise, whose manifestations are still evident in the State of Israel’s education system of today. Despite the deep disagreements, the tense conference proved that the rival parties shared common ideological sentiments in two significant respects. First, the dispute made clear that for Russian Zionists, national culture and knowledge were crucial issues for the emergence of the national society. Ahad Haam, the lead-

 “Ha-knesia ha-Gdolah be-Minsk”, ha-Tsfira, 10 September 1902, 1.  To a large extent, Herzl’s proposal of separation was the beginning of the separation in nationalZionist education, which would later also characterize public education in the State of Israel. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-004

Chapter Two: Introspection

49

er of the Democratic Fraction, argued in his speech in Minsk that establishing a “permanent and free center for the national Hebrew culture… would advance the Zionist movement more than a hundred colonies of farmers.”³ Similarly, his prominent opponents of the Mizrachi Movement emphasized the need to create a national culture, despite their unequivocal support of Herzl’s political Zionism and their rejection of Hebrew as a national language. In Mizrachi’s declaration of intent, the religious party leaders stressed that the movement would not function as a political institute but as a spiritual center intended to “endow Zionism with the spirit of pious Judaism.”⁴ Second, the fact that the rivals agreed to separation as a solution to cultural and political gaps indicates the federative principles underlying Russian Zionist thought. For Central European Zionists like Herzl, the split was a real danger because it could lead to a rift within the national movement and signal that the vision of uniting Jews of all cultural backgrounds was impossible. However, for Zionist living in the Czarist empire, where Jewish society was vast in size and stratified in its social structure and religious affiliations, the idea of separation as a tool for maintaining coexistence was familiar. Despite open disagreements between Eastern European maskilim and Orthodox leaders, the parties maintained intellectual relationships and political partnerships. Hence, as noted in the previous chapter, Isaac Goldman sought to produce an encyclopedia that would cater to both secular and religious readers, reflecting his vision of a new Hebrew culture that encompassed the various theological and political threads that comprised Eastern European Jewish society. For Goldman and other Eastern European intellectuals, the encyclopedia—with its non-hierarchical alphabetical structure—was the most appropriate source of knowledge for a diverse Jewish society. Therefore, it is not surprising that members of both the Democratic Faction and the Mizrachi Movement, who envisioned an inclusive Zionist federation, had been at the forefront of the idea of producing a national encyclopedia. This chapter follows the history of Hebrew encyclopedias during the first years after the establishment of the Zionist Organization (1897) and observes the competition between encyclopedists, folklorists, and historians in creating a corpus of knowledge for the new national movement. It focuses on two attempts to issue Otzar ha-Yahadut, an encyclopedia designed by its editors to present the totality of Judaism throughout its long history and vast geographical distribution. It was the first attempt to publish a genuine national encyclopedia exclusively for

 Arieh Refaeli (Zanziper), “ha-Veidah ha-Shniyah be-Minsk,” in Katsir: Kovets le-Korot ha-Tenuah ha-Tsiyonit be-Rusyah (Tel-Aviv: Masada 1964). 65.  From Zvi Yaavetz, (1902) Mizrachi’s “Declaration of Intent” in David Shemesh, Harav Itzhak Yaakov Raines: Mekholel ha-Tsionut (Jerusalem: Misrad ha-Khinukh, 1977). 34.

50

Chapter Two: Introspection

Zionist readers; therefore, its producers engaged in questions of collective identity and the political goals of the Zionist movement. The 1897 establishment of the Zionist Organization helped catalyze the growing national Hebrew literature. If, at the end of the nineteenth century, only a small group of Hebraists and maskilim took part in the creation of Hebrew literature, after the First Zionist Congress, both the readers of this literature and its makers had multiplied. From this point forward, most publishers of Hebrew non-fiction books spoke in the name of the Zionist Movement. They no longer described their projects as heroic acts of individuals to facilitate a cultural revolution but as tools in the hands of a national movement to proclaim a collective identity and expand its political influence. The optimism that followed the first Zionist Congresses led publishers to believe that the potential readership had increased exponentially, from a vanguard of a handful of Hebrew readers in Odessa and Warsaw to readers all around the world. Accordingly, some publishers hoped to profit from the expanding market and the emergence of national sentiment by marketing books to represent the new national movement. Among these books, the most ambitious projects were several multi-volume publications. Publishers, however, disagreed on the proper literary genre for the emerging national movement, of which three major options had been contested: the book of history, the folklore anthology, and the encyclopedia. As we shall see, at the end of the second decade of the 20th century, the encyclopedia prevailed, but that followed a period of commercial trial and error. Mostly error.

Against the Narrative: Contesting the Book of History When Goldman presented the prospectus of ha-Eshkol, another multivolume publication had already achieved success and approbation within Jewish national circles in Eastern Europe. The eleven volumes of Heinrich Graetz’s History of the Jews —written originally in German for Central European readers—presented a long narrative that began with the Bible and ended in a description of European Jewry’s intellectual and political environment following the Revolutions of 1848.⁵ As ‘national literature,’ translated works of history had several advantages over encyclopedias. First, translating history did not require inventing an entirely new rhetorical apparatus. The writing of historical narratives in Hebrew did not involve the

 In Central Europe, Graetz’s books were somewhat more controversial because of their critical standpoint regarding the Reform movement. As mentioned in the previous chapter, most of the volumes were translated into Hebrew in the 1880s by ha-Eshkol’s senior editor.

Against the Narrative: Contesting the Book of History

51

creation of new terminology and could be based on registers and a range of linguistic devices that were developed throughout a century of Hebrew historiography. Second, within the context of the Zionist Movement, where an ‘old’ nation ‘re-established’ itself by adopting political models, symbolism, and aesthetics of the past, the straightforward narrative of the history book was seen as a valuable tool in imagining the past. Unlike the fragmented collection of encyclopedic entries, the narrative presented strong genealogical connections between the historical ancestors of Judaism and the readers. Therefore, the imaginary movement from the grim reality of the present to a historical golden age could be easily attained. That is, a narrative that begins with the Bible and ends in the present has the potential of transforming a volatile Jewish subject into a stable agent of history by metaphorically ‘wearing’ the images of exemplary figures of antiquity. This ‘temporal leap,’ which unites the past with the present, made historians crucial agents in shaping national symbolism and collective memory within emerging national societies. Yet, despite the ability to bridge the gap between history and the present, Graetz’s historiography—with its focus on the endeavor of individuals and a focal point limited in its social stratum—had difficulties in portraying the nation. Although the book, according to its title, claimed to follow the history of the Jews as a whole, Graetz illustrated a history mostly of mainstream intellectual work and Jewish theology. To a large extent, this was a history of the rabbinical establishment, in which movements and practices that he deemed to be on the fringes received only scant attention at most. In his words: “Judaism—as any human phenomena—should be comprehended through the totality of its many historical manifestations and not by observing a single dimension or a limited perspective that was arbitrarily separated from the chain of reincarnations.”⁶ In addition, the History of the Jews was more a biography of Judaism as it presented a long and linear narrative that portrayed only a single event at a time. As such, it did not convey a sense of a broad society or what Benedict Anderson describes as a collective “conception of simultaneity.”⁷ Aware of Graetz’s narrative’s limitations, Simon Dubnow, an essayist and editor of Russian periodicals, sought to expand the historical perspective to include cultural and social aspects of Jewish life. Inspired by Graetz, Dubnow saw the crucial role of historiography in shaping a sense of shared identity. Nonetheless, in his reviews published in the Russian journal Voskhod, Dubnow criticized what he regarded as the apologetic tone of Central European Jewish historians who attempt-

 Quoted in Shlomo Avineri, ha-Raayon ha-Tziyoni li-Gvanav (Tel Aviv: 1980), 30.  Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: 2006), 24.

52

Chapter Two: Introspection

ed to rationalize Jewish theology. In his first work of history, Dubnow studied the Hasidic movement, which was largely ignored by historians such as Graetz, who considered it a deviation from rational Judaism. In 1892, Dubnow outlined a plan to write a broader story of Russian Jewry by portraying a long history of different religious sects and communities. In a series of articles in Voskhod, Dubnow discussed his desire to collaborate with Jewish intellectuals throughout Russia and Poland; he, then, published, in Hebrew, a call to join his historical society and to send him archival materials and rare books.⁸ Although the appeal did not result in the rapid growth of historical writing, it established the foundation for historical and ethnographic scholarship in Petersburg and laid the cultural infrastructure of Autonomism, a political movement that called for creating a collective national identity in the diaspora that was based on culture and history rather than on territory. For Dubnow Jewish history’s task was twofold: to make the cultural foundations of a cohesive national collectivity and transform the Jews from a nation of believers to a nation of thinkers.⁹ Dubnow positioned himself and his fellow historians differently in political terms compared to the Positivists of Warsaw. He expressed criticism towards the progressive intellectual trends that disregard the significance of the past. He asserted that the proponents of Positivism and science, who rejected nationalism and advocated the dissemination of scientific knowledge, did not offer a feasible solution for elevating the Jews of the Pale, given that the political and social environment in Russia was not welcoming to educated Jews. Dubnow, for his part, presented Jewish historical knowledge as a substitute for traditional rabbinic literature and the science taught at academic institutes.¹⁰ In so doing, he hoped that Jews would reclaim autonomy as a political and cultural subject. The idea that knowledge was crucial for forming a collective identity was embraced by Hibbat Zion members, like Ahad Haam, who was a close friend and a distant relative of Dubnow. The two men—both of whom led Hasidic-like courts of followers—held similar views regarding the cultural revival of Jewish nationalism and the importance of knowledge. Despite their friendship, the two men attacked each other’s political stances in literary reviews and opinion pieces.¹¹ Dub-

 Shimon Dubnow, Naḥpesah ve-Naḥkorah: Kol Kore el ha-Nevonim b-Aam ha-Mitnadvim le-Esof Homer le-Binyan Toldot Benei Israel be-Polin u-be-Rusyah (Odessa: 1892).  Simon Dubnow, “What is Jewish History?” in Nationalism and History: Essays on Old and New Judaism by Simon Dubnow, ed. Koppel S. Pinson (Philadelphia: 1958), 253 – 324.  Robert Seltzer, “Coming Home: The Personal Basis of Simon Dubnow’s Ideology,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 1 (1976), 283 – 301; esp. 296 – 297.  See Steven Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet: Ahad Haam and the Origins of Zionism (Berkeley: 1993). 73 – 74.

Against the Narrative: Contesting the Book of History

53

now would later describe the debate as a fight between the Eastern and Western Jewish nationalism camps. This debate, he claimed, made an essential contribution to East European Jewish political thought.¹² Ahad Haam, who was known as a Hebraist and a Palestinophil, rejected Dubnow’s call to invest significant efforts to establish national autonomy in Europe. He criticized Dubnow’s assertion that history alone could fulfil the task of reviving a dormant Jewish nation. In his essay “Past and Future,” he attacked what he believed to be the intelligentsia’s overenthusiastic zeal in studying the history of the Jews. He blamed historians for producing knowledge “of pleasant memories to sweeten the last moments of the [national] self,” though history, by itself, could not serve as the foundation of a new national identity. National identity, he claimed, was a compound of memories of the past and hopes for the future, and, therefore, Jews need to set political goals for the future rather than dwelling exclusively on the past.¹³ This literary skirmish continued when an anonymous author replied to Ahad Haam in Voskhod, claiming that the deepest essence of Judaism could be revealed only through historical analysis. “Historical consciousness,” the anonymous author wrote, “is not aspiring to achieve a mere practical goal, but rather [a form of ] self-understanding….” In addition, he asserted that historical writing was not a sign of decrepitude, as Ahad Haam claimed, but rather a first step in the establishment of “a full spiritual life and in the strengthening of our national organism with the water of life that still flows from our multigenerational tree of history.”¹⁴ For Dubnow, history was not only a tool for illuminating a shared past but an instrument that revealed the hidden persona of the nation. Like Graetz, Dubnow presented the “Jewish nation” as a stable unit that withstood the test of time; every period, community, or center of Jewish thought was a synecdoche of the totality of the Jewish self. He connected the seemingly separate events and geographies of Jewish history through a long, linear narrative. In that sense, history, per Dubnow, had a purpose similar to that of a bronze monument of a national hero, which, on the one hand, signifies a “real” historical object and, on the other hand, portrays the essentialist qualities of the entire nation. To paraphrase Paul de Man, the historical object in Dubnow’s narratives was “a symbol founded on an intimate unity between the image that rises before the senses and the supersensory totality that

 Ibid., 69.  Ahad Haam, “Avar veatid,” in idem, Kol Kitvei Aḥad Haam (Tel Aviv: 1947), 91.  Cited in Yehuda Slutsky, ha-Itonut be-Yahadut Russiayh ba-Meah ha-Teshaesre (Jerusalem: 1970), 289. According to Slutsky, Dubnow was the author of this response to Ahad Haam.

54

Chapter Two: Introspection

the image suggests.”¹⁵ The long sequence of historical events, the unbound narrative, and the multitude of historical actors delineate a totality of a single collective self with almost unchanging characteristics. The current Jewish subject and the objects of history were, in Dubnow’s sense of history, an inseparable unity.

Against the Myth: Contesting the Anthology of Folklore In contrast to the book of history, the encyclopedia had much in common with the anthology of folklore, which some Jewish scholars had promoted as the ultimate book of the nation. Both genres had a significant presence in pre-modern Jewish literature, as their structure and content had been similar to a large part of the Jewish canon (the Talmud, for instance, shared poetic and structural elements with both genres). The encyclopedists and folklorists also shared a common aspiration of achieving the two somewhat contradictory goals of preserving endangered Jewish knowledge and producing usable knowledge to create a new collective subjectivity. Despite the similarities, the encyclopedia and the folklore anthology represented two fundamentally different political destinies for the emerging nation: multicultural versus monocultural society (or “melting pot”). Identified as a product of the 18th-century Enlightenment, the producers of the modern encyclopedia perceived it as a critical component in making knowledge of various fields accessible to the masses. Diderot and D’Alembert aspired to change the order of the Old Regime by exposing the public to rational knowledge that was previously reserved only for a narrow intellectual elite. Like public libraries and public schools, the Encyclopédistes attempted to make the citizens better acquainted with the world, especially with their national surroundings. They often bragged about what they perceived as their publications’ main qualities by emphasizing attributes such as diversity and inclusion and marketed their products as books of all knowledge. In this respect, the Encyclopédistes and their followers viewed their projects as tools for promoting cultural pluralism and to some degree, even freedom of thought through the presentation of various political ideas and conflicting ideologies. The folklorists who compiled the anthologies, on the other hand, attempted to distill a coherent volksgeist [national spirit or character] by observing texts that reveal the true nature of the nation. For German romanticists such as Johann Gottfried Herder and Friedrich Schlegel, the anthology was a vantage point to the nation’s primordial origins before it was degenerated by the assim-

 Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1983) 189.

Against the Myth: Contesting the Anthology of Folklore

55

ilation of other nations and the Enlightenment’s universalistic thought. Schlegel even aspired to use the old tales to enhance the emergence of modern national culture and the creation of a new mythology. He called German intellectuals and writers to work together “to bring the new mythology … out of the deep depths of the spirit.”¹⁶ However, these “depths of the spirit” cannot be reached by contemplating the main literary avenues and artistic canon of the West but only through careful observation of the ‘sideways’ of popular culture and folklore. The volksgeist cannot be seen in the classical works of Homer and Dante, but rather by the periphery of culture in fairy tales, folk songs, and jokes. Therefore, analyzing popular culture would enable the emergence of a coherent German national character and ascertain an emerging national narrative of the Germanic people. The most popular genre in the field was the folklore anthology—a collection of historical and current tales—that gained popularity in all emerging national societies. The best-known is the Grimm Brothers’ Kinder- und Hausmärchen, published in 1812. Like modern Jewish encyclopedias, the beginning of Jewish folklore study can be traced back to the work of the scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums. German scholars have studied the Jewish canon to define the generic characterizations of Aggadic literature—which are non-legalistic rabbinic texts that incorporate narrative, practical advice, and moral messages. Later, throughout the second half of the 19th century, other scholars observed the sources and contexts in which Aggadah literature was created. In 1870, Moritz Steinschneider authored the article “On the Popular Literature of Jews,” in which he argued that folklore was situated in the heart of Judaism and was the meeting point between Jewish popular culture and rabbinic exegesis and the main denominator between the Jews from East and West.¹⁷ German scholars and rabbis from Western Europe continued to study Aggadah and other forms of Jewish folklore in the 1870s and 1880s. However, it was not until the turn of the century, following the rise of the Hebrew encyclopedia, that ethnography and folklore were portrayed as a national act that should not be the exclusive realm of intellectuals. The “nationalization” of folklore had shifted the field’s focus from looking at antiquity and old rabbinic sources to contemporary popular culture. Dubnow’s public appeal to collect archival materials that, as noted, was a milestone in Jewish historiography, would eventually become also the starting point of Jewish ethnography. His request led some scholars to invest more efforts in the field, first by Dubnow’s associates in Petersburg, Saul

 Tsafi Sebba Elran. Zichronot Hadashim: Asufot ha-Aggadah ve-Itsuvo shel Kanon Ivri Moderni (Jerusalem: 2017), 21.  Eli Yassif. “The Study of Folklore and the Process of Secularization of Modern Jewish Culture,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 28, 2013)): 501 –485 .

56

Chapter Two: Introspection

Ginsburg and Pesach Marek, who published a collection of popular Yiddish songs (1901), and later by other historians and Talmudic scholars in Central Europe. The first modern anthologies were similar in form and content to rabbinic compilations of Aggadic literature as their target readership was mostly youth, and the stories were taken from the heart of the Jewish canon. Such were the very first Hebrew anthologies Sipurey Yeshurun [Stories of Israel] by Isaac Margolis (1877) and Zeev Yavetz’s Sikhot miney Kedem [Antiquated Conversations] (1887). Although both authors presented their publications as tools to induce the emergence of national culture and took pride in their focus on popular culture, their projects were too small in scope to become a vital part of a modern national canon. With the establishment of the Zionist Organization, other authors published larger anthologies in Hebrew, English, and German. Prominent among them were Kol Aggadot Israel [All Legends of Israel] by Benjamin Levner (Yekaterinoslav, 1862 – Luhansk, 1916), published in 1898, Jüdische Sagen und Legenden für Jung und Alt [Jewish Proverbs and Legends for Young and Old] by Bernhard Kuttner (Wagrowiec, 1847 – Frankfurt, 1926) that was published at the same year, Sefer ha-Aggadah [The Book of Legend] by Hayim Nahman Bialik and Yehoshua Ḥana Rawnitzki (1908 – 1911), which became a bestseller and the benchmark of the genre, The Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg (1873, Kaunas – New York, 1953) published in 1909, and me-Otzar ha-Aggadah [From the Treasures of the Aggadah] by Micha Josef Berdyczewski (Medzhybizh, 1865 – Berlin, 1921), published in 1913. Most books had steered public interest, and some had even enjoyed commercial success. Unlike the public skirmish between historians and encyclopedists, the conflict between folklorists and encyclopedists was more subdued. Their differences in political views were primarily demonstrated through subtle epistemic contestations of thematic selections and knowledge organization and only seldom through vocal public debates. The outlines of the two political concepts—multicultural society (encyclopedia) and monocultural society (anthology)—are noticeable when observing three distinct structural differences between the two genres. First, the protagonists of each of the two genres marked and delineated a different ideal national persona. In the encyclopedias, the main actors or objects at stake were varied, multiple, and concrete. They were often presented in the titles of the encyclopedic entries with their full names or within broader articles about communities and geographical sites. This is particularly apparent in Jewish encyclopedias of the time, in which most of the entries were biographical articles about intellectuals from Tannaim to modern Jewish scholars. The entries included people of various ethnicities, political backgrounds, and theological standpoints. Thus, the encyclopedia did not present a uniform monolith collective subject but an incoherent collection of individuals from multiple backgrounds. The protagonists and antagonists of the Aggadah, on the other hand, were typological figures carefully designed to rep-

Against the Myth: Contesting the Anthology of Folklore

57

resent social values and to help in refining national goals and ideals. Although Aggadah’s protagonists were actual historical figures in most cases, the design of the plot detached them from the complex historical context into moral crossroads in which the readers needed to make a decision: should they support the literary characters or oppose their actions? For example, the story of Yohanan Ben-Zakkai, a first-century rabbi and founder of rabbinic Judaism who fled Jerusalem during the war with the Romans to establish a religious center in Yavne served as a platform for political debates over the desired character of the national persona. The folklorists who glorified Ben-Zakkai’s decision to negotiate his escape with the Romans (such as Bialik and Rawnitzki) valued what they perceived as the preservation of Jewish volksgeist in Yavne, and those who perceived it as treason (Berdyczewski, for instance) cherished heroism and personal sacrifice.¹⁸ Like other aggadic characters, Ben Zakai was designed to be a national role model for the readers. Second, the anthologies editors selected the stories and organized them to give the national persona a coherent form. Unlike the randomization of themes in the alphabetically ordered encyclopedia, Bialik, Rawnitzki, Berdyczewski, and other folklorists edited each source and placed it within the anthology in an order that detached it from its traditional religious role and linked it to a modern national context. Each editor chose a different organization scheme—Bialik and Rawnitzki followed a thematic structure, while Bardyczewski created a combination between a thematic and a chronological format—but they all shared a similar guiding line of making folklore usable in the designing of a new Jewish collectivity. Bialik described the organization of the sequence of themes as an act of deception in which the editor was expected to compose the different sources “to steal the heart and mind of the people… carefully and discreetly without notice.”¹⁹ In practice, the editors’ work aimed to eliminate the intertextuality of traditional rabbinic anthologies (yalkutim) by editing out the many references to the Jewish canon and presenting a uniform grammar and vocabulary in all stories. Lastly, unlike encyclopedias, the anthologies have been edited by a limited team of one or two editors at most. The result was a more unified language and a more coherent national agenda, compared to the Jewish encyclopedias of the time, which were usually the work

 According to recent studies, the outline of the story about Ben-Zakkai and the Roman commander Vespasian was adopted from Flavius Josephus surrender to the Romans in Yodfat. The rabbinic adaptation of a story portrayed in Josephus’ War of the Jews, shows the flexibility of the historical context in face of the moral message of the Aggadah story.  A letter to Berdyczewski (1904), Quoted in Sebba-Elran, 53; originally from: Hayim Nahman Bialik, Igrot Hayim Nahman Bialik, ed. Yeruḥam Fishel Lachower, 5 vols., vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1938). 275.

58

Chapter Two: Introspection

of many authors and editors and, therefore, composed a blend of writing styles with only limited editing authority. Encyclopedists and Folklorists emphasized the apparent poetic and thematic distinctions between the genres to further their respective political agendas. The most prominent voice of those who rejected the folklorists for portraying the nation’s character was Ahad Haam. The Zionist leader who promoted the idea of a national encyclopedia argued that Jewish folklore anthologies were no more than a poor imitation of European cultures. Jewish ethnography, he argued, was worthless because Jewish popular culture was difficult to distinguish as an independent category. On Ginsburg and Marek’s pioneering collection of Yiddish folk songs, he wrote that it “presents no trace of poetry or thought, but only a chatter of words.” He described the work of Hebrew folklorists as a futile attempt to invent a new populous character of the Jews while alienating the real nature inherent in ancient texts.²⁰ Ahad Haam did not hesitate to attack the successful Sefer ha-Aggadah, even though the book presented only canonical texts and its editors were Bialik and Rawnitzki, who emerged in Ahad Haam’s literary circle in Odessa. He argued that the editors were preoccupied with producing a book that would be suitable for all readers regardless of their age and cultural background, to a degree in which the original poetic aestheticism and moral messages were utterly distorted. For example, the editors obscured the Aramaic origins of some texts and eliminated traces of eroticism and sexuality. In doing so, Bialik and Rawnitzki departed from the antiquarian position of collecting and displaying original texts to the position of authors who composes their own work.²¹ Bialik refuted the criticism by arguing that folklore, and not Ahad Haam’s encyclopedia Otzar ha-Yahadut reflected the living soul of the nation: With all its national significance, Otzar ha-Yahadut alone will never satisfy the mind of the Jewish reader, who wishes to know the very essence of Hebrew literature, not only through books and articles written about them—this is what Otzar ha-Yahadut ought to present—but from the character and content of the sources. The diligent reader must have a face-to-face acquaintance with the nation’s divine spirit, not through the procurer’s arbitration.²²

The influential writer and literary critic, Yosef Haim Brenner, presented an even harsher criticism of Ahad Haam and his encyclopedic project. “Only a logical

 Ahad Haam, “Riv Leshonot”, ha-Shiloach 22, 2 (1910); Sebba Elran, 32.  A letter to Rawnitzki and Bialik, 31 October 1909, in Ahad Haam, Igrot Aḥad Haam, vol. 4 (Tel Aviv: 1958), 106 – 9.  From a lecture given by Bialik at the second conference of the Association of Hebrew Language and Culture, Vienna, August 1913. Published in: Hayyim Nahman Bialik. Ha-sefer ha-Ivri. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1947 (1913). 8.

Deterritotializing the Nation: The Encyclopedia as a New Homeland

59

and, for the most part, rational scholar,” he wrote about Ahad Haam, “that often presents a mechanical understanding of life, rather than organic… is capable of expressing joy and contentment for the lack of songs which are ‘rude and bland.’”²³ Folklore, for Brenner, is a valuable tool that allows one to observe the reflection of a national Jewish subject. The reflection or the “character” of the nation is hidden in a kind of collective subconscious, and therefore, the “scientific” projects of the encyclopedists and historians have no real ability to penetrate beyond the rational surface. Brenner and other folklorists presented a rigid dichotomy between science and folklore, Enlightenment and Romanticism, and rabbinic culture and popular culture to mark a desired Narodnic-Zionist political stance.²⁴ According to this perspective, the Zionist movement will become an independent national body, and Hebrew literature and art will turn to an autonomic national culture not through Cultural Zionism’s grandiose projects of academic institutions, national libraries, and encyclopedias but through the development of means such as an everyday language and a strong social bond. That, per Brenner, will enable the creation of national culture “from below.” In this regard, the folklore anthology was antithetical to the encyclopedia and, he folkloristsʼ standpoint, expressed different political sentiments and represented different political goals. Therefore, it is not surprising that although encyclopedists and folklorists came from the same literary circles, they struggled to maintain epistemic distance from each other and usually did not cross the lines to engage in the scholarly work of the competing genre.²⁵

Deterritotializing the Nation: The Encyclopedia as a New Homeland The first substantial attempt to establish a Jewish encyclopedia after the demise of the maskilic ha-Eshkol was not intended to foster the creation of a national movement. In the early 1890s, Isidore Singer (Haranice, 1859 – New York, 1939), a young scholar from Moravia, published an outline for a new encyclopedia. His goal was to implement an old idea, first offered by scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums,

 Yossef Hayim Brenner, “Tiyulim be-Olam ha-Mashal ve-ha-Aggadah”, ha-Ahdut, 12 December 1913, 6.  Brenner refined these distinctions in an embittered reply to Bialik’s seminal article “Halakah and Aggadah,” see: Hayim Yossef Brener, “mi-Sdeh ha-Sifrut”, ha-Poel ha-Tsair, 9 May 1919, 17– 9.  An exception is Martin Buber who edited anthologies of Hasidic folklore and authored several entries to different encyclopedias and edited Entsiklopedia Hinukhit.

60

Chapter Two: Introspection

of issuing an academic encyclopedia in German dedicated to Jewish themes.²⁶ The planned encyclopedia titled Allgemeine Encyklopädie für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums [A General Encyclopedia for the History and the Study of Judaism] alluded to the movement’s notable journal. As such, it was concerned with the presentation of Judaism as a rational religion and countering anti-Semitic arguments rather than educating or forming a new national subject.²⁷ Similar to ha-Eshkol, Singer based his encyclopedia on the format of Brockhaus and even entered into an initial agreement with Brockhaus Publishers to print the prospected volumes. Singer also managed to receive the consent of 56 scholars of Jewish studies—among them leading philologists and folklorists from Germany, France, and Russia—to serve on the editorial board of the encyclopedia.²⁸ He assigned each one of them to edit a division or a subsection of Jewish knowledge. His plan shared some parallels with Goldman’s prospectus—among them a section dedicated to “New Hebrew Literature” and another to “The Geography of Palestine” (“its topography, measurements, forests, rivers, roads, buildings, etc.”)—but unlike his predecessor, Singer did not use national pathos and was not concerned about the future of the national movement. Though the plan did not assign the encyclopedia to distill a collective identity or educate the masses, Hebrew journals embraced Singer’s project claiming that it would be a necessary tool for preserving endangered knowledge and combating antisemitism.²⁹ In a lengthy op-ed, Aleksander Zederbaum (Zamość, 1816 – Petersburg, 1893), the editor of the daily ha-Melitz, welcomed Singer’s decision to focus only on Jewish knowledge and claimed that the mistake of Goldman Publishers was that they in-

 “Plan der Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums,” Moritz Steinschneider and David Cassel, a prospectus published at the Literaturblatt des Orients 4 (1843), 465 – 471, 491– 494, 500 – 504. See also: David Steinschneider Moritz Cassel, Plan Der Real-Encyclopädie Des Judenthums : Zunächst Für Die Mitarbeiter (Krotoschin: Monasch, 1844). A second attempt to publish a Jewish encyclopedia in German was made by Ludwig Philippson, the editor of the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums; see: A.D. Finkel, “Sefer Kol-Bo be-Ivrit”,ha-Tsfira, 16 October 1891. 4.  Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums.  Singer contacted prominent Hebraists from Petersburg and Odessa to write entries about Russian Jewry and to collect statistical knowledge. In an op-ed published on ha-Melitz, the writers (among them Yhuda Leib Katsenelson, who will be a central figure in Jewish encyclopedic literature at the beginning of the twentieth century) express their excitement from the opportunity to present Russian Jewry to readers of German. “Al Odot Hotzaat Entsiklopedia Kolelet le-Divrey Yemey ha-Ivrim u-le-Torat ha-Yahadut”, ha-Melitz, 12 November 1892, 2.  A. D. Finkel, “Sefer Kol-Bo Ivri”, ha-Tsfira, 15 October 1891, 4– 5; M. A. Ash, ha-Melitz, 16 March 1892, 2; ha-Tsfira, 4 April 1892, 2; ha-Melitz, 12 November 1892, 2; Politon, 24 December 1892; “Al Odot Hotzaat Entsiklopedia Kolelet le-Divrey Yemey ha-Ivrim u-le-Torat ha-Yahadut”, ha-Melitz, 12 November 1892, 2.

Deterritotializing the Nation: The Encyclopedia as a New Homeland

61

sisted on combining both Jewish and general knowledge. Ha-Eshkol was, according to Zederbaum, destined to fail because the integration of different forms of knowledge demanded financial efforts that none of the Jewish publishers had. But while praising Singer’s prospectus, Zederbaum criticized his decision to publish the encyclopedia in German since this would not be accessible to most Jewish readers.³⁰ Although ha-Melitz continuously advocated the creation of a colloquial Hebrew, Zederbaum called publishers not to use the encyclopedias as a laboratory in a linguistic revolution. In fact, he claimed that to induce social change, it was more important that a Hebrew encyclopedia would preserve the linguistic style of rabbinic literature. According to Zederbaum, the encyclopedia would “redeem” non-enlightened Jews from the traditional world by providing them with knowledge that presents a radically different understanding of reality and discusses historical figures and events that rabbinic literature had ignored. In this dramatic task of modernization, the language should not be an obstacle that alienated students of traditional Jewish schools. Hence, Zederbaum’s call reflected a different understanding of the encyclopedia’s role from Singer’s apologetics, which strove to equip educated Jews with necessary arguments when they encountered an attack against Judaism or needed to present a decent image of Judaism to non-Jewish readers. Despite reservations about Singer’s project, Zederbaum offered the platform of ha-Melitz for anyone “who wish to take part in the sacred work of translating Singer’s encyclopedia to Hebrew (provided his permission).”³¹ But due to Zederbaum’s sudden death and significant delays in Singer’s project, the idea did not stir a public debate.³² Despite initial setbacks, Singer’s initiative eventually bore fruit a decade later with the publication of the renowned Jewish Encyclopedia in the United States. In defiance of previous failed attempt to publish a general encyclopedia, one audacious publisher turned a blind eye to the warning signs and ventured into a multi-volume project, fueled solely by the hope of reaping substantial financial profits. In late 1891, Abraham Leib Shalkovich (known by his pen name ‘Ben Avig-

 Aleksander Zederbaum, “Tafasta Merube Lo Tafasta!”, ha-Melitz, 21 July 1892, 1– 2.  Ibid.  Singer, who had difficulties to find backers to his project in Germany, tried to publish the encyclopedia in French after the Paris House of Rothschild agreed to finance small part of the expenses. Yet, only a decade later, Singer managed to publish his encyclopedia in New York under the title “Jewish Encyclopedia.” Singer, Isidore, and Cyrus Adler. 1901. The Jewish encyclopedia: a descriptive record of the history, religion, literature, and customs of the Jewish people from the earliest times to the present day. New York, NY and London, England: Funk & Wagnalls. More about Singer’s project see in: Shuly Rubin Schwartz. 1991. The emergence of Jewish scholarship in America: the publication of the Jewish encyclopedia. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press.

62

Chapter Two: Introspection

dor’; Zaludok, 1866 – Carlsbad, 1921) made initial plans to follow the path of Goldman and publish a general encyclopedia in Hebrew.³³ Shalkovich had already gained experience in the publishing business after issuing a series of short stories under the label “Sifrey Agora” (Penny Books) and sought to expand his small publishing house’s repertoire. Together with a group of Ahad Haam followers, he established the Ahiasaf Publishing Society and was the secretary of the Warsaw branch of Bnei Moshe, [Sons of Moses], a fraternal organization that called Hibbat Zion to shift its efforts of finding a refuge for the Jewish people to cultural salvation of what they perceived as a dilapidated Jewish spirit.³⁴ But Shalkovich, who was preoccupied with several literary projects, did not even publish a prospectus. Two years later, however, Ahad Haam himself—the leader of Bnei Moshe—decided to promote the publication of a multi-volume Hebrew encyclopedia. Ahad Haam was at that time in financial distress due to declining sales of his family liquor distillery and was on a search for a literary project that would provide him with a stable salary.³⁵ At first, he thought to buy ha-Melitz, which was where members of his literary circle published many of their essays and was put up for sale after the death of Zederbaum. But after it became clear to him that there were other potential buyers, he gave up and sought to establish his own journal. In Berlin, he negotiated this idea with a group of young Hebrew writers led by Berdyczewski known as “ha-Tseirim” [the Youngsters]. Members of the group—such as Abraham Ozjasz Thon (Lvov, 1870 – Krakow, 1936), Zvi Henry Malter (Zabno, 1867 – Philadelphia? 1925), Mordecai Ehrenpreis (Lvov, 1869 – Saltsjöbaden, 1951) and David Neumark (Schtschirez, 1866- Cincinnati, 1924) —had already made their first mark on Hebrew literature or established a career in Jewish studies. But the project did not materialize because Ahad Haam, who wanted to focus on Jewish matters, refused to accept ha-Tseirim’s demand to incorporate non-Jewish knowledge in the fields of philosophy and literature.³⁶ Ahad Haam then turned to devel-

 Politon: “Letters from a Travel”, ha-Melitz, 25 Dec 1892.  Zeev Gris, “Abraham Leib Shalkovich (Ben Avigdor) ve-ha-Mahapekha be-Olam ha-Sfarim ha-Ivriyim be-Reshit ha-Mea ha-Esrim” in Goldshtain, Yosi Salmon Yosef (editors). Yosef Daat: Mehkarim Be-Historyah Yehudit Modernit Mugashim Li-Prof. Yosef Salmon Le-Hag Yovlo [in Hebrew]. BeerSheva: Ben-Guryon University, 2010, 306 – 7.  Yosi Goldshtain. Ahad Haam: Biyografyah [in Hebrew]. Yerushalayim: Keter. 1992. 187.  Ha-Tserim created their own journal me-Mizrakh le-Maarav (From East to West) that would later be a rival of Ahad Haam’s ha-Schiloah. Yet albeit the dispute, Ahad Haam continued to influence their writings and, as we shall see later, Neumark and Ahad Haam will later work together on the second attempt to publish Otzar ha-Yahadut. Yosef Ahad Haam Berdichevsky Micah Joseph Oren, Ahad Haam, M.Y. Berdits’evski va-Havurat “Tseirim” (Rishon Le-Tsiyon: Yahad, 1985). Shulamit Laskov, Haye Ahad Haam : Pesefas mi-Tokh Ketavav u-Khetavim Aherim ([Tel Aviv]; Yerushalayim:

Deterritotializing the Nation: The Encyclopedia as a New Homeland

63

op the idea of a Hebrew encyclopedia dedicated only to Jewish themes. As the chief editor of the encyclopedia, he alone would have the authority to design its content and exercise close control over every article.³⁷ In a search for a donor, Ahad Haam met with Kalonymos Wissotzky (Zhagory, 1824 – Moscow, 1904), a Russian tea magnate who gave two years earlier a generous donation to a school of Bnei Moshe in Jaffa.³⁸ Wissotzky’s charity fund was one of the most prominent sponsors of Jewish cultural institutions in eastern Europe and also contributed to housing and education projects in Palestine. He agreed to grant the encyclopedia 20,000 rubles, provided that Ahad Haam would be the chief editor and that the project would not be publicly debated at the early stages of development. He did not want the encyclopedia to become “one of those ’questions’ that provoke skirmishes, polemics, and nonsense.”³⁹ In July 1894, Ahad Haam published in ha-Melitz an article about the importance of the future encyclopedia, a preliminary prospectus, and his correspondence with Wissotzky. He named his project “Otzar ha-Yahadut” [Jewish Treasure], following earlier publications that used the word ‘Otzar’ as a Hebrew translation for thesaurus, lexicon, or anthology.⁴⁰ ‘Otzar’ or other words with similar meanings (e. g., ‘Mikhlal’ or ‘Meassef ’)⁴¹ appeared in Hebrew book titles from the late Middle Ages as more writers attempted to integrate different types of knowledge into a single publication.⁴² The Haskalah Movement continued this rabbinic tradition by publishing a

ha-Makhon le-Heker ha-Tsiyonut ve-Yisrael a. sh. Hayim Vaitsman, Universitat Tel-Aviv ; ha-Sifriyah ha-Tsiyonit, 2006). 66 – 7.  A letter to Y. H. Rawnitzki, London. October 11, 1893. In Ahad, Haam. Igrot Ahad-Haam. vol 1 (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1949). 55.  Yosi Goldshtain, Ahad Ha-‘Am: Biyografyah (Yerushalayim: Keter: Zagagi, 1992). 187.  Ahad Haam to Wissotzky, Odessa. June 24, 1894, in Igrot Ahad Haam Vol. 1; Ahad Haam, “Odot Otzar ha-Yahadut”, ha-Melitz, June 29, 1894.  See for instance some of the more popular books with the title “Otzar”: Yaakov Ben-Yitzhak Zahalon, Otzar ha-Haim (1682), Yehuda Lieb Ben-Zevv, Otzar ha-Shorashim (1807), Tsevi Hirsh Ben Meir ha-Kohen Rabinovits, Otsar Hokhma ve-ha-Madda: Kolel Yesode Hokhmat ha-Teva ha-Kelalit ve-Gam Yediot ha-Roshet ha-Maase v-Yediot Madda im Shonim 2 2 (Wilna: Rom, 1876).  To name two of the first early Hebrew encyclopedic projects: Solomon Almoli, Measef Le-Khol Ha-Mahanot (Constantinople: [publisher not identified], 1530); Abendana Jacob Solomon ben Melek, Sefer Mikhlal Yofi: Hofia or ha-Torah le-Havanat ha-Mikra (Amsterdam: Bi-defus David Tartas, 1684).  Roni Weinstein convincingly argued that Jewish encyclopedic tendency began by early modern Kabbalists. But, although they had surely created a trend that nourished from kabbalistic unique approach to organizing knowledge and analyzing language, Jewish quasi-encyclopedias were an important part of Jewish scholarly work in earlier periods. While it is hard to define the Mishnah and the Talmud as proper encyclopedias in the modern sense of the word, from the late Middle Ages a few important Hebrew lexicons were published. Roni Weinstein, Shavru et ha-Kelim: ha-Ka-

64

Chapter Two: Introspection

variety of referential sources and quasi-encyclopedias. From the mid-eighteenth century, Maskilim published anthologies, lexicons, and journals in subjects such as the natural sciences, Bible studies, Halakah, and Hebrew grammar. These publications could be roughly divided into two categories. First, literary journals and geographical periodicals presented collections of random ideas and, second, referential works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. To distinguish between the two categories, the editors gave different titles as the former carried names that stressed the act of research or accumulating knowledge (e. g., the journals ha-meassef, ha-Mebit, ha-Tsofeh; that is: ‘Compiler,’ ‘Observer,’ ‘Watcher’), while the latter presented names like ‘ha-Eshkol’ and ‘Otzar’ that accentuated a completed and orderly organized work. Otzar ha-Yahadut bore a title of the second type. Yet, Ahad Haam’s plan was somewhat middle ground between the two categories. That is, Otzar ha-Yahadut was not only a referential compendium but a preliminary step in mapping a Jewish spirit. As such, he wanted it to be both a referential source and a book intended for a cover-to-cover read, a dictionary-like source of knowledge that describes objects from afar, and an up-to-date report about the social condition of the Jews.⁴³ In the prospectus, Ahad Haam described the project as a rescue mission of an endangered “Jewish spirit” from threats posed by hostile neighbors, assimilation, and, in particular, the absence of national sovereignty.⁴⁴ Only a national movement, so he thought, with a cultural and political center would change the direction of history and reinstate social cohesion and national culture. As mentioned earlier, the call to organize the modern nation around culture—and, more particularly, around a body of knowledge—did not resonate among most members of Hibbat Zion who, instead, stressed the importance of strengthening the political institutions. Two years before publishing the prospectus of Otzar ha-Yahadut, Ahad Haam criticized Hibbat Zion for focusing on saving Jews from the threat of physical danger while ignoring a more acute need to recover the nation from a prolonged cultural crisis. While agreeing with other Hibbat Zion leaders on balah ve-ha-Moderniyut ha-Yehudit (Tel-Aviv: Universitat Tel-Aviv, 2011). For a short description of early Hebrew encyclopedias: Dov Rappel, Sheva ha-Hokhmot: ha-Vikuah al Limudey Hol be-Sifrut ha-Hinukh ha-Yehudi ad Reshit ha-Haskalah (Yerushalayim: Misrad ha-hinukh veha-tarbut, Minhal ha-tarbut, ha-Agaf le-tarbut Toranit, 1989). 82– 110.  It is, therefore, not surprising that for a long time he hesitated between the very different projects of editing a literary journal and editing an encyclopedia. As we shall see later, after shelving the idea of a Hebrew encyclopedia, he returned to promote a new Hebrew journal under the title ‘Otzar ha-Yahadut’. Eventually, though he took the position of ha-Shiloakh’s editor.  The time of national unity according to the prospectus was in antiquity, where a clear division of theological knowledge and practice was relegated by the state and religious institutions (e. g., priests, Levites, etc.).

Deterritotializing the Nation: The Encyclopedia as a New Homeland

65

the need to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, he rejected the idea of creating a mere place of refuge that would “keep a whole family [of Jewish immigrants] in comfort and affluence.”⁴⁵ Instead, he argued that the national movement’s main task was to reunite the “torn and wild” people by reviving the political and social institutions in its historic land.⁴⁶ The proposed encyclopedia was the first step in this project, as it would help establish a literary arena that would eventually foster the emergence of a distinct culture and clean up the dust from the nation’s dormant spirit. In essence, this view highlights the greater importance of a nation’s knowledge over its territorial claims or political sovereignty. It suggests that investing in a national encyclopedia would have a more significant impact on a nation’s future than colonizing Palestine; and during a period of spiritual decline that Ahad Haam perceived as his own, the national encyclopedia can even serve as a substitute for territory. Although Ahad Haam did not provide a clear definition of the essential qualities of the “Jewish spirit,” leaving generations of scholars to ponder this elusive term, his work on Otzar ha-Yahadut offers valuable insights.⁴⁷ The term “spirit of a nation” had been frequently used by romantic writers to describe an idealization of the earthly “body of a nation.” In that sense, the “spirit” is a hidden counterpart that enabled a permanent and unique character of the “real” nation. For Ahad Haam and his disciples, however, the term was used differently; the spirit was not an essentialist being but a blueprint of the national culture. Although this anticipated blueprint would draw from previous Jewish cultures, Ahad Haam hoped it would be fundamentally modern. To use Anthony Smith’s classification of nations, Ahad Haam’s “Jewish spirit” reflects a perennial form of nationalism, in which a group of people linked themselves culturally and often biologically to a historical nation and seek to reenact “their” political rights and readopt some of their symbolism, but, at the same time, called to create modern social corporations and political establishments.⁴⁸ Hence, by calling to heal

 Ibid.  Ibid.  Yaakov Shavit, “Ahad Ha-’Am and Hebrew National Culture: Realist or Utopianist?,” Jew History Jewish History 4, no. 2 (1990). 77; Steven J. Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet : Ahad Ha’am and the Origins of Zionism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Yosi Goldshtain, Ahad Haam ve-Hertsel: ha-Maavak al Ofiyah ha-Politi ve-Tarbuti shel ha-Tsiyonut be-Tsel Parashat Altneuland (Yerushalayim: Merkaz Dinur : Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2011); Rina Hevlin, Mehuyavut Kefulah: Zehut Yehudit Ben Masoret le-Hilun Be-Haguto shel Ahad-Haam (Tel Aviv: Hotsaat ha-Kibuts ha-Meuhad, 2001).  Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism (London: Routledge, 1998). 159.

66

Chapter Two: Introspection

the spirit’s wounds, Ahad Haam did not seek to establish the Third Kingdom of Israel but to create a new national culture with symbolic links to the past. Moreover, he did not perceive the spirit as a metaphysical consciousness that accompanied the body of the nation but described it as a metaphor for an infinitive reservoir of knowledge that enabled solidarity among Jews. “Knowing Judaism,” he wrote, “is a proven and most needed requirement for our existence as a united nation.”⁴⁹ Therefore, the first step in the revival of Jewish nationalism should be the production and distribution of Jewish knowledge. “Our call to publish a Jewish encyclopedia is not only an expansion of the work of the Wissenschaft des Judenthums, but [it also aims in] distributing knowledge about Judaism among our people, to reinforce the ties between Jews and Judaism.”⁵⁰ Ahad Haam, therefore, wanted to dissociate Otzar ha-Yahadut from the intellectual tradition of the Haskalah. If German maskilim sought to use their scholarship to bring about a Jewish intellectual elite, Ahad Haam sought to publish a popular book in the hope of making a national culture. The idea was to mold a modern Jewish persona by selecting the appropriate knowledge and distributing it among all Jewish communities. Ahad Haam dedicated most of the prospectus to explaining how Otzar ha-Yahadut will become a modern Jewish canon and qualify two main novelties that his project would introduce to Hebrew literature. First, unlike the Jewish religious canon, the purpose of his encyclopedic knowledge would be the creation of a new collective identity. While halakhic knowledge often served political and clerical authorities’ needs to reinforce their power, the primary purpose of Otzar haYahadut would be creating a common culture. It was a turn from a concept of knowledge that set society’s behavior (praxis) to knowledge that formed society’s cultural boundaries. To describe this change of goals in a rather dramatic tone, Ahad Haam paraphrased the Talmud: “If our sages said ‘study is greater, for it leads to practice,’ we argue that ‘study is greater, for it leads to love.’”⁵¹ The act of learning, in other words, would constitute the future Jewish subjectivity and would facilitate a new form of solidarity between members of the nation. Second, the new Jewish canon would be accessible to all members of the nation and act as a cultural border control to allow others to join the national society. To foster the establishment of a modern nation of “knowers,” Ahad Haam sought to use a new

 Ahad Haam, “Odot Otzar ha-Yahadut”, ha-Melitz, June 29, 1894. At this point of time, his main critics were Nahum Sokolow and Voskhod the Russian newspaper of Jewish intelligentsia, but shortly after the debate about Otzar ha-Yahadut, a similar skirmish between Ahad Haam and Berdyczewski received much attention.  Ahad Haam, “Od al Otzar Hayahadut” ha-Melitz, 7 August 1894, 1– 4.  Ibid. Ahad Haam quoted Talmud, Mas. Kiddushin 40b.

Deterritotializing the Nation: The Encyclopedia as a New Homeland

67

rhetoric framework that would combine components from the apparent opposites of rabbinic literature and modern science. As seen in the previous chapter, an earlier attempt to juxtapose two Hebrew rhetorical forms in ha-Eshkol (rabbinic and modern-scientific) failed because maskilic readers were somewhat illiterate in rabbinic Hebrew, and Orthodox authorities had long accused maskilic linguistic reforms as apologetic attempts to “civilize” Jewish culture. Ahad Haam sought, therefore, to unite the different epistemologies in a project which would be far more ambitious than other encyclopedic projects because it would require significant intellectual effort, surpassing those of all previous attempts.⁵² However, making a single language to express all knowledge did not mean that the Otzar would continue the maskilic vision of uniting all Jews under the aegis of the encyclopedia. Unlike Goldman’s ha-Eshkol, Ahad Haam did not perceive Lithuanian and Hasidic yeshivas students as part of the emerging nation but sought to reach those who sought to acquire knowledge outside rabbinic institutions. This is evident from his insistence that the Otzar would maintain a strictly critical standpoint even in controversial theological issues such as the biblical text’s integrity and the influence of neighboring cultures on Jewish theology. Ahad Haam’s plan offered to make Otzar ha-Yahadut a polyphony of ideas and approaches because it would observe Judaism from different disciplinary and political viewpoints. The Otzar would provide its users with what Mikhail Bakhtin described as a “dialogic orientation of discourse,” which is the coexistence of “various routes toward the object.”⁵³ If the Biblical text is, for the most part, a monologue with a single perception of truth, and the Talmud is a dialectic form of discourse in which contradicting approaches were merged into a synthesis, Otzar haYahadut would be a dialogue between numerous participants that includes the entire “republic of letters.” Without a single authoritative center, the suggested encyclopedia would seize Judaism from the rabbinic establishment and the Haskalah’s intellectual elite that presented a narrow representation of Jewish history and religion. Ahad Haam sought to use the polyphony to create a new collective Jewish subject by liberating it from the constraints of the rigid laws and enabling its free movement in a discursive sphere of polarized perceptions. Though targeting European maskilim as his primary readers, Ahad Haam hoped that, unlike previous Hebrew publications of this scope, Otzar ha-Yahadut would not alienate an observant readership. He anticipated that the encyclopedia—with its accessible Talmud-like physical appearance—would be used as a

 More about Abramovich’s Toldot ha-Teva in the previous chapter.  M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination : Four Essays (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). 279.

68

Chapter Two: Introspection

tool for presenting recent studies in traditional schools. “Our Otzar will provide both parties with boundless advantages; to the first [students of traditional schools], it will introduce a scientific and historical approach to Jewish studies, and to the second [maskilim], it will offer a useful book that would relieve them from the tiresome search for information in their research.”⁵⁴ Ahad Haam presented a literary genealogy to show that the encyclopedia was a direct continuation of both old and new, tradition and modernity. This was to reinforce the sense that the project was a combination of these two seemingly opposites. On the one hand, he claimed that the prospected encyclopedia would follow the works of thinkers of the Enlightenment, especially the French Encyclopédistes that had paved the genre’s pioneering rhetoric paths. On the other hand, he stated that the project would follow the works of leading Jewish scholars like Yehudah Hanasi (c. 135 – c. 220), Moses Maimonides (Cordoba 1135 – Fostat 1204), and Yosef Karo (Toledo, 1488 – Safed, 1575). The linkage to Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert helped Ahad Haam to stress the notion that despite the intention to make a popular encyclopedia about Jews and Judaism, the production of knowledge and its installment would be in accordance with the standards of the Enlightenment. However, the association that Ahad Haam made between Hebrew encyclopedias and the works of rabbinic scholars was not a straightforward as the one he made with the Enlightenment, and reflected the editor’s more nuanced objectives. Later on, we will see that most editors of turn-of-the-century Hebrew encyclopedias wrote unequivocally against rabbinic epistemology and presented their projects as an antithesis to traditional Hebrew literature.⁵⁵ Yet, like Ahad Haam, they perceived their work as a modern manifestation of the Jewish canon in three aspects. First, they assigned their projects with a historical role—similar to the one presented in some of the leading canonical Jewish texts—of gathering a battered nation after a traumatic event and equipping it with a body of knowledge that would help it to heal its wounds. According to Ahad Haam, The Mishnah that was written after the destruction of the Second Temple, and Shulhan Aruch that was composed after the expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula were both attempts to salvage Jewish knowledge and rebuild clerical authority in time of distress. Similarly, a Hebrew encyclopedia would compile knowledge to provide Jewish readers with a clear and stable interpretation of their immediate surroundings at

 Ibid.  The prospectuses of Goldman, Sokolow and Ahad Haam stressed the ‘scientific’ qualities of the future encyclopedias as a sheer opposite traditional Jewish literature.

Deterritotializing the Nation: The Encyclopedia as a New Homeland

69

a time when the image of reality had continuously been undermined.⁵⁶ Second, like many pre-modern halakhic scholars, the editors’ goal was not to present breakthroughs in research but to offer innovations in the organization of knowledge. Although the halakhic position of venerated authority was sometimes challenged, the weight of tradition had often limited intellectual freedom, and thus, scholars invested much of their efforts in reconfiguring how knowledge was organized. “I contemplated all these texts,” Maimonides wrote in the introduction to Mishneh Torah, “to compose [a work which would include the conclusions] derived from all these texts regarding the forbidden and the permitted, the impure and the pure, and the remainder of the Torah’s laws, all in clear and concise terms so that the entire Oral Law could be organized in each person’s mouth without questions or objections.”⁵⁷ Hence, Maimonides—as well as Yehudah Hanasi, Karo, and many others—reorganized Jewish law in different thematic orders and offered different ways of argumentation in the hope of breathing new life in halakhic literature and making it more accessible to the user and more suitable for a rapidly changing society.⁵⁸ Likewise, Ahad Haam and other Hebrew encyclopedias editors were careful not to challenge social conventions or introduce controversial studies. They perceived the encyclopedias as primarily referential tools to assist students; therefore, academic innovations and breakthroughs in the research were unwel-

 Ahad Haam and other Hebrew encyclopedists, however, perceived their task as far more radical in its political vision. They were not interested simply in rebuilding an intellectual authority but sought to establish a completely new political and social order.  Moses Maimonides. Mishneh Torah. Translated by Eliyahu Touger. New York; Jerusalem: Moznaim Pub. Introduction.  Some halakhic codifiers presented organizational systems, which mirrored distinct social structures and roles (e. g. Nashim, the third order of the Mishnah, contains laws related to family life and Zeraim, the first order, contains mostly laws related to agriculture). Others presented sections that specifically addressed the time of day associated with each Halakah (e. g. Orach Hayim, the first section in the influenced Medieval code Arbaa Turim, presented laws according to the time of the day that they should be implemented). Even when in the 18th-century Yitzhak Lampronti (Ferrara, 1679 – Ferrara, 1756) introduced in his halakhic encyclopedia Pahad Yitzhak a dramatic shift in the organization of knowledge by adopting the popular alphabetically order, he was careful not to present other innovations in content or rhetoric. The alphabet as a system of organizing knowledge – which became around that time the common way of organizing entries in European encyclopedias – distorted the thematic hierarchies and was considerably handier as a referential tool. Yet, Lamperonti did not adopt the rhetoric of modern encyclopedias. Instead, he sought to compile a data base of knowledge accumulated in the 150 years since the publication of Shulhan Aruch using the language of Karo’s book with frequent personal anecdotes interjected throughout. About Lampronti’s language see: David Malkiel, The Jewish Law Annual. Volume Sixteen Volume Sixteen (London: Routledge, 2006).

70

Chapter Two: Introspection

come.⁵⁹ Third, Goldman, Ahad Haam, Zederbaum, and others sought to use their publication to create a modern adaptation to the traditional beth midrash [Jewish study hall] and expand the ranks of the Hebrew republic of letters. The idea was that the encyclopedia would become the center of the intellectual discourse and— like the Talmud in the beth midrash—would serve as a departing point in any discussion about Jewish ethics and politics. Jewish encyclopedists criticized the efforts of the Wissenschaft des Judentums and Singer to publish Jewish encyclopedias in German because any language other than Hebrew would prevent their publications from being truly populous and genuinely Jewish. Hebrew, according to Ahad Haam, was the Jewish lingua franca. As such, it was the only language capable of expressing the spirit of Judaism and the only language that could be used in Jewish canonical writings. Most Hebrew encyclopedists also authored popular science books, philosophical essays, and novels in languages other than Hebrew. But their desire to publish encyclopedias that would present a broad range of Jewish knowledge or—in the case of Otzar ha-Yahadut to reveal the code of Jewish spirit— led them to prefer Hebrew to other languages. In the same vein, Maimonides, renowned for writing his extensive works in Judeo-Arabic, notably composed the monumental halakhic book, Mishneh Torah, in Hebrew. Ahad Haam, who sought to follow Maimonides’ footsteps, paraphrased from the introduction of Mishneh Torah to explain the quest for the Jewish spirit: “a person should first study Hebrew, and then study this text [i. e., Otzar ha-Yahadut] and comprehend the entire Judaism from it.”⁶⁰ Ahad Haam, however, adopted purpose and language from the Jewish canon and assumed part of its thematic structure. He planned to dedicate most of the encyclopedia to ethical issues, ceremony and liturgical tradition, and Jewish religious law with a remarkable resemblance to rabbinic literature. Though the prospectus of Otzar ha-Yahadut shared similarities with other national encyclopedic project— such as its ten subsections dedicated to topics like history and geography—the de-

 The definitions and extent of social conventions were far from being articulated and clear because the readership of the encyclopedias was not well defined. Yet, the history of Hebrew encyclopedias knew numerous attempts to qualify these conventions. Ahad Haam’s prospectus was criticized for not fulfilling the ‘basic’ didactic purposes of this literature. As we shall see in the next chapter, the tension between the proponents of ‘academic’ encyclopedias and those who sought to publish an educational tool will be part of many of the encyclopedic projects to come.  Ahad Haam,”Third Article”. The original text is somewhat different as it does not emphasize the importance of Hebrew, rather of “the written law”: “a person should first study the Written Law, and then study this text and comprehend the entire Oral Law from it, without having to study any other text between the two.” Maimonides. 1986. Mishneh Torah. 3 – 12.

The Expert: Yearning for a Jewish Polymath

71

scription of each subsection proved that Ahad Haam sought to produce a publication that was entirely different from popular European encyclopedias. He was not interested in shallow lexicon-like observations of Jewish objects’ “external” qualities but sought to reveal hidden ethical strata.⁶¹ For example, a subsection with the rather common encyclopedic title of “Everyday Life and Ethnography” was not designed to present ethnographical observations of standard Jewish costumes but to reveal “how the spirit of the nation endeavored to express its essence through sensory experiences, while navigating the external world that threatened its existence.”⁶² The lion part of the prospected encyclopedia would be dedicated to the national spirit hidden in religious canon and rabbinic literature. While only a minor section of the Otzar would be dedicated to current Jewish politics, and Jewish arts would be presented “only from a broad historical perspective,” the most substantial subsections would be about rabbinic literature and Halakah.⁶³ The latter was, according to Ahad Haam, “ the most effective means of comprehending the spirit of the nation, both in terms of the spirit’s perceptions of world and mankind, and the spirit’s perception of them as they ought to be.”⁶⁴ Thus, despite Ahad Haam’s image as an adversary of Orthodox establishments and his continuous clashes with religious institutions—through Bnei Moshe and, later, within the Zionist Movement—he shared with them the belief that the spirit of the nation is hidden somewhere between the pages of the Talmud and within the nuanced gesture of the religious ceremony. Judaism, so he thought, can be explained only by a close reading of rabbinic tradition and Jewish canon.

The Expert: Yearning for a Jewish Polymath The prospectus of Otzar ha-Yahadut sparked a debate unprecedented in its intensity. Although this was not the first call to issue a Jewish encyclopedia, Ahad Haam’s proposal enticed unusual aggressive attacks from three different directions.⁶⁵ As Ahad Haam described it to Wissotzky, it was a unique “alliance between

 The titles of the sections are: Hebrew Language, Hebrew Literature, the Torah (Halakhic Tradition), Everyday Life and Ethnography, History, Biographies, Philosophy and the Fine Arts, the Land of Israel, Neighboring Nations, and a section titled “Relics of Antiquity”.  Ahad Haam. “Third Article,” cited in Kol Kitvey Ahad Haam (1947). 114.  The arts, per Ahad Haam, “did not occupy a substantial place in the national life of our nation.” Ibid.  Ibid.  As mentioned, Moritz Steinschneider (Prostějov, 1816 – Berlin, 1907), Ludwig Philippson (Dessau, 1811 – Bonn, 1889) and Singer issued their prospectuses earlier.

72

Chapter Two: Introspection

Ultraorthodox, on the one hand, and maskilic writers, on the other hand, to fight against a single literary plan.”⁶⁶ First, Ultraorthodox leaders from Kovno and the Old Yishuv (Jewish communities in Palestine who were not part of the newly established national movement) attacked the proposed encyclopedia in posters (pashkvilim) for what they claimed to be an attempt to spread epicurean knowledge among yeshiva students. Earlier that year, the Ultraorthodox leaders of the Old Yishuv initiated an attack on Ahad Haam as part of a political struggle against the activity of Bnei Moshe’s schools in Palestine.⁶⁷ They perceived Otzar ha-Yahadut as another attempt to weaken students’ faith and eventually lead them out of traditional communities. Second, Sokolow criticized the idea of investing enormous financial and intellectual efforts in an encyclopedia dedicated only to Jewish knowledge. In a series of articles, he attacked Otzar ha-Yahadut for what he considered an aberration from the path of the founders of the Haskalah and the Hebrew writers that followed them.⁶⁸ As mentioned earlier, Sokolow developed this attack to create his scheme for a general, multi-volume encyclopedia in Hebrew.⁶⁹ Third, Dubnow attacked Otzar ha-Yahadut for being non-practical and elitist. He argued that Ahad Haam had no interest in educating the Jewish masses because the plan aimed in creating a purely academic work.⁷⁰ The debate between Ahad Haam and his maskilic opponents revealed the degree of sensitivity of Jewish intellectual circles in the Tsarist Empire to education, science, scholarship, rationality, and modernity. The different opinions did not necessarily reflect two sides of a political border because Sokolow, a Polish Hebraist, had little in common with the political aspirations of the Autonomists of Petersburg. Yet, despite the different geographical contexts and interests, Sokolow and Dubnow had two issues in common: a stance against Ahad Haam’s concept of the ideal Jewish persona and a different perspective of Jewish history. The producer of encyclopedic knowledge per Sokolow and the Dubnow was a polymath whose expertise extended to all fields of Jewish studies. Their image of the Jewish expert was modeled according to a common image of the Eastern European maskil who received traditional rabbinic education before reaching out for “general” educa-

 Ahad Haam. “Third Article”. It should be noted that a few publicists supported Ahad Haam. See, for instance Yhuda Leib Katsenelson (Buki Ben-Yogli), ha-Melitz September 18, 1894.  An article published in Ben Yehuda’s ha-Tzvi, that called to resurrect the might of the Maccabees was the trigger to the tension. See: Yosi Goldshtain. Ahad Haam: Biyografyah. 188 – 9.  Ma Neesa le-Sifrutenu?” ha-Tsfira, August 21, 1894. 2; Ma Neesa le-Sifrutenu?” ha-Tsfira, August 23, 1894. 2; “Ma Neesa le-Sifrutenu?” ha-Tsfira, August 22, 1894. 2; Ma Neesa le-Sifrutenu?” ha-Tsfira, August 24, 1894. 2– 3; “Ma Neesa le-Sifrutenu?” ha-Tsfira, August 26, 1894. 2.  See chapter three about Sokolow’s Kol Bo.  Voskhod. (vol.27) June 12, 1894.

The Expert: Yearning for a Jewish Polymath

73

tion. Additionally, they argued that the expert should not be confined to the ivory tower but should always produce knowledge to educate the masses. Although Ahad Haam accepted the need for education—as mentioned, he believed that a national culture would be created due to the production and distribution of national knowledge among the masses—he demanded that the producers of knowledge would be experts in particular fields. It was a task too crucial for the dilettante maskilic writers who produce a “simple literature that is easy to read.” Moreover, Ahad Haam rejected Dubnow’s model of the expert of Judaism as a Renaissance man, claiming that the polymath was worthless in a reality of growing specialization. In a lengthy response to Dubnow, Ahad Haam argued that Jewish studies “is, in fact, a collection of different disciplines, that each one of them has its experts.”⁷¹ Scholars whose expertise covered a wide variety of subjects “like Abraham Geiger (Frankfurt am Main, 1810 – Berlin, 1874) and Graetz, that Judaism as a whole was their field, are now a rare scene.” However, he argued that although academic specialization benefits the overall production of Jewish knowledge, it was also an obstacle to the resurrection of the Volksgeist. The breakup of ‘Jewish studies’ into separate academic fields, so he claimed, led to the development of different languages and sets of norms that acted as a stumbling stone to a unified national culture. Otzar ha-Yhadut, therefore, would be a way to mend the disciplinary separation since it would serve as a meeting point for all Jewish knowledge and present all fields of study in a single language. From this perspective, the encyclopedia would embody Ahad Haam’s desired cultural federation. It would represent the variety and differences—and often even conflicting theological and ethical perspectives—that would be united metaphorically to a single body through a book bind, and a single rhetoric structure. Another point of contention between Ahad Haam and his opponents concerned the encyclopedia’s role as an instrument used in designing an individual subject. The critics argued that the prospectus of Otzar ha-Yahadut addressed only the nation’s needs while ignoring that of the individual user. This conflict between “nationalists” and “individualists” was, in fact, not exclusive to Hebrew encyclopedists. From the very early days of the genre, publishers often requested their editors to lessen the national tone and, instead, emphasize the role of the encyclopedia as a tool for individual advancement. Sokolow and Dubnow, who perceived the importance of a Hebrew encyclopedia mainly as a vehicle for personal fulfillment, criticized Ahad Haam for highlighting only the collective benefits of the Otzar. Though acknowledging the book’s importance for establishing a new culture, they maintained that a Hebrew encyclopedia needs to offer practical knowledge

 Ahad Haam, “Od al Otzar Hayahadut” ha-Melitz, 7 August 1894, 1– 4.

74

Chapter Two: Introspection

that would allow a young Jews to develop their professional and academic skills. Dubnow argued that the encyclopedia ought to “elevate” the Jews of the Pale of Settlement from their “backwardness” by providing them with objective-scientific knowledge of the world that was barely taught in traditional schools. Sokolow and Dubnow also argued that the encyclopedia should stimulate curiosity, promote scientific literacy, and develop ingenuity, which was in crucial demand by graduates of traditional schools who had sought their way in the broader society. Sokolow and Dubnow held a deeply liberal understanding of education that valued the individual pursuit of learning and viewed knowledge as a tool for personal empowerment. Their argument also rested on the very practice of using the encyclopedia, which was an intimate interaction between a single reader and a book (unlike formal education in classrooms.) In contrast, Ahad Haam assigned Otzar haYahadut with the more dramatic goal of national redemption.⁷² He argued that the decline of Jewish spirituality had inflicted significant harm on Jewish society and warned of grave eschatological consequences if a remedy was not found. Therefore, the task was to restore the nation’s spirit by creating a new corpus, which would rebuild the ethical core of the nation. This could be done only by turning attention to the long history of the Jewish spirit. Though frequently mentioning the Hegelian term “spirit” (Geist) as an essential component of society, Ahad Haam was by no means Hegelian in his historical perception. He rejected Hegel’s historiosophy of a constant dialectic clash between thesis and antithesis and instead held a positivistic understanding that underlined causation.⁷³ Yet, the movement of history, according to Ahad Haam, was not of a linear progression but rather a fragmented track of the spirit’s decline. In that regard, the spirit was not only an ethical schema that enabled historical actors to act but also a historical actor by its own merit. In fact, the long history of the Jews— as Ahad Haam presented it in his prospectus— was the history of the Jewish spirit. The important tragic events that organize Jewish history and separate it into historical eras (e. g., the destruction of the Second Temple and the expulsion of Jews from the Iberian Peninsula) had severely damaged the spirit while redemptive endeavors of scholars (e. g., the publications of the Mishnah and Shulhan Aruch) helped to heal its wounds. Redeeming the spirit and changing the course of Jewish history could

 Ahad Haam, “First Article” of Otzar ha-Yahadut.  Although the thesis-antithesis-synthesis theory is commonly ascribed to Hegel, he had never used the term. Fichte used the term to describe Hegel’s understanding of change. Mills, Jon. Treating Attachment Pathology. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. 159 – 166. About the tension between Ahad Haam’s positivist historiosophy and Hegelian idealism see: Gideon Katz, “The National Spirit, Normativity and Its Secular Character in the Thoughts of Ahad Haam”. Daat, Bar-Ilan University. 2004 [Hebrew] 47– 68.

A Hybrid Model for a Diverse Nation

75

only be attained by a collective action in which the entire nation consumes a vast but fragmented body of knowledge that was produced throughout Jewish history.⁷⁴ Contrary to the liberal conception that focused on the individual reader, the emphasis of Ahad Haam was interpersonal, or rather the space between individuals. It was a symbolic space of consciousness that may facilitate the creation of a stable national society and render solidarity among its members. For Ahad Haam, in other words, encyclopedic knowledge was both a kind of collective subconscious and symbolic space that may surrogate the national territory. Shortly after the skirmish with Dubnow, Ahad Haam published an elaborated plan of Otzar ha-Yahadut where only a single sub-section out of fifteen was dedicated to Jewish history. The fragmented nature of the encyclopedia, according to Ahad Haam, would provide only an abstract notion of a collective national subject. Unlike the narrated synecdoche of Dubnow—where a single Jewish center represented the totality of Judaism of its time—the encyclopedia would not highlight particular localities or temporalities in Jewish history but would present Judaism as a collection of ideas, beliefs, practices, and art. The mechanical organization in alphabetical order would also prevent the concretization of a narrative or a hierarchy of themes. The encyclopedia would not provide a detailed illustration of Jewish society but instead offer the contour lines of its ethical scheme (i. e., the national spirit). Therefore, the spirit was more elusive as an object of research than the narrative of Jewish social history offered by Dubnow. Ahad Haam intended that while reading the encyclopedia, the Jewish reader will not see its external reflection but will have a better acquaintance with the subconscious currents that define Judaism of all eras and all communities.

A Hybrid Model for a Diverse Nation In subsequent articles, Ahad Haam changed the plan of Otzar ha-Yahadut to satisfy the critics and recruit donors and supporters. He offered to model the encyclopedia on both Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, which influenced Jewish scholarship and most European encyclopedias, and Encyclopedia Britannica, which gained prominence in the Anglo-Saxon world. While Brockhaus offered a vast collection of

 The intellectual circle of the Voskhod held a different perception of Jewish history that rejected any essentialist national attributes and favored social history over the intellectual history of Ahad Haam. This is reflected mainly in the work of Dunbnow, who conducted a study of the longue durée Jewish history in which he sought to present a history clear of dogma and myth. The conflict between Russian-Jewish intelligentsia and Ahad Haam circle over historiosophic issues and Dubnow perceptions of Jewish history will be further discuss in the next chapter.

76

Chapter Two: Introspection

small entries covering a broad spectrum of knowledge, Britannica had fewer entries, but each was broader in scope, more comprehensive, and included many cross-references that linked the entries to each other. The two approaches also differ in the type of editorial work they require. In the Brockhaus model (Fig. 4), the entries’ writers were the highest authority of truth, and each entry had autonomous status. Brockhaus, therefore, contained different and often contradicting approaches and views. The Britannica model (Fig. 6) demanded rigorous editing to make knowledge unified in its epistemology and ideology. Ahad Haam sought to combine the two encyclopedic paradigms by using each model for different types of knowledge.⁷⁵ To counter Dubnow and Sokolow’s argument that Otzar ha-Yhadut would not be sufficient as a pedagogical tool, Ahad Hamm decided that most of the encyclopedia would be composed of comprehensive entries so that each one of them may be studied in a single school class. Each article should be seen as a unified body of knowledge on a specific and essential matter. It should not be divided (as it is usually done in academic encyclopedias) into small parts and disseminated in many separate entries. Each one holds only a fragment [of knowledge] that cannot fulfill the reader’s needs.⁷⁶

Yet, Ahad Haam left some room for small biographical entries that could not be adequately discussed in the large entries as long as they described people “that the spirit of the nation had propelled them in special ways or they had a tremendous impact on the nation’s spirit.”⁷⁷ His hybrid plan (Fig. 5) was not only a tactical maneuver to appease the critics, but an editorial scheme that would allow the publisher to produce a publication of unprecedented size that conveyed tightly edited national ideology in a timely manner. By underlining the editors’ authority, he hoped to eradicate conflicting perspectives and model all entries in accordance with a national ideology. The model offered by Encyclopedia Britannica of tight supervision over the production of knowledge suited the goals of Ahad Haam, who hoped to use knowledge in designing a new national persona. But this model would, nonetheless, require enormous intellectual and financial efforts that were beyond the reach of Ahad Haam. Therefore, the hybrid plan for Otzar ha-Yahadut was a compromise between his ambitious vision and meager resources. Yet despite the publicity Otzar ha-Yahadut gained as a literary scandal, Ahad Haam re-

 More about the hybrid model in: Arndt Engelhardt and Ines Prodöhl, “Kaleidoscopic Knowledge: On Jewish and Other Encyclopedia,” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 9 (2010). 430.  Ahad Haam. “Third Article”.  Ibid.

A Hybrid Model for a Diverse Nation

77

mained silent for several months regarding the encyclopedia, and eventually, the project dissolved as quickly as it appeared.

Figure 4: The German Lexicon Model.

It is hard to determine why Ahad Haam failed to carry out his project. After all, he had Wissotzky to take care of the financial needs, Ahiasaf to serve as a publishing house, and a leading Hebrew newspaper that supported the project (ha-Melitz). He even had on his side the former editors of ha-Eshkol, Fridberg, and Shefer, who Ahiasaf hired to work as editors on other quasi-encyclopedic projects.⁷⁸ Nevertheless, the project had not risen beyond a literary scandal. Six months after he published the initial prospectus, Ahad Haam complained, “the opposition of Ultraorthodox in Kovno and the writers in Warsaw and Petersburg had affected me greatly.” He then suggested that the whole project was in great danger, “since all sectors are against it, there will not be enough costumers, loses will be great, and we will not be able to complete it with a budget of 20,000 rubles.”⁷⁹ He offered Wissotzky that instead of an alphabetically organized encyclopedia, Ahiasaf would publish under the title “Otzar ha-Yahadut,” a book every year that would discuss a single theme in Jewish studies.⁸⁰ He hoped that by doing so, the critics would no

 Shefer began to work on a series of books about the history of Sephardi Jews and Fridberg was one of the editors of Ahiasaf ’s annual journal.  Ahad Haam to Ladizenski. October 7, 1894. Igrot. Vol. 1. 68 – 9.  Ahad Haam, “Third Article”.

78

Chapter Two: Introspection

Figure 5: The Hybrid Model.

Figure 6: The Britannica Model.

A Hybrid Model for a Diverse Nation

79

longer consider it an elitist project intended only for maskilic readership.⁸¹ In private correspondence, Ahad Haam also claimed that Wissotzky decided to withdraw from the project after meeting some critics.⁸² This claim led some historians to believe that the donor’s withdrawal shattered the future of Otzar ha-Yahadut, but it is unlikely that Wissotzky questioned Ahad Haam’s plan because the donor continued to promote the project publicly.⁸³ In an ad published on ha-Tsfira shortly after Ahad Haam left the project, Wissotzky announced that he would be willing to contribute the 20,000 rubles to anyone “who will put into action the idea to publish Otzar ha-Yahadut as it was presented in the initial prospectus.”⁸⁴ Moreover, Wissotzky called other donors to join him in backing the project and added that if he could not find someone to carry on Ahad Haam’s prospectus, he would welcome a debate that would discuss the possibility of publishing an encyclopedia in a different format.⁸⁵ In subsequent years, Wissotzky continued to back other literary projects initiated by Ahad Haam and even hired him to manage the tea company’s office in London and as a trustee to coordinate his philanthropic fund and inheritance. It seems that the decision to cancel the project resulted from personal reasons and was fueled by a depression from which Ahad Haam suffered at the time.⁸⁶ The prospectus of Otzar ha-Yahadut, nonetheless, had considerably influenced Hebrew and Jewish encyclopedias to come. As we shall see in the next chapter, the fruitless attempt to publish Ahad Haam’s encyclopedia should not be underestimated, as it was no less than a “paradigm shift” in how Jewish knowledge was produced and organized.

 Goldstein. 191– 2.  Laskov, Hayey Ahad Haam, 68 – 9.  Ahad Haam described Wissotzky as “volatile,” and in a letter to an associate he even claimed that Wissotsky “decided to cancel the plan to issue the Otzar” after a meeting he had in Warsaw with some of the critics. But Wissotsky publically supported Ahad Haam and, as mentioned, asked other scholars to continue the work on the encyclopedia. Laskov, 68 – 9. See also Goldstein, 192.  Ha-Tsfira. October 20, 1895. 2.  Ibid. It seems as if H. Rabinovich, the editor of ha-Melitz, attempted to take Wissotzky’s challenge. In August 26, 1896, he published an ad on the back page of ha-Melitz, stating that he will issue an encyclopedia called “Kol Bo” (All-Inclusive). The prospected encyclopedia will combine both ‘general’ and ‘Jewish’ knowledge and “the details about it will be revealed soon to the scholars and the honorable readers.” However, Rabinovich did not fulfill his promise and the project failed to materialize.  Goldstein, 193.

80

Chapter Two: Introspection

The Subversive Dogma On April 8, 1902, the editorial board of Ahiasaf Publishers decided to make another effort to publish Otzar ha-Yahadut. The attention that Singer’s encyclopedia stirred, together with Ahiasaf ’s increasing interest in publishing multi-volume non-fiction, brought the managers to announce their new project in a press release.⁸⁷ The plan was to issue a general-all-inclusive encyclopedia funded by the sale of Ahiasaf ’s bonds.⁸⁸ The board of Ahiasaf decided to reach agreements with Singer’s Jewish Encyclopedia and Brockhaus Publishers to translate entries from both encyclopedias.⁸⁹ In addition, it sought to hire Sokolow—who also contemplated producing a Hebrew encyclopedia (discussed in the next chapter)—and Shalkovich as editors of the general knowledge section and Ahad Haam to edit the Jewish section. Therefore, the initial plan was to create a single authority for all Jewish knowledge by merging the content from all previous attempts to publish a Hebrew encyclopedia. But the idea of hiring Ahiasaf ’s two archenemies and turning Otzar ha-Yahadut into a general encyclopedia infuriated Ahad Haam. In a letter to one of the directors, he wrote: A curse of God has fallen upon me. Everything I dreamed and hoped during my humble life was that when the great time comes, I will see my dream come true, [yet] I [now] know the devil dancing against me… and corrupting the foundations of the matter, so there is no hope to do anything proper and complete. That will probably be the fate of the Otzar. It is inconceivable that Otzar ha-Yahadut would follow my original vision if we publish it with partners such as Sokolow and Ben-Avigdor.⁹⁰ Although their Otzar will undoubtedly be a profitable commodity and many customers would want to buy it (if, of course, it will have the proper advertisement), it will not have any literary value. Can they produce knowledge of the general sciences besides translations from Brockhaus and the like? Where are our own ‘experts’ that can carry on this general task?⁹¹

The board of directors agreed to accept Ahad Haam’s demand and return to the original idea of publishing a Jewish encyclopedia only if Ahad Haam would

 “Emek Shoshanim, be-Artzenu”, ha-Melitz, April 18, 1902, 2; E. Kaplan, ha-Zman, 31 July 1913, 3 – 4.  Ibid.  Laskov, 229.  Ahad Haam omitted the names of Sokolow and Ben-Avigdor from the published collections of his letters. Shulamit Laskov, one of his biographers, argues that he decided to do that because when the collection was published, Sokolow and Ahad Haam had already sorted their past disputes and became political allies. Laskov. 229.  Ahad Haam to Kaplan, 18 April 1902. Igrot, volume 3.

The Subversive Dogma

81

move to Warsaw to be the editor-in-chief of Otzar ha-Yahadut and the general manager of Ahiasaf. Ahad Haam considered the offer because, at the time, he was unemployed and suffered from financial difficulties. But, after realizing that Ahiasaf was in a deep financial crisis, he declined the offer.⁹² Thus, Ahiasaf appointed Joseph Klausner (Olkeniki, 1874 – Jerusalem, 1958), a recent Ph.D. from Heidelberg University, to a dual position of the editor of Otzar ha-Yahadut and editor of the monthly literary journal ha-Schiloah. The directors of Ahiasaf were reluctant to appoint the relatively inexperienced writer, but after Ahad Haam recommended the young scholar, Klausner traveled from Odessa to Warsaw to start his new job.⁹³ Klausner was determined to publish the encyclopedia quickly. A few months after arriving in Poland, he published a prospectus in Russian titled “Encyclopedia of Judaism in the Hebrew Language.”⁹⁴ But since it did not receive public attention, he issued a Hebrew version in the literary annual Luakh Ahiasaf. ⁹⁵ To a large extent, the prospectus was similar to Ahad Haam’s original plan, with a more detailed discussion about the role of knowledge and the potential readership’s identity. Following Ahad Haam, he stressed the importance of Otzar ha-Yahadut in preserving and disseminating knowledge that had been under threat of extinction. Unlike the original plan, Klausner was not referring to the demise of a Jewish Geist or a Jewish ethical code but to the gradual disappearance of the knowledge itself. It was a more urgent call because, according to Klausner, when knowledge falls into oblivion, there is no plausible way to restore it. Ahad Haam’s goal of resurrecting the Jewish spirit would be doomed without knowledge, and the Jewish national movement would have no future. From this point on, Klausner, who had been involved in nearly all publications of Jewish and Hebrew encyclopedias, will be the most important figure in the history of Hebrew encyclopedias for more than five decades. Contrary to Ahad Haam’s original plan, Klausner did not intend his encyclopedia primarily to readers who were familiar with knowledge outside the rabbinic corpus but sought to find clients also among students of traditional Jewish schools. He argued that while many maskilim had access to literature published in other languages, yeshiva students often did not have the necessary proficiencies in European languages. “The encyclopedia,” he wrote, “will be the fruit of merging their [yeshivas students] vast knowledge in our ancient literature with scientific meth-

 Instead, he was appointed as a traveling supervisor in the Wissotsky Tea Company. Ahad Haam to Mordekhai Ben-Hilel ha-Cohen, 15 December 1902. Igrot, volume 3.  Ahad Haam to Ahiasaf, 15 December 1902. Igrot volume 3.  Joseph Klausner, Ob Entsiklopedii Iudaizma Na Evreiskom Iazykie (Bielostok: Parovaia Tipo-lit. SH. M. Volobrinskago, 1903).  Joseph Klausner, “Otzar ha-Yahadut in Hebrew: Its Essence, Its purpose and Its Program,” Luakh Ahiasaf (11), 1903. 333 – 346.

82

Chapter Two: Introspection

odology and critical perspective of history.”⁹⁶ To avoid the shame of an elitist publication, Klausner did not highlight any academic objectives and declared that his main goal was to produce a popular encyclopedia accessible to everyone. “Otzar ha-Yahadut,” he wrote, “would apply a simple and easy language and not the dry style of referential encyclopedias.”⁹⁷ Yet, Klausner stressed that despite the absence of an academic register, the editors would tightly supervise the project to “prevent any bias that may distort historical truth and any trace of national chauvinism that may harm scientific objectivity.”⁹⁸ To elevate the project’s public image, he made efforts to link his version of Otzar ha-Yahadut to Ahad Haam by adding the original prospectus and a lengthy biography of Ahad Haam, where he stressed that this encyclopedia would carefully follow the original plan. He also adopted the hybrid scheme of combining long essays with short referential entries and embraced the former plan’s thematic structure. Yet, Ahad Haam did not agree to take an active part on the encyclopedia’s editorial board except for advising Klausner on administrative matters. One of Ahad Haam’s advice was to publish a sample booklet to show that though the previous attempts to publish Hebrew encyclopedias failed, this time, Ahiasaf “means businesses.”⁹⁹ This maneuver, however, proved to be a grave mistake. In early 1904, Ahiasaf rented offices in Warsaw and Berlin, where most of the editorial work would take place, and was looking to rent three other offices in England, Italy, and the United States. Klausner published an announcement in ha-Shiloakh in which he claimed that the work on the encyclopedia had begun and called scholars to join the project.¹⁰⁰ Klausner, who was completely occupied with designing the new Otzar, relieved himself from some of the duties in ha-Shiloakh by appointing Bialik to do much of the editorial work.¹⁰¹ By that time, editors at the Berlin office had worked on a detailed plan for each section. They created a list of thousands of potential entries, of which most were abstract topics in theology from antiquity to medieval Jewish history.¹⁰² To finance the project, Ahiasaf sent

 Ibid. 341.  Ibid.  Ibid.  Ibid.  At the same volume of ha-Shiloakh, Klausner wrote an article to mark 700 years to Maimonides death, in which he linked the work of the medieval philosopher to Otzar ha-Yahadut. Ha-Shiloakh 13 (1904), 482– 4.  Ahad Haam to Kaplan, 28 December 1903, Igrot vol.3, 285 – 7. Ahad Haam was very happy that Klausner would have more time to dedicate to the encyclopedia although he doubted Bialik’s abilities as an editor.  Otsar ha-Yahadut: Hoveret le-Dugma. [in Hebrew] Warsaw: Ahiasaf, 1906. Footnote at the Introduction, II; ha-Olam 7, vol.15 (1913) 10.

The Subversive Dogma

83

two delegates—Shmaryahu Levin (Svislach, 1867 – Haifa, 1935) and Shefer—to sell bonds of the encyclopedia throughout Russia. But the bonds, which were on sale for nearly two years, did not yield enough money; only 121 people purchased them, adding around 5,000 rubles to the encyclopedia’s budget.¹⁰³ Ahiasaf ’s administration claimed that their customers were reluctant to invest in such a project due to the political instability during the Pogroms of 1903 and the Russo-Japanese War. Therefore, in 1905, Levin and Shefer made another tour to Jewish communities throughout Russia to persuade Hebrew enthusiasts that the Otzar was about to become a reality. Within a few months, they allocated a sum of 14,445 rubles that would suffice for the preliminary work and the production of the first volume.¹⁰⁴ Hoping to spark public interest, Ahad Haam and Klausner sought to add a high-profile scholar to the editorial staff. After contacting a few candidates, they offered David Neumark, an expert on Jewish philosophy and a Reform Rabbi, an assistant editor position. “You,” wrote him Ahad Haam, “must join us, whether by will or by force, because there is no one else who could do this job.”¹⁰⁵ A prolific essayist and a renowned scholar, Neumark headed the Berlin office of the Otzar, where he oversaw the work on the index of articles and recruitment of writers. In the 1890s, Neumark was a member of the Berlin-based literary circle ha-Tseirim, a delegate to the First Zionist Congress, and an authority on philosophy in Hebrew journals.¹⁰⁶ Although, as noted, ha-Tseirim rejected Ahad Haam’s position on the nature and purpose of Jewish knowledge, Neumark embraced the fragmented structure of the encyclopedia and, like Ahad Haam, believed that “the cultural power of each nation lies within its ethical power.”¹⁰⁷ However, he argued that the Jewish ethical code was not always a stable and orderly organized system of laws. Neumark believed it had evolved throughout history by absorbing ideas and practices from its neighboring cultures. Throughout its incubation, Jewish “ethical power” has evolved through a dialectic process in which seemingly opposing intellectual factions took part: exclusivists that demanded maintaining a Jewish cultural center and strengthening barriers from its surroundings to protect against assimilation and inclusivists, who sought cultural interaction. In stark contrast to

 Ben Zion Katz, “Od al Dvar Otzar ha-Yahadut”, ha-Zman, 11 May 1913, 3.  E. Kaplan, ha-Zman, 31 July 1913, 3 – 4.  Ahad Haam to David Neumark, 30 September 1903. Igrot vol.3. 270 – 1.  Among his many contributions, he was the first to introduce Friedrich Nietzsche to Hebrew readers in essays he published on me-Mizrakh le-Maarav and ha-Shiloakh. Reuven Brainin, Kol Kitve Reuven Ben Mordekhai Brainin (Nyu-York: Vaad ha-Yovel, 1922). Vol.2; Reuven Brainin, “David Neumark” in ha-Toren, (1925) vol.4, 74– 87.  David Neumark, “Koakh ha-Koltura shel ha-Yehudim” Luakh Ahiasaf, vol.8 (Warsaw: 1900) 155 – 172.

84

Chapter Two: Introspection

Ahad Haam and Dubnow, Neumark claimed that the process of ethical maturation was relatively fast, as the set of Jewish collective values had been developed throughout a short period in antiquity. Therefore, Neumark argued that all national scholarly efforts should be directed at studying Jewish thought in antiquity. The study of later periods would not yield a deeper understanding of the spirit of Judaism because its history was prescribed from principles of faith (dogma) that were formed and sealed in ancient history.¹⁰⁸ Publications like Otzar ha-Yahadut, he argued, should minimize the discussion on topics such as Medieval halakhic scholarship and Haskalah because they would obscure the image of the Jewish dogma and damage the “unity [in our nation] that has always existed.”¹⁰⁹ At first, the cooperation between Klausner, an antiquarian that wrote chronicles based on empirical evidence, and Neumark, who sought to reveal a deeper essence of Jewish history, seemed to be a good match of opposites. However, a few weeks later, Neumark’s hiring was proven to be a mistake as Klausner and Neumark repeatedly clashed over the characteristics and goals of the encyclopedia. Neumark sought to issue a highbrow encyclopedia intended for readers who were knowledgeable in Jewish thought and well-versed in European history and philosophy. Eventually, he argued, the encyclopedia would help to expand the ranks of Jewish scholarship. He believed that Jewish intellectuals need to produce knowledge to challenge antisemitism and refute arguments put forth by Christian Bible scholars against the very existence of a perpetual Jewish ethical code. In this regard, Otzar ha-Yahadut would “protect the reflection of the nation’s spiritual countenance from the hands of outsiders.”¹¹⁰ In fact, Neumark regarded the encyclopedia as a new link in a chain of canonic texts that began with the Bible, continued with the Mishnah, and ended in the Talmud. “The new Talmud,” as he called the Otzar, “would bring many of the Hebrew maskilim—who were educated through a literature that ridiculed the practice of moral laws—to the realization that these laws have an ethical-national value.”¹¹¹ Hence, Otzar ha-Yahadut, accord-

 Neumark, therefore, perceived a determinist model of Jewish history—which was different from Ahad Haam historiosophy (and from Berdyczewski’s existentialism)—and called for directing scholarly attention toward the historical circumstances that enabled the creation of Jewish ethics in antiquity. Zipora Kagan, “ha-Polmus be-Sheelat ‘ha-Kohot ha-Historiyim’ shel ha-Kiyum ha-Yehudi” in Moshe Dimant Devorah Rosenberg Shalom Idel, Minhah le-Sarah Mehkarim be-Filosofyah Yehudit u-va-Kabalah: Mugashim li-Profesor Sarah A. Heler Vilenski (Yerushalayim: Hotsaat sefarim a. sh. Y.L. Magnes, ha-Universitah ha-Ivrit, 1994). 220.  David Neumark, “ha-Tsionut ha-Hadash”, ha-Shiloakh vol.3 (Berlin, 1898), 385 – 397. Zipora Kagan, “ha-Polmus be-Sheelat ‘ha-Kohot ha-Historiyim’ shel ha-Kiyum ha-Yehudi” in ibid. 214– 5.  David Neumark, “Otzar ha-Yahadut: Its Literary Value and its Historical Status” in ha-Shiloakh, vol.13 (1904), 12– 20.  Ibid. 19.

The Subversive Dogma

85

ing to Neumark, would not be a pedagogical tool to educate the masses but rather an attempt to reintroduce maskilim to religious knowledge. Although the specimen booklet was prepared for print in early 1904, it took Ahiasaf more than two years to distribute it. Like many other publishing houses, Ahiasaf temporarily ceased to publish its journals after the Revolution of 1905, and the printing of books encountered severe delays due to strict censorship imposed by the authorities.¹¹² The work on the booklet had further delayed because of disputes between Ahiasaf and the editors about its content. Even before distributing the booklet, Ahad Haam expressed his disappointment regarding the quality of the editorial work, mentioning mainly the different registers and styles of each article. In a letter to Bialik, he wrote about his desire to cancel the booklet while investing all editorial efforts in the encyclopedia itself.¹¹³ But Klausner, who already spent most of the preliminary budget, was eager to issue the booklet to “see what will be the reaction of the scholars, of which the Otzar seek their literary assistance, and what will be the reaction of the readers, of which the Otzar seek their financial support.”¹¹⁴ The booklet consisted of four sample entries: Neumark’s 75 pages article on Jewish Dogma, Zvi Perez Chajes’s (Brody, 1876 – Vienna, 1927) ten pages essay about the prophet Amos, Ismar Elbogen’s (Schildberg, 1874 – New York, 1943) ten pages article on Pharisees and Klausner’s 26 pages article about Deuterocanonical Books.¹¹⁵ In the introduction, the publisher included a disclaimer that showed that the editors were aware of the imbalance of content and language:

 The editors claimed that the political turmoil since the Kishinev Pogrom have delayed the publication: “Due to the terrible upheavals inflicted upon Russian Jews from the days of Kishinev to the present riots, the work on Otzar ha-Yahadut was not sufficient as it would have been in a better time.” This statement reveals that the booklet was printed at least a year after it was completed, because the preparations for Otzar ha-Yahadut began nearly four years earlier. Ibid. I. about the effect of the Revolution of 1905, see also “be-Sorat Sefer”, Kol Makhzikey ha-Daat, 8 November 1907, 6.  Bialik to Klausner. Hayyim Nahman Lachower Yeruham Fishel Bialik, Igrot Hayim Nahman Bialik (Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1937). 286.  Hoveret le-Dugma, I. Eisenstein claimed that the expenses were 25,000 rubles, but in 1913, when the dispute had resurfaced in the Hebrew media a detailed financial report of Ahiasaf was published. According to the report, Neumark office and salary were 2,855 rubles, Kleusner salary was 1,125 rubles and the specimen booklet cost 627 rubles. It seems, however, that some of the expenses (such as the Russian prospectus of the Otzar from 1903) are missing from the report. Eisenstein, Judah David. Otzar Zikhronotai. (New York: Eisenstein, 1929), 374; E. Kaplan, ha-Zman, 31 July 1913, 3 – 4.  For an unknown reason, a fifth article written by Eduard Ezekiel Baneth (Liptó-Szent-Miklós, 1855 – Berlin, 1930) about the ‘New Moon’ was omitted from the last format of the booklet. The article was part of the early description of the specimen booklet in the announcement published by Klausner and Neumark in ha-Shiloakh (see above).

86

Chapter Two: Introspection

The four samples-entries presented in this booklet were written per each author’s interests and character, yet there is a single spirit that unifies them all…¹¹⁶

The significant differences between the articles were not only a matter of their uneven length, as each author applied a different style of prose and used different types of references. For example, the articles of Neumark and Klausner were comprehensive academic studies, offering thesis-like inductive conclusions on the phenomena they observed. In contrast, the two other articles, “Amos” and “Pharisees,” were straightforward textbook descriptions of well-defined objects with limited references and bibliography. Also, Neumark and Klausner questioned the historical validity of some common Jewish traditions, while the two other entries presented a more conservative approach and were not significantly different than similar entries in pre-modern Talmudic encyclopedias. Chajes even presented the Biblical prophet Amos as a historical figure, an unthinkable perception in the literary circles of Ahad Haam. But it was Neumark’s article, which occupied more than twothirds of the entire booklet, that drew most of the critical attention and sparked a scandal. The article, an abridged version of a monograph about the Jewish dogma, was a passionate response to Kaufmann Kohler’s (Fürth, 1843 – New York, 1926) entry “Articles of Faith,” published earlier in Singer’s Jewish Encyclopedia. ¹¹⁷ Kohler argued that in Judaism, a set of values “have not been recognized as final or regarded as of universally binding force.”¹¹⁸ In response, Neumark argued that Judaism had a set of religious principles developed through constant interaction with neighboring religious groups in antiquity. Although the Jewish religion did not have a magisterium to maintain the divine truths or a creed that summarized the core of Jewish belief, certain historical entities acquired temporal authority to modify the dogma and eradicate heresies, and certain parts of the Jewish Canon served as creeds (e. g., the Ten Commandments, the Deuteronomic Code, and the Mishnah). Thus, the Jewish dogma had a history in which religious truths were produced, organized, approved, and disseminated. To be sure, the claim that Judaism has principles of faith was not new (Philo, Saadia Gaon, and Maimonides presented their understanding of the existence and meaning of the matter.) The critics’ anger was over Neumark’s assertion that Jews adopted their faith principles from other cultures and his overall provocative rhetoric. Neumark presented Jewish thought as a collection of foreign ideas and Jewish thinkers as passive historical actors who shaped the faith only in response to

 Hoveret le-Dugma, I.  David Neumark, Toldot ha-Ikarim be-Israel (Odessa: Moriyah, 1912).  Kaufmann Kohler, “Articles of Faith” in The Jewish Encyclopedia.

The Subversive Dogma

87

neighboring religions’ influence. The biblical myth of creation, for instance, had emerged as a response of Judaean clergy to Babylonian cosmology, and the Platonic Theory of Forms had indirectly influenced the design of certain biblical concepts, such as the image of God in the story of creation and Ezekiel’s vision of a future temple.¹¹⁹ With the rise of Christianity, Jewish theology became more permeable to foreign influence as concepts such as messianism, salvation, and resurrection gained prominent status.¹²⁰ However, delineating Judaism as “inauthentic” was, to the critics, only a lesser crime compared to the article’s seemingly subversive perspective of knowledge. Unlike a typical encyclopedic entry that presents an object’s physicality, history, and background, Neumark challenged his readers to discover the object by conducting their own research. Throughout the article, he inserted provocative subheadings and rhetorical questions that challenged readers to confront the dogmatic principles and the very idea of Jewish dogma. He also urged his readers to delve into the literature through numerous references to primary sources and current research. Therefore, the article challenged ready-made and sometimes ideologically oriented knowledge produced by maskilim like Goldman and Zionist scholars like Sokolow. Neumark called for abandoning the Hebrew perception of knowledge consumption as a journey to an uncharted land in favor of a Baconian ideal of skepticism and inductive inference. He rejected the view shared by other encyclopedists that perceived their work as a treasure box containing remedies that would liberate the readers from the strains of conventions and may fundamentally change their souls. Instead, he held that the act of thinking was of a higher order than the act of knowing and that the task of the encyclopedist was not to install knowledge but to encourage readers to confront the text and develop their own opinions. Thus, if the encyclopedia would prove to be a useful tool in creating a new national subjectivity, it should take a different epistemic path than Ahad Haam’s model and emphasize scientific values like experimentation and doubt. As noted, the critics of the specimen booklet were harsh. “It would be better if I kept silent,” wrote Ahad Haam to the publisher shortly after he saw the complete booklet. “I would say only this: as far as I see it, by now, the Otzar is history; we need to put an end to this dream of ours if we wish not to lose all the budget we had collected for this matter.”¹²¹ In another letter, he expressed his dismay regarding the lack of organization and poor editing:  Hoveret le-Dugma, 48. Neumark argued that this type of idealism did not originate from Plato but from a common ancestor that influenced both cultures.  Ibid. 56 – 8.  Ahad Haam to Kaplan, 19 January 1906, in Laskov, 230.

88

Chapter Two: Introspection

After reading the essays, I sadly noticed that each one of the articles was written in a different spirit, with a different style, in a manner that does not set an ‘example,’ but rather multiple ‘examples’ of different approaches and, thus, our target was not achieved… I [therefore] do not take any responsibility for this booklet organized and edited by Dr. Klausner alone, and I only advised him on some issues.¹²²

Other scholars attacked the booklet publicly. The prolific publicist Chaim Tchernowitz’s (also known by his pen name “Rav Tsair”; Sebej, 1871 – New York, 1949) wrote the harshest review. Curiously, Tchernowitz’s seventeen pages attack was published in no other than Ahiasaf ’s ha-Schiloah in what seemed at first glance to be an admission of the mistake of issuing a premature specimen booklet.¹²³ But a closer reading of the review reveals that Ahiasaf was aiming to achieve something completely different. That is, the publisher sought to make it clear Klausner did not share Neumark’s theological perceptions and that the planned encyclopedia would be very different in language and theme than the article. Tchernowitz, a close associate of Ahad Haam, who served in this case as a “literary mercenary,” dedicated nearly all of his essay to attacking the theological perceptions and historical narrative in Neumark’s article.¹²⁴ He criticized the article’s premises by arguing that Judaism had no dogma because it never had an official authority to approve it, and the Halakah did not stem from a coherent set of values. The article of Neumark, he concluded, presented a traditional perspective that perceived the Bible as the most important source for understanding Judaism. As such, it should not be included in a literary project that seeks to present critical knowledge and portray Judaism as a historical entity of various beliefs and practices. Deeply insulted by the adverse reaction of Tchernovwitz to his article, Neumark demanded an apology from Ahiasaf Publishers and requested to publish his response.¹²⁵ Klausner, who initially ignored his pleas, finally published Neumark’s reaction in the next edition of ha-Schiloah. ¹²⁶ In his acrimonious response, Neumark expressed his dismay with the “leaders of Ahiasaf ” who ignored his authority as co-editor. Neumark, however, admitted the article was unusual and failed to address the interests of most Hebrew readers. “If the Otzar is doomed

 Ahad Haam to Avraham Lubarski, 8 July 1906, Laskov, 231.  Chaim Tchernowitz “Hoveret le-Dugma (review)” ha-Schiloah, vol.16, 1907 (Odessa: Ahiasaf ), 381– 386, 562– 571.  As we shall see later, he would later attack the rival Otzar Israel as an aberration from the way Ahad Haam paved in his prospectus.  Neumark to Klausner, 26 February 1907, Neumark to Klausner May 20, 1907, Neumark to Klausner, June 2, 1907, Neumark to Klausner (date was not mentioned) NLIA, 4* 108/6.  David Neumark, “Bikoret le-dugma (response)”, in ha-Schiloah vol.17 (1907).65 – 73.

Jewish Theology and other Zionist Perplexities

89

to fail,” he wrote, “it is because this generation is still not worthy.”¹²⁷ The second attempt to publish the Otzar did not withstand the public skirmish, and the project was shelved shortly after the publication of the specimen booklet despite the enormous financial investment.

Jewish Theology and other Zionist Perplexities This little scandal was indicative of a growing confusion among Zionist intellectuals regarding how Judaism should be observed and presented. Torn between early Haskala’s ideal of “rationalizing” Judaism to the historicist sentiments of Russian maskilim, Zionist scholarship had yet to develop a plan to guide the study of Judaism. To early maskilim, Jewish knowledge production had a clear purpose: to supply a rational presentation of Judaism. They sought to “make sense” of Jewish ethics and cultural phenomena and represent it positively for those who loathed mysticism and faith. Moses Mendelssohn and his followers in Germany chose theology to reflect the beauty of Judaism. To their understanding, Judaism was, first and foremost, a religion; therefore, theology held its perpetual attributes.¹²⁸ But German maskilim understood religion primarily as an ethical and metaphysical school of thought. In contrast, other aspects of religious practice and thought, such as rituals, social engagement, and worship, were seen as insignificant. Thus, for more than a century, Bible scholars, historians, philosophers, writers, and even poets followed Mendelssohn’s path and wrote about Judaism’s theological foundations. At the end of the nineteenth century, however, Russian scholars presented a different outlook on Jewish collectivity in which theology was no longer the focal point of attention.¹²⁹ For writers like Berdyczewski and Bialik and historians like Klausner and Dubnow, Judaism was not a coherent school of thought but a

 Ibid. 73.  See Menakem Brinker, “ha-Modernizatsia ve-ha-Khilun shel ha-Makhshavah ha-Yehudit – Mavo” in Yirmiyahu Shaham David Mekhon Shpinozah bi-Yerushalayim Yovel, Zeman Yehudi Hadash: Tarbut Yehudit be-Idan Hiloni: Mabat Entsiklopedi (Yerushalayim: Keter : Lamda, ‘amutah le-tarbut Yehudit modernit, Mekhon Shpinozah bi-Yerushalayim, 2007). 5 – 8.  Earlier Jewish-Russian historians, like Joseph Schö nhak, Kalman Schulmann and Samuel Joseph Fuenn had followed the German paradigm of the Wissenshaft and Heinrich Graetz of a well-defined social and religious category of Judaism (over time and space). Joseph Schönhak, Sefer Toldot ha-Arets (Warsaw: Tsevi Yaakov Bomberg, 1841); Kalman Schulman, Sefer Divre Yeme Olam: Yekhalkel Toldot Bene ha-Adam ve-ha-Itim Asher Avru Al Kol Mamlekhot Tevel mi-Yemot Olam (Vilna: Bi-defus ve-hotsaat ha-Almanah Ahim Rom, 1868); S. J. Fuenn, Nidhe Israel: Korot Bene Yisrael ve-Hokhmat Hakhamav mi-Yom Galutam me-Al Admatam Ad Yeme ha-Dor ha-Zeh be-Kol Mekomot Nidhehem vol. 1. Ha-Nikra Yeme Olam 1 (1) (Vilna: Y.R. Rom, 1850).

90

Chapter Two: Introspection

society with a shared historical consciousness and certain biological bonds. Berdyczewski and Bialik emphasized a background of social and religious disharmony, while Klausner presented continuous historical conflicts over theological issues. Dubnow attempted in his monumental project, World History of the Jewish People, to free Jewish history from the constraints of theology and dogma presented by earlier German historians. For Russian scholars, Judaism was no longer a consistent social and political order but a family of different theological strains, political affiliations, and social classes. To some of them, Jewish encyclopedias, with their fragmented presentation of Judaism, suited their image of Judaism as a clustered society of various beliefs and customs. The Jewish national movement’s secular foundations offered an ostensible opportunity for Zionist scholars of Judaism to break with the thematic constraints and apologetic tendencies of their maskilic predecessors. However, as we will see below, despite the dramatic changes in the everyday lives of those who left the traditional community, secularism had not necessarily opened new ways of looking at Judaism. Though, it should be mentioned that Jewish secularization in Eastern Europe had a unique history, which was considerably different from that of their Christian neighbors. Charles Taylor and Talal Asad argue that, like liberalism and humanism, secularism was an ethical framework that enabled the modern western state to operate, eased internal political tensions, and accomplished overseas ambitions.¹³⁰ Sometimes it was “mythicized” as a universal and rational set of values.¹³¹ However, secularization in Eastern European Jewish communities was profoundly different from the process presented by Taylor and Asad because it was only loosely related to state politics. Yet, it deeply influenced the structure of the community and induced the emergence of modern Jewish identities.¹³² Becoming secular meant that, in addition to the obvious effects on culinary

 Charles Taylor. A Secular Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007; Talal Asad. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2003.  Asad 17, 25.  Not surprisingly, both had only a handful references to Jewish secularism. Asad uses the vague category of “Judeo-Christian Tradition” as an opposite to Islamic Tradition. See: Asad, 144– 9. However, in scholarship of the history Jewish secularization there are conflicting approaches about the characteristics of the process and its periodization. Jacob Katz observed its starting point in the coming of individuals out of the Jewish ghettoes in the turn of the eighteenth century due to ‘external’ reasons of emancipation and economic crisis. Shmuel Feiner, on the other hand, maintained that as a social category, Jewish secularization could be clearly discerned only at the turn of the nineteenth century. Contrary to Katz, Feiner argued that the main causes to the bourgeoning of this identity is the unique convergence between Jewish enlightenment (Haskalah) and romantic nationalism. Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto : The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation,

Jewish Theology and other Zionist Perplexities

91

and clothing preferences, it often resulted in a detrimental change in the geography of residency, educational curriculum, and occupation. Like other Jewish identities, it stemmed from a gradual crumbling of the delicate patina that tied together individual Jews to the larger social and religious category of ‘Judaism.’ Emancipation, theological disputes within Orthodox Judaism, and the abolishment of the political and juridical institution of the community (kahal) by the Tsarist regime (1844) accelerated the emergence of sub-identities like Hasidim, followers of the Musar movement, Reform Jews, and maskilim. Although individual Jews left Jewish social corporations and replaced religious practices and beliefs with what they thought to be universal-humanistic values even before the mid-19th century, a distinct collective subject of secular Judaism only appeared with the establishment of national movements in the late nineteenth century. The emergence of Jewish nationalism enabled Jews who renounced the halakhic law to retain a Jewish identity by relating to collective attributes such as language, historical consciousness, and selected traditional practices. To guardians of the rabbinic establishment, the new national identity was another modern heresy that required harsh measures excommunication of individual secular Jews and Jewish national organizations.¹³³ To counter the attacks, writers in Hebrew newspapers and literary journals published articles that questioned the rabbis’ authority to decide what should be a proper Jewish subjectivity and defend the claims of the national movement to be labeled as Jewish. The nationalistic Hebrew poet Judah Leib Gordon (Vilna, 1830 – Petersburg, 1892) even called Russian maskilim to join him in a “cultural struggle” against rabbinic authorities and traditional order.¹³⁴ In support of Russian maskilim who adopted non-Orthodox lifestyles, he wrote the following: Although they ceased to follow some of the insipid restrictions and perhaps even some of the commandments—that they found as unimportant—they are not inferior to you (and perhaps even superior to you) in their awe of God and virtues that adorned the real Jew; like you, we are Jews in the fullest sense, the Bible is in our hearts, the sacred language is on our tongues and, like you, we cherish the honor of our nation.¹³⁵

1770 – 1870 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973); Shmuel Feiner, Haskalah and History : The Emergence of a Modern Jewish Historical Consciousness (Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2002).  See various rabbinic sources in: Yehuda Slutsky, Tenuat ha-Haskalah be-Yahadut Rusyah (Yerushalayim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-Haamakat ha-Todaah ha-Historit ha-Yehudit, ha-Hevrah haHistorit ha-Yisreelit, 1977).  Adopting Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkapf against the Catholic Church in Prussia.  Gordon, Judah Leib. “Bina le-Toey Ruakh”, ha-Melitz, vol. 31, 16 August 1870. 233.

92

Chapter Two: Introspection

Later, after establishing the Zionist Movement—by Theodore Herzl and Max Nordau, who had, at most, loose relation to Jewish tradition—the Jewish national movement became identified with mostly secular Judaism. The need to highlight the particular attributes of the national identity vis a vis other national identities brought secular Zionists to search for myths and symbols in the past and return to the “torn old book[s].”¹³⁶ The proliferation of national Jewish knowledge was evidenced through passionate debates about Jewish topics in Hebrew journals, the establishment of research institutes for Jewish studies, and the publication of Jewish encyclopedias. This, however, did not mean that Zionist scholars reprinted old religious books. As mentioned, most Hebrew encyclopedias presented research conducted from a critical standpoint that did not accept rabbinic Judaism’s cosmological and theological approaches. Hebrew encyclopedists rejected a perception of a historic Jewish character driven by a clear dogma or an ethical code. Instead, they sought to present Judaism as a cluster of thoughts with neither clear religious values nor political doctrines guiding its history. The decentralization of religious authority was particularly important in the study of halakha, which was no longer presented as a set of laws based upon clear principles. In modern Jewish encyclopedias, this was rendered in entries that presented conflicting approaches and unresolved halakhic issues. For example, the entry “nazir” (‘Consecrated’) in the early modern halakhic encyclopedia Pahad Yitzhak consolidated conflicting canonical perspectives to present clear instructions for the vowing and offering of the nazir. On the other hand, the Jewish Encyclopedia did not attempt to combine the different approaches and presented them in chronological order as separate laws.¹³⁷ By rejecting the idea of a cohesive theological doctrine and separating Jewish history into different epochs of distinctive sentiments and ethical values, editors of modern Jewish encyclopedias could present knowledge that former maskilim discarded as irrational and superstitious. The fragmentation of the broad religious and social entity “Judaism” into thousands of encyclopedic entries enabled the makers of the encyclopedias to treat each object separately without leaving a significant mark on the entire concept.¹³⁸ Moreover, they situated topics such as rituals, kabbalistic thought, and folkloric tales (Aggadah) in their historical contexts

 Bialik, Haim Nachman. “Mul Aron ha-Sfarim.”  Yitzhak Lampronti, Pahad Yitzhak, vol.6, 34– 8; Wilhelm Bacher and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol.9, 194– 6.  A similar change of historiographical trends took place earlier in German academia where Wilhelm Dilthey challenged the notion that history is governed by a certain Geist or law. Instead, he asserted that history can be comprehend within limited time frames and by applying methods of hermeneutics.

Jewish Theology and other Zionist Perplexities

93

to offer plausible explanations for the ‘eeriness’ of Jewish tradition. Therefore, the editors and writers of the encyclopedias removed what they perceived as irrational elements from their present reality and framed it in a ‘primitive past.’ Shneirson, one of Yosef Haim Brenner’s (Novi Malini 1881 – Jaffa 1921) protagonists in the novel Skhol ve-Kishalon [Breakdown and Bereavement], described the shift toward a historicized perspective of Jewish studies and the reproduction of irrational knowledge: Shneirson was a freethinker, almost a radical in his views, though hardly any more so than most of his peers; in fact, he was a progressive in general, a maskil in the true sense of the word. However, when speaking of “maskilim,” he hastened to point out that the term no longer meant what it used to. Once, to be a maskil had meant to be… yes, a rationalist. “Do you follow me? Rationalist!” On the other hand, Shneirson’s outlook was historical, like that of all contemporary maskilim. Everything was a historical development and needed to be seen in that light… Take the legends [aggadah] in the Talmud. The old maskilim thought they were nonsense or… tried to read ideas into them that did not belong to that period. However, the fact of the matter was that the historical perspective alone could reveal the true beauty of the Talmud’s legends.¹³⁹

Although Shneirson described the two types of maskilim as complete opposites, the “rationalists” and the “historicists” shared one thing in common. Both felt that liberal Jews in the urban centers of the West had developed apathy toward Jewish tradition, and both sought to reverse this unfortunate dynamic through the production of new knowledge. The “rationalists” (that may be identified with the Wissenschaft and its followers) offered to make this new alliance between the modern Jews and the old tradition by rejecting non-rational themes in their writings. The “historicists” (that may be identified with Eastern European folklorists and historians) offered the removal of the ‘irrational’ by placing it in a distant past or geography. In both cases, the urban Jewish present remained clean and safe from the stains of Jewish ‘primitiveness’ of the old books or the parochial popular culture. Despite the change in sentiments toward Jewish tradition, the historicists maintained an apologetic approach similar to that of early 19th-century Haskalah. The encyclopedists offered a third way for bridging the gap between tradition and modernity by presenting a stratified nation composed of various and contrasting ingredients. Ahad Haam’s prospectus and Neumark’s article did not erase traces of mysticism and folklore or assign them to the primitive corners of social periphery. Instead, they placed them at the very heart of Jewish thought. The central place that the ‘irrational’ had had in the proposed encyclopedias fueled the  Yosef Hain Brenner, Breakdown and Bereavement: A Novel, trans. Halkin, Hillel (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971). 73.

94

Chapter Two: Introspection

hostility of leading intellectuals to these projects. They feared that abolishing hierarchies of importance within the encyclopedic alphabetical organization would highlight the fringes of Jewish tradition, and Neumark’s emphasis on mysticism would distort the clear perception of Judaism that they had long attempted to build.¹⁴⁰ Neumark, however, set a more significant threat that even Ahad Haam could not accept. The bone of contention between these two Hebrew encyclopedists was, to no small extent, the different understandings of the purpose of Jewish knowledge. To Neumark, the dogma was a set of fixed verbal formulas that set the background for the development of the purpose of Jewish religious laws and practices, and, therefore, these formulas present an accurate definition of what Judaism was. It was an approach that narrowed the boundaries of Judaism to its traditional-religious lines, which left outside of its realm non-observant Jews. Ahad Haam, on the other hand, assigned Jewish knowledge with a more elusive goal of developing national culture and collective identity. It was a more inclusive understanding of Judaism because it did not require any degree of observance or belief, and its only imperative was to know. Since knowledge constituted the Jewish subject, the producers of Jewish knowledge had to go beyond the territories of Jewish thought into other fields of Jewish studies, such as history, ethnography, and literature. It was a body of knowledge that only encyclopedias claimed to possess. Thus, Otzar ha-Yahadut, according to Ahad Haam’s vision, would have the dramatic task of establishing a national identity by collecting and disseminating a vast body of knowledge. Neumark, however, had a different perception of the Otzar. He rejected the federalist encyclopedias presented by Ahad Haam and his disciples. Instead, he visioned it as a cornerstone for a modern Babylonian yeshiva, where few intellectuals conduct debates over issues in Jewish thought.¹⁴¹

Conclusions If Herzl and his alleys regarded diplomacy as the most vital key in promoting the national movement’s goals, Cultural Zionists perceived the first step of nationbuilding in defining a national identity. Ahad Haam and his followers aimed to produce a national mass by constructing and disseminating knowledge. Supported by many Jewish intellectuals, their plan’s premise was that the Zionist movement had no one to fill its ranks since the traditional Jewish social forms were in decline  Voskhod. (vol.27) June 12, 1894.  Yossi Goldstein, “Beyn Ahad Haam le-Shimon Dubnov” in Alfred Abraham Bartal Yisrael Haruv Dan Greenbaum, Safra Ve-Sayafa: Shimon Dubnov, Historyon ve-Ish Tsibur (Yerushalayim; ha-Merkaz le-Heker Toldot Yehudey Polin ve-Tarbutam: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2010). 123.

Conclusions

95

and a secular alternative had not yet been formed. Therefore, the new national knowledge was to be carefully selected and produced because, in addition to creating the national persona, it would dictate the nation’s political goals and even considerably influence its size. If the future ‘book of the nation’ attracted readers from different communities and political backgrounds, the more likely a diverse and sizeable national mass would be created. Ahad Haam and his disciples hoped that the vagueness of hierarchies of knowledge and the many themes it incorporated would attract readers from different political, religious, and geographical backgrounds to find both their Zionist identity and their local identity within the pages of the encyclopedia. Thus, Otzar ha-Yahadut, was also a political manifesto of a federalist nation, in which groups of people maintain their special autonomy within a broader cultural frame of the nation. However, the history of Hebrew encyclopedias at the end of the nineteenth century is primarily a history of conflicts, hesitations, and wrong business decisions. Although writers and editors spent years in preparations and publishers invested thousands of rubles, none of the attempts to publish Otzar ha-Yahadut materialized into a complete encyclopedia. The failure of the Hebrew encyclopedic project resulted chiefly from a discrepancy between vision and reality. The encyclopedists’ optimistic expectations that a Hebrew culture was about to thrive encountered a grim reality of limited Hebrew readers. This failure also had an ethicalepistemological dimension: contrary to the encyclopedists’ expectations that a new Hebrew culture (whatever they thought it was) would bridge over geographical and cultural boundaries, the reality was that the existing divisions proved too great for any new epistemological paradigm to take hold. In other words, Ahad Haam and his disciples at Ahiasaf Publishers did not manage to initiate their projects because a substantial ‘Republic of Hebrew Letters’ was still of limited extent, and the norms that constitute the objective literature were yet to be standardized. As we shall see in the next chapter, despite the initial failures, the genre of the Jewish encyclopedia thrived throughout the first two decades of the 20th century. Though all major publications to come adopted Ahad Haam’s encyclopedic model, publishers did not share his vision of a book that would redeem the Jews from their miseries and open a new path of a culturally diverse nation, but sought to use their literary projects to signify local Jewish identities.

Chapter Three Decentralization: The Breakdown of the National Utopia Here stands a reader. If you are observant, you shall “put off thy shoes” [for the place whereon thou stand is holy]¹. If you are an aristocrat, you shall remove the hat over your head, for the three words [”A General, Jewish Encyclopedia“] that you hear are sacred. They are sublime and splendid; splendid beyond any rate or value! It has already been said: “the measure thereof is longer than the earth and broader than the sea.”² This broad and lengthy publication is both a study of the world and an exploration of life. It is [about] all the mysteries presented by all branches of wisdom and all fields of science, all the laws made by natural scientists, the knowledge that would enrich even veteran students, all the history of men and creatures, and all products of human culture: all that man thought, created, and discovered through his work. Everything will be written, accumulated, and preserved in this great book.³

In a hyperbolic language saturated with biblical references, this announcement of a new encyclopedic project denoted grandiose ambitions. The proposed encyclopedia was not an initiative of a private publisher but rather a project of the Zionist movement. As such, it was designed to present all knowledge concerning Judaism and Zionism and showcase the Zionist Organization’s institutions and goals. If political dissidents from the ranks of Cultural Zionism had created previous plans for a national encyclopedia, the proposed General Jewish Encyclopedia was designed by a surprising member of the movement’s upper echelons. Nahum Sokolow was not part of Odessa’s literary milieu and, unlike previous encyclopedists, had never expressed a desire to create a new national persona. Nonetheless, like Ahad Haam and his associates, he was passionate about the idea of a national encyclopedia. His project, however, was considerably different than all previous attempts to make a national encyclopedia. If Cultural Zionists envisioned the encyclopedia as a cultural crucible that would mold a new national self, Sokolow emphasized the symbolic achievement of producing a work of this scope. The encyclopedia would be a literary monument that would celebrate the ‘revival’ of Hebrew and mark the ‘remaking’ of the nation’s political institutions. Therefore, the main achievement of the proposed project would not be its unique content but its physicality. He planned to produce an elegant leather-bound publication that would substitute both the rabbinic canon and the encyclopedias produced in the

 Exodus 3:5.  Job 11:9.  S. I. Yatzkan, “Hazon ha-Yom”, ha-Tsfira, 23 July 1903, 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-005

Chapter Three: Decentralization

97

“empires of knowledge,” such as Britannica and Bruckhaus. Although the General Jewish Encyclopedia was not intended to inspire a spiritual revolution that would change the course of Jewish history, Sokolow expected his encyclopedia to help make Hebrew an everyday language and create an infrastructure for Zionist scientific education. However, Sokolow’s plan was old-fashioned and did not match the kind of knowledge that Hebrew readers were looking for. As we shall later see, at the beginning of the 20th century, the genre of the general encyclopedia was no longer in demand and could not compete with other encyclopedias that appeared on the market. While Sokolow remained committed to Ahad Haam’s vision of a globally marketed encyclopedia that would appeal to Jews from different cultural backgrounds, other publishers designed Jewish encyclopedias for local Jewish communities that emphasized each community’s particular attributes. Consequently, Sokolow’s project represented the final expression of the national encyclopedia during a period of declining interest in the idea of a collective Jewish identity. Although his rival encyclopedists were often active Zionists, their projects were far from echoing the Zionist Organization’s official agenda. This was particularly apparent in their declared intention of favoring local Jewish identities, such as German Jews, American Jews, and Russian Jews, over the broad category of Zionists. In addition, for most encyclopedists, Hebrew was no longer indispensable, and Palestine was no longer the focus of attention. Furthermore, the local Jewish encyclopedias differed from the vision of a national Zionist encyclopedia in the absence of a utopian image of national revival in a faraway land. Instead of looking at Jewish biblical past in the Land of Israel, the local Jewish encyclopedias offered a temporal shift to Jewish life in the present and a spatial shift to Jewish communities in the Diaspora. Like the name of a Zionist ideological strand that brought about some of the leading encyclopedic projects, the Jewish encyclopedists of the time called to “Worship the Present” by focusing on the local cultural and social reality. They rejected Cultural Zionism’s envisioned national persona in favor of what they perceived as an existing collective self. As we shall see in this chapter, the Jewish encyclopedias of the period presented these Jewish ‘selves’ of the present as composed of dual national affiliations. That is, on the one hand, they were an integral part of their surrounding nation—be it German, American, or Russian— and, on the other hand, affiliated with Jews elsewhere through biological ties, shared history, and support of the Zionist Movement. While focusing on two major encyclopedic projects of very different content and clientele, this chapter observes how encyclopedists imagined local Jewish identities. The first is the Hebrew Otzar Israel, published in New York for mainly Orthodox readers, and the second is the Russian Evreiskaia entsiklopedia, published in Petersburg simultaneously. Like the American Jewish Encyclopedia—which served as a model for the two en-

98

Chapter Three: Decentralization

cyclopedias—both publications differed from those that preceded them by the very fact that they reached completion and gained long shelf life due to their successful business model and authoritative status. This chapter will also examine how social and political upheavals in the first decade of the 20th century—such as the Kishinev Pogrom and the 1905 Revolution—hampered the redemptive utopia proposed by the Zionist movement and eroded encyclopedists’ ambition of creating a broad national identity.

The Demise of Unity The plan to issue the General Jewish Encyclopedia came as a surprise to the Fifth Zionist Congress delegates. It was brought to the hearing at the Zionist Congress’s floor to the chagrin of Herzl by Sokolow, who was one of his closest confidantes. However, Sokolow, who would later become the secretary-general of the World Zionist Congress, was not always a member of the movement’s political administration and was even considered one of its adversaries for a while. As a journalist in ha-Tsfira, he was highly critical of Hibbat Zion and supported the maskilic ideals of disseminating scientific knowledge among the masses and moderate emancipation alongside cultivating Jewish particularism through language and culture. During the 1880s, however, he grew more favorable toward the idea of colonizing Palestine. In addition to being chief editor of ha-Tsfira, Sokolow, who was also a writer and translator, produced a Hebrew version of Laurence Oliphant’s famous travel journal Land of Gilead and occasionally published articles in support of Jewish colonies in Palestine. However, only with the establishment of the Zionist movement he embraced the political establishment. He was a pragmatic man who sought to sense public opinion and mitigate tensions and was far from Cultural Zionism’s revolutionary aspirations of creating a new national persona. Sokolow believed that the best tools for spreading Zionist ideas were Hebrew media and literature. Thus, in addition to ha-Tsfira, he edited the weekly ha-Olam—the official Hebrew journal of the Zionist Organization—and published several books on the topic, including a translation of Herzl’s utopian novel Altneuland (the title of Sokolow’s translation, Tel Aviv, became the name of the first Zionist town in Palestine). The most ambitious project of them all, however, was the multi-volume General Jewish Encyclopedia. Like Ahad Haam, Sokolow believed that the genre’s popularity offered a possible alliance between people of different social backgrounds. The federalism embodied in this literary genre—both on the symbolic level as a representation of a politically and socially stratified nation and on the practical level as a book accessible to all political and cultural groups—suited Sokolow even more than it served

The Demise of Unity

99

the political aspirations of Russian Zionists. As the title of one of his biographies suggests, Sokolow was known as an “arbitrator”, who made efforts to mend rifts between rival ideological factions and ease tension within the Zionist Movement.⁴ Familiar with both the Central European cosmopolitanism of Herzl and Eastern European rabbinic culture, he was welcomed by various political movements and knew how to negotiate his ideas calmly. His unique position as an arbitrator made him an independent-minded Zionist that managed to avoid any clear political labeling. Thus, the idea of the national encyclopedia, which until that moment had been the domain of radicals on the fringes of Zionism, became, for a moment, a project supported by the mainstream. To unveil the project, Sokolow chose the moment when the conflict between Herzl and his Cultural Zionists opponents had publicly erupted. In the Fifth Zionist Congress, held in Basel in 1901, members of the Democratic Faction and other Cultural Zionists loudly voiced their claims for promoting cultural projects and criticized Herzl’s policy of focusing solely on diplomacy. The congress started, like previous annual Zionist meetings, with men wearing frock coats and cylinder hats listening to Herzl’s opening speech on the progress of the discussions with the Ottoman Sultan and other Zionist officials presenting the formation of a new administrative structure.⁵ On Thursday, however, towards the end of the congress, the polite atmosphere was interrupted when Herzl announced that the discussion would now be devoted to the question of culture. The leader of the Zionist movement, who rejected the need to discuss the topic, used Thomas Hobbes’s famous quote “primum vivere deinde philosophari” [first live then be a philosopher] to diminish the importance of the matter and to warn the delegates from the danger of discord that it carries. However, Herzl could not ignore the call of Russian Zionists to divert greater attention to the formation of national culture. Throughout the intense session, speakers demanded establishing what they perceived as necessary institutions, such as a national school network, a general library, and a university. The session was different than anything that the meetings were accustomed to. Shouts from the audience interrupted Herzl’s attempts to moderate the discussion, and at one point, members of the Democratic Faction went out of the hall in protest of the rejection of one of their proposals. However, when the idea of a national encyclopedia came out, it was welcomed by all parties as the audience repeatedly cheered throughout Sokolow’s speech. In his remarks, Sokolow presented a brief history of

 Shoshana Anish Stiftel. ha-Megasher: Manhiguto shel Nahum Sokolov bein ha-Masoret le-Tsiyonut. (Jerusalem: ha-Sifriya ha-Tsiyonit) 2012.  Kongress Zionisten, “Stenographisches Protokoll Der Verhandlungen Des V. Zionisten-Congresses in Basel: 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. December 1901” (Wien, 1901). 421– 2, 425.

100

Chapter Three: Decentralization

the genre from Otzar ha-Yahadut to Singer’s Jewish Encyclopedia and asked the delegates to help him promote an encyclopedia that would appeal to “the growing circles of Hebrew readers, sellers of Hebrew books, and Hebrew writers.”⁶ He suggested that the future encyclopedia’s editorial board would cooperate with the publishers of the Jewish Encyclopedia despite what he referred to as significant ideological differences between the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Zionist movement. Sokolow’s plan was then put for a vote and was approved unanimously. It seems as if the Culturists embraced the idea of a national encyclopedia because they expected that the well-connected publicist would make the long-awaited vision of Ahad Haam’s Otzar ha-Yahadut a reality. However, Sokolow proposed a completely different project from the leader of cultural Zionism in two main respects. First, he did not intend the General Jewish Encyclopedia to be an enterprise of a private publisher but sought to have the Zionist Organization as the project’s manager and its primary financial supporter. By initiating an encyclopedia that would be the property of the national movement, Sokolow chose to deviate from a tradition of more than two centuries in which major multi-volume encyclopedias were business enterprises intended for making profits. With almost no exceptions throughout the genre’s history, the encyclopedia has been a purely commercial commodity initiated by entrepreneurs interested in potentially lucrative gains and the prestige of making a book of ‘all knowledge.’ As we shall see later in this chapter, private ownership was also a constitutive ideal of the genre for adorning the book with the staple of impartiality. Second, against the Jewish encyclopedia’s rising trend, Sokolow sought to reattempt to produce the then-defunct genre of the general encyclopedia. He rejected Ahad Haam’s Jewish encyclopedia because he did not share the belief that knowledge about Judaism and Zionism would lead to solidarity. Influenced by 19th-century Polish Positivism, he perceived this intensive introspection as an immediate danger of seclusion and parochialism. Instead, he proposed to follow the European trend of producing a general encyclopedia that would hopefully place the Zionist movement among the nations that provided a bright future of science and progression. Sokolow was, in that regard, an old vanguard of Haskalah that perceived education and literacy as primary objectives to any act of national redemption. As mentioned in the previous chapter, a decade earlier, he attacked Ahad Haam’s Otzar ha-Yahadut in various articles. While his critique was partly motivated by personal animosity and the competition between ha-Melitz and ha-Tsfira, it also drew from the ongoing political tension between rival factions in the young nation-

 Ibid. 421.

The Demise of Unity

101

al movement.⁷ Until the mid-1880s, Sokolow adamantly followed the path paved by the first editor of ha-Tsfira. He wished to distribute scientific knowledge to ‘elevate’ the Jews from their backwardness and create the Hebrew language capable of expressing all knowledge. Ha-Tsfira served as a platform for occasional attacks on Hibbat Zion for offering a romantic answer to the Jewish question that could distort the relationships between Jews and their neighbors.⁸ With Goldman, Fridberg, and other maskilim who emigrated from Russia, ha-Tsfira published more positive views about Hibbat Zion. As mentioned, Sokolow also changed his tone regarding the colonization of Palestine. Yet, he continued to attack Hibbat Zion and, particularly, intellectuals affiliated with the movement, whom he described as “careless, rookies, fanatical supporters, and lovers of discord and blasphemous.”⁹ He claimed their writings were blurred by romanticism, serving narrow political interests, and based on insufficient data. Yet, in the 1890s, he focused his criticism on Ahad Haam and his literary circle instead of attacking the whole movement. In a few articles, Sokolow rejected the particularism of Otzar ha-Yahadut and called to adopt a universalistic approach that favored scientific knowledge. Nonetheless, despite past animosities, all Cultural Zionists’ delegates embraced the General Jewish Encyclopedia, and the project seemed to be in good standing from the political aspect. Yet, for a long while, no operative measures were taken, and Sokolow did not mention the project again for more than a year.¹⁰ Only after a group of South African donors, led by a philanthropist named Tworok, encouraged Sokolow to dedicate his time to the encyclopedia and promised to cover the financial expenses did he return to work on the project.¹¹ In the Sixth Zionist Congress, Sokolow declared that he had managed to raise funds, and the work was about to begin. He announced that the project would be non-profit, and that any gains would go directly

 See previous chapter about the rivalry between the Democratic Faction and the Mizrachi over the issue of culture. Ahad Haam have continuously claimed that Sokolow’s attacks are not ideologically motivated rather stemmed from personal jealousy. See Brisman 372– 3 (note 76).  Soffer, Eyn le-Falpel!: Iton ha-Tsefirah ve-ha-Modernizatsyah shel ha-Siah ha-Hevrati ha-Politi.  Nahum Sokolow. Eretz Hemdah: Yediat Glilot Eretz ha-Kodesh al pi Gdoley ha-Tayalim. [in Hebrew] Warsaw: Goldman Publishers, 1885. 4.  It seems though that the Congress allocated a preliminary budget to the project, because in the next congress, Sokolow thanked the delegates for the financial support. See: Kongress Zionisten, “Stenographisches Protokoll Der Verhandlungen Des VI. Zionisten-Congresses in Basel: 1903” (Wien, 1901) 268.  Rumors about Sokolow’s budget have spread around the literary milieus and ranged between a million Swiss Francs to less than 100,000 CHF. Some argued that Sokolow created a hoax. See: “Al Dvar ha-Entsiklopedia”, ha-Zman, September 7, 1903; Brisman, 15.

102

Chapter Three: Decentralization

to fund other Zionist projects.¹² He then distributed among the delegates a 13-page prospectus in German titled “Eine hebräisch Encyklopädia,” where he stated that the encyclopedia would consist of 20 – 25 volumes written by the most notable scholars in each field.¹³ Despite his efforts, Sokolow did not manage to stir public attention. Besides a minor skirmish between the proponent of the Jewish encyclopedia and the all-inclusive encyclopedia supporters, Hebrew newspapers ignored the project.¹⁴ It seemed that the timing was wrong. In the aftermath of the political turmoil surrounding the Uganda Plan, when Hebrew newspapers’ headlines dramatically reported Zionism’s demise, there was no forbearance for a cultural project of this scale. However, with the help of four scholars, Sokolow continued to develop the encyclopedia for more than a year. He appointed Dr. Joseph Meshorer, a chemist, to be the project’s chief editor. Meshorer had a desk at Sokolow’s ha-Tsfira office, which was the center of all activities. Isaac Weinberg (Kozienice, 1878 – Warsaw, 1941), a young scholar of Hebrew and Semitic languages and a Polish Socialist Party member, was hired to help with preliminary work on Jewish topics. Avraham Rosenstein (Nowy Dwór, 1881– 1950), a mathematics student, helped with the administrative work.¹⁵ However, the most crucial recruitment was Shefer, the former secretary of ha-Eshkol, a well-known writer and editor with a rare experience in encyclopedic work. Despite the support of the donors and the administrative work, the project failed to materialize due to Sokolow’s move to Cologne, where he served as the Zionist Organization’s journal editor. Shefer would later describe the project as a “false encyclopedia” and accuse Sokolow of initiating a project with poor prospects. Meshorer, the editor in charge of the project, perceived it as a personal failure; after the cancelation of the encyclopedia, he committed suicide.¹⁶

 Brisman, 16; Kongress Zionisten, “Stenographisches Protokoll Der Verhandlungen Des VI. Zionisten-Congresses in Basel: 1903” (Wien, 1901) 268.  Brisman, 16. The introduction to the prospectus was published in Hebrew in ha-Zman, July 19, 1903.  Ha-Zman, July 26, 1903; Simon Bernfeld, ha-Tsofe, July 19, 1903.  David Tidhar claimed that Yitzhak Gruenbaum, a close associate of Sokolow (and later, a prominent Zionist leader) was one of the editors of the encyclopedia, however, there is no evidence supporting this claim in the biographies of Sokolow. Tidhar, David. Entsiklopedyah le-Halutsey ha-Yishuv u-Bonav. Vol.II (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat rishonim, 1958) 1029.  Florian Sokolow, Mayn Foter, Nahum Sokolov (Tel-Aviv: Farlag Y.L. Perets, 1972). 106 – 8. Sokolow was later accused of taking money intended for the encyclopedia from the Congress’s budget: See Kol Makhzikey ha-Dat, October 22, 1908, 5.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

103

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde A short time after completing the Jewish Encyclopedia, one of its most prolific writers, Julius (Judah David) Eisenstein (Mezeritch, 1854 – New York, 1956), began to publish a Hebrew encyclopedia in New York. Contrary to the projects initiated in Europe, he did not have a donor or a literary society, nor did he have substantial publishing experience. Moreover, the Hebrew readership in the US was small and did not have the encouraging push by maskilic journals. Nevertheless, the project that he named “Otzar Israel,” which, curiously, alluded to Ahad Haam’s Otzar haYahadut, would become the first Hebrew encyclopedia to be complete and was in print for more than 60 years with relative commercial success.¹⁷ To understand the reasons for the success and the circumstances that led to the issuing of a project of this scope in the United States, let us focus on the activity and unique personality of Eisenstein, who was the initiator, editor, and the author of nearly half the entries.¹⁸ Eisenstein was part of the growing Eastern European Jewish society in New York and was an active member of an Orthodox community in the Lower East Side. Born in Poland in 1856, he immigrated to the United States at 18, where he worked at his family’s small sewing workshop for uniforms and workwear. Due to his parent’s separation, he left the family business managed by his mother because he “stood on [his] father’s side.”¹⁹ Since then, Eisenstein occasionally attempted to start his own business, but he proved to be a mediocre businessman as his investments were usually colossal failures that resulted in heavy losses. One of his early enterprises was an attempt to establish an agricultural colony of Eastern European immigrants in South New Jersey. Like similar enterprises in the 1890s, Eisenstein’s colony, which he named after the Biblical town “Mizpeh,” was inspired by newly established Jewish colonies in Palestine and Maurice Hirsch’s colonies in the Americas. However, with a decline in land value, Eisenstein sold his shares to his partners and saved only a fraction of his original investment.²⁰ This combination of a romantic solution to the ‘Jewish question’ and a capitalist initiative designed to bring profit characterized other projects of this sort

 “Otzar Israel” was also the title that Ahiasaf Publishing Company used for religious book section in the 1890s.  Out of the 800 entries in the first two volumes, Eisenstein wrote 379. In later volumes, however, he wrote 30 % to 40 % of the entries.  Eisenstein, Judah David. Otzar Zikhronotai. (New York: Eisenstein, 1929), 53.  Otzar Zikhronotai. 282– 4.

104

Chapter Three: Decentralization

among Jewish immigrant communities in the US.²¹ Unlike Europe and Palestine, lofty ideas in constructing a new Jewish identity were not only philanthropic acts but also stemmed from a desire to generate financial gains. Similarly, Eisenstein’s encyclopedia would combine the two seemingly contradictory principles, at least from the Jewish-European idealists’ point of view. In 1899, Eisenstein went on a journey to Palestine, where he spent a few months touring many of the First Aliya colonies. He was amazed by what he described as a successful ‘transformation’ of European Jews to productive farmers. “The industrious hands of our brothers,” he wrote in his journal, “will bring about the revolution, despite their lack of experience in such tasks.”²² He also expressed his admiration for both the immigrants and the people of the Old Yishuv’s proficiencies in Hebrew. “By the help of the Zionists,” he wrote, “the memories of history will rise as well as the deeds and emotions attached to them.”²³ Eisenstein, who participated earlier in meetings of Hibbat Zion’s chapter in New York and showed empathy to Herzl and Political Zionism, had high hopes for the future of Jewish colonization in Palestine and sought to make business ties with the Yishuv.²⁴ He tried to import wheat and cotton and even inquired about buying land in Petach Tikvah, but none of these attempts materialized.²⁵ Yet for Eisenstein, the Jewish national movement’s most crucial endeavor had been the ‘revival’ of the Hebrew language. Beginning in 1878, he wrote essays and articles for Hebrew journals in Europe, such as ha-Melitz, ha-Megid, and ha-Tsfira, and for a few years, he even served as ha-Tsfira’s correspondent in the United States.²⁶ He also took part in early attempts to publish Hebrew newspapers in the US and co-founded a New York branch of Shokharey Sfat Avar [Enthusiasts of the Ancient Language] an association that advocated the use of everyday Hebrew.²⁷ After the failure of Mizpeh and his return from Palestine, Eisenstein dedicated all of his time to writing and publishing. “In the year 1899,” he wrote in his journal, “I withdrew from my [previous] business and began to devote myself to literature; it is plausible that if my business had been successful, I would not

 Ellen Eisenberg. Jewish Agricultural Colonies in New Jersey: 1882 – 1920 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995).  Otzar Zikhronotai, 90.  Ibid.92.  Ibid. 61.  Ibid. 88 – 90.  Getzel Kressel and Baruch Krupnik (ed.), Genazim: Kovets le-Toledot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ba-Dorot ha-Aharonim, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Agudat ha-sofrim ha-Ivriyim be-Yisrael, 1961). 67.  Ibid. 62– 6.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

105

have immersed myself with literature. I perceive it as divine providence.”²⁸ As the vice president of Beit ha-Midrash ha-Gadol [Great Study House], a prominent Orthodox congregation in the Lower East Side, he was responsible for the institute’s publications in Yiddish and English. Although the Jewish Encyclopedia’s editorial board did not regularly employ Orthodox authors, they invited Eisenstein to contribute several articles due to his experience as a writer and his moderate stances on halakhic issues.²⁹ To counter potential discrepancies between his religious view and the editorial position, Eisenstein wrote entries only about Jewish law where there was no need to discuss Biblical events’ historical accountability or present his theological position. He was one of the most prolific writers of the encyclopedia, as he contributed 159 articles about various halakhic topics. Nonetheless, Eisenstein was critical of several of the editors’ decisions and the level of expertise of some of the authors. In a lengthy article, he complained about how an entry he wrote, “Admission in Evidence,” was edited and criticized other authors for writing what he considered superficial articles. He centered his attack on entries written by two celebrated lawyers, Lewis N. Dembitz (Sieraków, 1833 – Louisville, 1907) and Samuel Mendelsohn (Kovno, 1850 – Wilmington, 1922), claiming that many of the flaws in their writings were a result of the authors’ limited knowledge in rabbinic literature.³⁰ In response to the charges, Dembitz and Mendelsohn argued that the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia sought to use their expertise as lawyers and not as Halakah scholars to explain complicated juristic concepts in simple language.³¹ Eisenstein’s attack and Dembitz and Mendelsohn’s response revealed a common conflict in many modern encyclopedic projects between the proponents of the academic encyclopedia and the promoters of an encyclopedia as a popular referential tool. The former was a product of a wide array of experts in specific fields. It was backed by the advocates of the national encyclopedia (e. g., all former attempts to publish Hebrew encyclopedias). They sought to use the encyclopedia as evidence of the national culture’s ability to express ‘all knowledge.’ The referential encyclopedia, on the other hand, was promoted by educators who sought to develop easy-to-use pedagogical tools. They did

 Otzar Zikhronotay, 53.  Although he was not ordained as a rabbi or pursued higher education in Jewish studies, Eisenstein was an expert-witness in court of halakhic literature, where he supported lenient rulings. Otzar Zikhronotay, 132.  Eisenstein was probably unaware of Mendelsohn’s studies about Jewish law. Mendelsohn served also as a reform rabbi in Virginia and North Carolina. Eisenstein, “Bikoret al ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Anglit”, ha-Ivri (volumes 16 – 18), November 18, 1901. He later republished the article in his autobiography: Otzar Zikhronotay, 320 – 329.  Shuly Rubin Schwartz. 1991. The Emergence of Jewish Scholarship in America, 83.

106

Chapter Three: Decentralization

not want the encyclopedia to employ academic language and argued that it could be a product of any man of letters. Although Singer presented the Jewish Encyclopedia as an academic project, it eventually evolved to become somewhere in between both approaches as the editorial board consisted of leading scholars, but financial and editorial constraints led to the invitation of non-academic writers who wrote most of the entries. However, the biggest obstacle in making the Jewish Encyclopedia an expert-based encyclopedia was a disagreement over the qualifications that constituted the expert’s status. Although the encyclopedia was initially not intended for Orthodox users, the editors sought to consolidate other theological stances and present knowledge suitable for readers of all Jewish denominations in the US. They hoped to bridge theological gaps with meticulous work and a complex blend of writers. The compromise in the expert’s status served the editors’ intention to find an Archimedean point that would help define Jewish American subjectivity. The editors’ attention to the common denominator of American Jewry also carved the target readership’s identity to be based solely on he local Jewish community. Thus, unlike Ahad Haam, the Jewish Encyclopedia editors were not interested in bridging geographical and cultural gaps to form a general Jewish identity but instead offered American Jews a sense of belonging to an ethnic community.³² Eisenstein held a middle ground between Otzar ha-Yahadut and the Jewish Encyclopedia, arguing that the cultural gaps between Europe and the United States should be reduced, even if, at the end of the day, one could not expect the creation of a distinct general Jewish identity. As we shall see later, although his intentions were primarily commercial, in appealing to an elusive global Jewish reader, he inadvertently partnered with Ahad Haam’s vision of making an all-encompassing modern Jewish self. In early 1905, while the work on the Jewish Encyclopedia was still underway, Eisenstein began raising funds for his own encyclopedic project. Together with Zev Hirsch Bernstein (Kudirkos Naumiestis 1847 – Tannersville, 1907), who, thirty years earlier, was the editor of the first Hebrew newspaper in the US, they established the Hebrew Encyclopedia Publishing Company and sold shares of the company after receiving a charter from the State of New York.³³ A year later, they published a sixteen-page prospectus that included forty sample entries and an article that presented their plan and explained the need for a Hebrew encyclopedia in the US. They also announced the completion of the first volume, assembling a cadre of

 Schwartz’s book about the Jewish Encyclopedia describes in detail the process of constructing this carful work of ‘averaging’ the Jewish society.  Brisman, 37.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

107

writers, and a successful sale of $25,000 worth of shares.³⁴ Eisenstein and his partner received the endorsement of Abraham Solomon Freidus (Riga, 1867 – New York, 1923), the custodian of the New York Public Library’s Judaica section, who helped the writers with referential needs. Freidus mentored Eisenstein, who was inexperienced in editorial work, during the preliminary work on the encyclopedia.³⁵

Figure 7: “ha-Yad ha-Hazakah [the strong hand] of Otzar Israel” – Eisenstein promoted his encyclopedia as a comprehensive compendium of all Jewish knowledge by drawing a parallel to Maimonides’ canonical Mishneh Torah, that was also known as “ha-Yad ha-Hazakah” (Introduction to the first volume, Otzar Israel, ii).

Eisenstein’s prospectus included a list of potential contributors composed of people who were largely unknown in European Hebrew literary circles and academic institutes of Jewish studies. Some writers participated in Bernstein’s Hebrew periodical, and others were Orthodox rabbis from various American communities. Eisenstein, however, added the names of two renowned scholars. The first was Gotthard Deutsch (Dolní Kounice, 1859 – Cincinnati, 1921), a professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew Union College, a Reform rabbi, and the section editor for Jewish history (since 1500) in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Deutsch agreed to serve as a chief editor of Otzar Israel alongside Eisenstein and Bernstein. The second was Max Leopold Margolis (Merecz, 1866 – Philadelphia, 1932), a professor of Semitic languages at the University of California in Berkeley. It is unclear what convinced two esteemed scholars to join a project whose publisher professed his reservations about aca Ha-Mizpeh, August 8, 1907. 5 – 6.  Preface to the first volume of Otzar Israel.

108

Chapter Three: Decentralization

demic criticism of the Bible.³⁶ Nonetheless, Eisenstein’s goal of integrating academic scholarship with the encyclopedia became apparent through the involvement of these distinguished contributors. The prospectus presented seventeen sub-sections based on the division of knowledge in Otzar ha-Yahadut and the Jewish Encyclopedia. ³⁷ Like any other alphabetically organized encyclopedia, the division into sub-sections mainly had an administrative purpose. It aided the editorial work by having experts in particular fields in charge of the production of knowledge. To assemble the sub-sections into a single encyclopedia of Jewish knowledge, editors gave much thought to creating a balance between the different fields of knowledge. Hence, Ahad Haam, Singer, and even Goldman paid particular attention to defining the boundaries between sub-sections and nominating suitable experts as editors. Similarly, Eisenstein nominated editors to some of the sub-sections. However, a high turnover of editors and a random selection of entries suggest that he did not completely entrust authority to his editors. Consequently, the choice of the entries was, to no small degree, drawn from Eisenstein’s interests and expertise, and Otzar Israel suffered from an imbalance between different fields of knowledge. For example, a substantial part of the encyclopedia was dedicated to the Talmud, which was Eisenstein’s field of expertise, while medieval history and Haskalah Literature were largely neglected. Curiously, Eisenstein did not link Otzar Israel to a tradition of pre-modern Talmudic encyclopedias as did previous Hebrew encyclopedists. Instead, he declared that his project would follow the path laid by the forbears of the modern all-inclusive encyclopedias:³⁸ The scholars of the eighteenth century have invented encyclopedias, when thoughts prospered and emerged to become numerous disciplines, fields of knowledge had multiplied to the degree that a single man could no longer comprehend all knowledge. They gathered all knowl-

 Deutsch also contributed 30 entries, which were published mostly at the first two volumes.  The sub-sections were Bible, Language and Grammar, Halakah and Tradition, Aggadah, Antiquity Literature in Arabic and its Relation to Hebrew Literature, Greek Philosophy and its Wisdom, Theology and Denominations, Kabala and Hasidic Judaism, Modern Jewish History, History to the Completion of the Talmud, Medieval History, Modern History, History of American Jewry, History of Russian Jewry and Bibliography. Eisenstein used the archaic word “kadmoniut,” which may refer to antiquity, although he would later dedicate a section to History of the Completion of the Talmud.  As mentioned, Goldman, Ahad Haam and others perceived their projects as a link in a chain that began with the Bible, continued with the Mishnah and the Talmud and ended with pre-modern encyclopedias such as the alphabetically organized, eighteenth century Pahad Yitzhak and Seder ha-Dorot.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

109

edge–[that was previously] scattered and separated within the different disciplines–and presented it in short entries, with explanations, and organized it alphabetically to help the reader find whatever he was looking for. Today, all enlightened nations have several encyclopedias. Only we—the people of the book—were the exception, up until now.³⁹

Figure 8: “Conservative. Across the Ocean”—Conservative knowledge produced in America and distributed in Europe (Introduction to the first volume, Otzar Israel, III).

Encyclopedias, according to Eisenstein, were necessary supplements for any modern ‘enlightened nation’ because they organized knowledge and enabled users to navigate within a vast and confusing amount of information offered by the sciences. Unlike the prospectuses of Ahad Haam, which confer the task of resurrecting a dormant national spirit on the encyclopedia, Eisenstein bestowed Otzar Israel with a practical goal of providing referential aid. Yet, despite Eisenstein’s claim of continuing an Enlightenment ethos, Otzar Israel was closer in its themes and rhetoric to pre-modern Talmudic encyclopedias than to the all-inclusive encyclopedia of Diderot and d’Alembert. This was partly due to Eisenstein’s decision to retreat from the scheme of an encyclopedia of all knowledge in favor of Ahad Haam and Singer’s plan of a Jewish encyclopedia. The concept of a Jewish encyclopedia embodied a deep oxymoron because it retained in its very title the seeming contradiction between the universal idea illustrated in the word “encyclopedia” [Circular or general in Latin] and the particularism of the word “Jewish.” Although Otzar Israel

 Ibid. 6.

110

Chapter Three: Decentralization

shared this dissonance with many encyclopedic projects—such as Encyclopedia Americana, Encyclopedia Britannica, Otzar ha-Yahadut, and the Jewish Encyclopedia—Eisenstein made efforts to widen the gap between the two poles even further by abstaining from any critical academic stance over religious issues. Unlike the Jewish Encyclopedia, Eisenstein proposed an encyclopedia that would not only highlight Jewish themes but would also be faithful to the Jewish tradition and would not pursue ‘heretical’ ideas that cast doubt on the Jewish faith. The Jewish Encyclopedia published by Dr. Singer in New York did not fulfill this goal [of being an encyclopedia of an Enlightened nation] because only a few people in our nation speak English. It is also expensive, and above all, we need a Hebrew encyclopedia that will follow the spirit of the Hebrews…⁴⁰

For Eisenstein, Ahad Haam’s critical approach had estranged Jewish readers in the shtetels of the Pale of Settlement and the Jewish neighborhoods of North America. The ‘average Jew,’ he believed, was either an observant Orthodox or a traditionalist who cared deeply about preserving Jewish symbols’ sacred status. Through its conservative approach, Otzar Israel would be the first publication of this scale to gain success among the Jewish masses, who were beyond the reach of maskilic literature. Thus, Eisenstein offered a completely different paradigm than his European predecessors. If Goldman and Sokolow proposed a general encyclopedia for the masses, and Ahad Haam planned a Jewish encyclopedia for a maskilic elite, Eisenstein planned to incorporate the two concepts by offering a populous Jewish encyclopedia. He believed that Jewish knowledge alone could tie together scattered Jewish communities into a more cohesive society that would be rebound together with tradition and faith. Learning from past mistakes of Hebrew encyclopedists, Eisenstein sought to make the content acceptable to all readers of Hebrew, so he took prudent measures not to step on controversial pitfalls. Hoping to attract non-Orthodox readers, Eisenstein invited authors and editors from all Jewish denominations to join the Otzar. In designing the content scheme, he often went beyond the narrow lines that defined Jewish knowledge in rabbinic literature to include history, literature, and ethnography. He also challenged traditional separations between Jewish and general knowledge by having entries that were not particularly Jewish, such as “cat,” “telephone-telegraph,” “chess,” and “Freemasonry.” The last two were written by Eisenstein, an avid chess player and, at the time, a member of a Freemason lodge.⁴¹ He used and sometimes plagiarized the Jewish Encyclopedia as a source for nearly all geographical and bio Ibid.  Otzar Zikhronotay, 66.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

111

graphical entries and many of the articles about Halakah. He also used Heinrich Graetz’s History of the Jews and studies by Moritz Steinschneider, David Cassel, and other German scholars as references to entries about Jewish culture and history. However, Eisenstein applied only traditional rabbinic literature in entries concerning Biblical or Talmudic topics. He explained this approach in the introduction to the first volume: When discussing people and events in the Bible, the Masoretic text would be our only guide because High Criticism⁴² is [like] a baby born that clouds still obscure its future. Even the scholars in this field still have many doubts about it and they frequently disagree with one another in regards to it.⁴³

It did, nonetheless, seem that some of the contributors disagreed with this approach. For instance, the entry “Job,” written by Isaak Wiernikowski (1876 – 1940), was heavily edited by Eisenstein, who omitted all references to scholarly works. That includes Wiernikowski’s own study of aggadic exegesis of the Book of Job.⁴⁴ Eisenstein was particularly displeased with academic work that challenged the traditional order of books in the Bible. In an entry about Biblical Joshua, he attacked scholars advocated for the heuristic inclusion of the Book of Joshua to the corpus of the Torah (Hexateuch). He claimed that “their hope is not to elevate the Book of Joshua, rather demote the sanctity of the Torah.”⁴⁵ In an entry about Ezekiel, he launched an unusual attack against the notion of progress: Christian scholars of the Bible were eager to prove that Ezekiel was written before the Torah, the laws of Ezekiel are older, and the laws of the Torah used Ezekiel as a model. This is the way the “critics” attempt to dismiss the Masoretic Text and crush Judaism by assigning the books of the Torah, which are the foundations of Judaism, to a later period. [But] every attentive reader is familiar with their hatred of religion and contempt of the chosen people and their canon. Unfortunately, some Jewish scholars preach [these ideas] in seminaries and bow their heads to those critics and their studies. Without noticing, they fell into a trap placed by the haters of the Jewish Torah. Apart from tainting the foundations of Judaism, they did not present even the slightest scientific logic. [The reason for that is that] they model their criticism on Darwin’s evolution. Like the derivation of man from the monkey (according to their belief ), so does everything else improves with time: from evil to good and from

 Higher criticism focuses on examining the structure and historical aspects of the Bible. In contrast, “lower criticism” primarily involves the philological analysis of canonical texts to identify errors or discrepancies. Eisenstein described the differences between critical methods of studying the Bible in the long entry “’Criticism of Jewish Canon.’” [Bikoret Kitvey ha-Kodesh] Vol.3. 157– 167.  Otzar Israel, First Volume, Introduction.  Isaak Wiernikowski, Das Buch Hiob: Nach D. Auffassung D. Rabbin. Literatur in D. Ersten 5 Nachchristl. Jh (Berlin: Poppelauer). Isaak Wiernikowski, “Job”, Otzar Israel, First Volume, 253 – 258.  Eisenstein, “Joshua”, Otzar Israel (vol.5) 1911. 83.

112

Chapter Three: Decentralization

harsh to pleasant. And since there is more harshness in Ezekiel than in the Torah, they assumed that it must have been written earlier…⁴⁶

Eisenstein also applied a traditional approach in Halakah and Talmud’s entries, where he used eighteenth-century halakhic encyclopedias, Seder ha-Doroth [Book of Generations], and Pahad Yitzhak for referential guidance. Unlike the openly declared reservation from Higher Criticism of the Bible, Otzar Israel’s introduction did not disclose any reservations from critical studies of the Talmud.⁴⁷ However, the lack of references from academic sources indicates that Eisenstein rejected any critical standpoint on any issues concerning Jewish theology. Despite the rejection of academic research, Eisenstein sought to procure Otzar Israel the status of ‘objective literature’ by adhering to the epistemic standards common to leading European encyclopedias. Most entries had a bibliography, and quotations were followed by exact references. In addition, the Otzar extensively used statistical data, especially in entries concerning Jewish demography, and applied visual aids like graphs and photographs.⁴⁸ Eisenstein also hired a graphic designer who contributed maps and illustrations to several articles, including detailed historical maps of Palestine. He also promised subscribers that he would be attentive to any complaint about mistakes and publish a supplement with corrections while the encyclopedia was still in print. Aware of the many errors that a hasty project like this would have, he gave this sincere announcement at the introduction to the first volume: We know that a book like this could not withstand errors, typos, and even incorrect editorial decisions. Since all we seek is to publish a complete and reliable work, we ask our writers and subscribers to inform us about all errors. We will correct them in the second edition or supplement the following volumes.⁴⁹

 Eisenstein, “Ezekiel”, Otzar Israel, (vol.5) 147. Notice the optimism that Eisenstein assigned for traditional Judaism.  Although Eisenstein did not announce the rejection of academic research as an agenda in the introduction, many of the entries include attacks on scholars of Talmud. For instance, in an entry about Abye, a third century amora, Avraham Haim Razenberg (1840 – 1911) wrote that “Jost [Isaak Markus Jost (Bernburg, 1793 – Frankfurt, 1860)] blames Abye for being a superstitious and follower of popular nonsense, but a critical observation of his writings about ideas and beliefs would show that Jost was not right in his verdict. Razenberg did not explain why Jost was wrong in his judgment.” See also Tawiow on Hed ha-Zman.  See entry “statistics.”  “Introduction”, Otzar Israel, First Volume.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

113

Figure 9: “Pancreas” – combining science and halakhic knowledge. The entry provides an anatomical description and a medical illustration, placed alongside a halakhic discussion on shechita (slaughtering) and kashrut. (Aharon Dabravinski, “Hadra Dehanta”, Otzar Israel, vol. 4, 111).

114

Chapter Three: Decentralization

Eisenstein fulfilled this promise by adding a supplement with corrections to the tenth volume.⁵⁰ The main advantage of the encyclopedia, according to Eisenstein, was that it was objective. Though acknowledging that a handful of inexperienced writers hastily produced his Otzar, he noted that being an outsider to the Hebraists cliques of Europe makes the encyclopedia a reliable source of truth. In fact, Eisenstein bragged that his encyclopedia was more objective than all other attempts to publish a Hebrew encyclopedia because it was a for-profit private initiative that did not rely on donors’ generosity and agendas of Zionist public institutions. In a call to subscribers for support, Eisenstein claimed that he envisioned the Otzar as an independent source of knowledge not committed to anything but the truth: From the start, I decided that the Otzar would stand on its own and would not ask for mercy or support by flattering or writing soft words on behalf of the rich; I would not surrender [myself ] to any school or institution by making them intermediaries between the magnates and me. As those scholars and magnates were known to manipulate information related to them, the knowledge presented [in the book] remained free from such limitations. In general, it is one of the characteristics of the Otzar to limit discussions about living people and restrict praises of the present generation, which only future generations will be able to judge correctly. Nevertheless, those who are rich and want to help the Otzar may consider purchasing multiple subscriptions and donate them to students that cannot afford them. Alexander Jarmulowsky, a banker from New York, who is both wealthy and educated, has done precisely that by paying the publisher 100$ for four complete editions to be sent to four students. The editor and publisher are grateful for his generosity.⁵¹

Eisenstein pointed to an unwritten rule of the genre that an objective encyclopedia must be a private for-profit initiative.⁵² This understanding stemmed from a belief that the free market is a watchdog that prevents bias from taking hold over the publication. The desire for profit placed the potential customer as the only entity accountable to the encyclopedia’s producers. Since the identity of the customers was always vague, and the publisher sought to expand the clientele as much as possible, they tended to refrain from emphasizing qualities that may limit the commercial potentiality of the encyclopedia. On the other hand, Objectivity had been considered the raison d’etre of the genre and a quality that all publishers had highlighted. Although the term was always elusive, the common belief was that objectivity could be attained by applying an accepted rhetoric and avoiding any explicit  The supplement, however, covered only the first six volumes.  “Heara ve-Toda” in, Otzar Israel, Introduction to the fifth volume. Jarmulowsky, also known as the “J.P. Morgan of the Lower East Side.”  For an early test-case of this principle see: Darnton, The Business of Enlightenment: A Publishing History of the Encyclopédie, 1775 – 1800.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

115

connections with a political movement within the stages of production. While epistemology was a historical object that changed over time (and, indeed, this study emphasizes its story), the idea that private ownership was a remedy for impartiality had been a stable rule of objectivity throughout the entire history of the genre. Yet, as ad-hoc institutes, encyclopedias were particularly vulnerable to the influence of public and private interests because they required significant investments over a relatively short time. Publishers like ha-Eshkol sought to reduce expenses by outsourcing content from various encyclopedias and databases. Others, like Ahiasaf, sought to cope with this constant need for cash by establishing a separate company, with its own management and shareholders, devoted exclusively to publishing the encyclopedia. Though external investors expanded the budget, the complicated ownership structure of a business within a business often resulted in conflicts over management and content. At first, Eisenstein, who had no resources, tried to create a similar business model. Shortly after establishing the “Hebrew Encyclopedia Publishing Company” with Bernstein, they began to sell the projects’ shares. Within a few months, however, Eisenstein became the company’s sole owner when the sale of shares fell short of expectations and Bernstein passed away.⁵³ Thereafter, Eisenstein decided to retreat from the complicated financial maneuvers and cut back on spending instead. Unlike past efforts to publish Hebrew encyclopedias, he did not set up offices overseas and did not pay copyright to Bruckhaus. Rather than employing distinguished scholars, his writing team was modest and primarily composed of amateurs who received modest compensation.⁵⁴ Despite the lack of patronage and the embracement of the rhetoric of ‘objectivity,’ the Otzar often presented crude generalizations in service of a traditional theological agenda. This was particularly evident in entries about non-Jewish themes, where facts were presented without apparent basis. For example, in the entry ‘Cat,’ Eisenstein wrote, “the cat has venom, but it is far less dangerous than the snake.” To explain the hostility of the Talmud toward cats, he observed a historical rupture in the domestic animal’s temperament: “during the time of the Talmud, cats were harmful pests, especially the black ones.”⁵⁵ The encyclopedia also contained numerous mistakes and typos. For example, the English novelist Grace Aguilar (Hackney, 1816 – Frankfurt, 1847) was described as “a writer of stories of the Jewish people’s history and faith.” However, she was primarily known  Brisman 37– 8.  Asher C Oser. “When an American Jew Produced: Judah David Eisenstein and the First Hebrew Encyclopedia.” PhD diss. (New York, NY: Bernard Revel Graduate School. Yeshiva University, 2020) 52 (n 24), 100 – 1.  “‫”חתול‬, Otzar Israel, vol. 4, 318.

116

Chapter Three: Decentralization

for her historical novels about English society.⁵⁶ An entry about Plato described him as “a philosopher, the first Greek thinker.”⁵⁷ The article about Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg (Speyer, 1150 – Regensburg, 1217) stated that he traveled to Palestine to visit Joseph Karo (Toledo, 1488 – Safed, 1575) even though the two lived three centuries apart.⁵⁸ An entry about the first Siget Rebbe, Yekusiel Yehuda Teitelbaum (Drohobych, 1808 – Siget, 1883), claimed that “at the end of his life he traveled to the Land of Israel to assume the position of chief of the Jewish court in Safed, where he died in 1891.” However, he never traveled to Palestine but died in Siget.⁵⁹ To the entry “Air,” Eisenstein added the following statement: “Natural scientists found that Jews can adapt to any climate better than any other nation.”⁶⁰ Despite Eisenstein’s claim that the editors would be cautious when dealing with current events, living people, or controversial theological issues, he often used Otzar Israel to promote specific political agendas. In the entry ‘Enticement to Idolatry’ [Mesit u-Mediakh], for instance, he wrote the following passage: …at the beginning of the twentieth century, young Russian ‘maskilim’—and among them, some ‘old-young’ [maskilim]—discussed national and Zionist questions for which they found answers by praising and elevating him [Jesus Christ] to the status of God’s prophet. Shmuel Yosef Ish Horowicz made such arguments in ha-Shiloakh volume 4, 1904, in a long article titled “About the Question of Jewish Existence.” But the title [is used] only to blind [the readers] while the author’s primary purpose is to [convince the readers to] abandon the Jewish faith. Articles like this are frequent in ha-Shiloakh and he-Atid (volume 3, 1911, an article about the same topic). A similar idea can be found in the journal ha-Poel ha-Tzair, published in Jaffa by revolutionary Zionists, [a movement] of which we can all say, “ye entered, ye defiled My land, and made My heritage an abomination” [Jeramiah 2, 7– 8.] They are enticing young friends to leave their fathers’ faith and bow down to the God of the Christians… But there is no need to attack them because they are rare, and their readers are scarce… In any case, these young people have already lost the spirit of the Jews, and [therefore] it would be better if they were rejected and thrown outside instead of having them inside.⁶¹

 “‫ גרייס‬,‫”אגילאר‬. Vol.1. 120.  “‫”אפלטון‬. Vol.2. 170.  The writer confused Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg with Judah he-Hasid (Siedlce, 1660 – Jerusalem, 1700) who shared with Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg the same nickname [Judah the Pious]. But the information given in the entry is not accurate also in regard to the seventeenth century Judah he-Hasid as he was born nearly a century after the death of Karo. See “‫יהודה‬ "‫החסיד‬, vol. 5. 66.  “‫”טייטלבאום‬. Vol. 5. 21.  Eisenstein, “‫”אוויר‬, Otzar Israel, vol.1, 177.  Vol.6, 260. See responses to the entry: Haim Tchernovich (Rav Tsair), “Giluy Daat”, ha-Tsfira, September 7 1913, 4. See also: Israel Cohen, “Shalom Asch Skirmish”, a meeting at the Writer Association, 1953, http://benyehuda.org/cohen_Israel/havxanot_15.html.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

117

In several other entries (e. g., ‘Bund’ and ‘Reform Judaism’), Eisenstein attacked socialism, communism, and other radical trends while, on the other hand, he showed his support for ‘political’ and ‘active’ Zionism (i. e., ‘Herzl’ and ‘Menachem Ussishkin’). In addition to political and religious conservatism, Eisenstein chose a language no longer found in modern Hebrew literature. The grammar, syntax, and style of Otzar Israel were that of 19th-century rabbinic literature. Unlike the encyclopedic projects of Goldman, Ahad Haam, and Sokolow, Otzar Israel did not present innovations in Hebrew vocabulary because Eisenstein did not perceive it as a linguistic pathbreaker. Furthermore, Otzar Israel focused on Halakhic matters that already had well-established terminology; therefore, neologies were not in great demand. The Otzar also preferred the grammar and phonetics of Talmudic Hebrew over that of Biblical Hebrew. By doing so, Eisenstein went against maskilic Hebraists who perceived the Bible’s Hebrew as the ‘original’ Hebrew and sought to eradicate the Aramaic and other ‘foreign’ influences for Hebrew grammar and vocabulary. Phonetically it meant that Otzar Israel adhered to specific orthographic models such as the masculine plural final of n’ instead of the Biblical m’ (as in ,‫סימוכין‬ ‫)נישואין‬⁶² and the Aramaic feminine singular final a’ instead of h’ (as in the word encyclopedia: ‫)אנציקלופדיא‬. In terms of grammar, the encyclopedia followed the analytic construct, common in rabbinic literature, of long and complicated sentences with multiple subordinate clauses (hypotaxis). Yet, the influence of Haskalah literature could still be traced through close reading in the use of passive verbs (‫)התפעל‬⁶³ or the use of certain Biblical words and expressions (e. g., the use of present “was not” "‫ "איננו‬as opposed to the Talmudic “‫)”אינו‬.⁶⁴ Curiously, Eisenstein used the Common Era (CE/BCE) when referring to dates. This brought some criticism from conservative readers, so in the introduction to the fifth volume, he added the following disclaimer: [We use the Common Era] as a direct consequence of the frequent use of the Christian Calendar by our readers, and [therefore] it would allow them to reduce the time spent on thinking [while using the encyclopedia] because there is no reason to make calculations regarding the thousands [of years] as with the Calendar of Creation;⁶⁵ by using these numbers there is

 See for instance: "‫"נישואין‬: Bernar Illowy, vol.1, 276; "‫"קידושין‬: “Ishut”, vol.1, 312.  See: “to be mourned [by someone]” (‫)להתאבל‬: “Av Beit Din”, vol.1, 6; “was found” (‫)התגלה‬: “Etchmiadzin”, vol.1, 249.  The mishnaic form is “‫”אינו‬: “Italy”, vol.1, 264.  Eisenstein referred to the discrepancies between the official Jewish calendar that present the year from the time of creation (e. g., ‫ = התשע"ד‬5774) and the commonly used abbreviation (e. g., ‫=תשע"ד‬774).

118

Chapter Three: Decentralization

no danger of heresy because it is not particularly Christian since it is referring to the Kingdome of Rome as in the Seleucid Era…⁶⁶

By referring to the Common Era as an easier way to organize Jewish history, Eisenstein revealed his readers’ lack of proficiency in Jewish matters. After the publication of the first volume, the Hebrew Encyclopedia Publishing Company went bankrupt. The Otzar, which had less than 550 subscribers, failed to reach the numbers of other encyclopedic projects, such as The Jewish Encyclopedia (6,000 subscribers) and even the less ambitious ha-Eshkol (800 subscribers.)⁶⁷ The sales were disappointing because both The Jewish Encyclopedia and ha-Eshkol were commercial failures; thus, Otzar Israel’s publishers knew in advance that their goal was to reach thousands of subscribers. Despite the loss, Eisenstein did not give up and continued to develop the project. As noted, he bought all company shares and continued to finance the project alone. To stimulate sales, he changed the marketing tactics by spending more on advertising in Jewish newspapers and, from the second volume on, by listing all subscribers’ names at the end of each volume. The list of names symbolically turned the encyclopedia customers into benefactors of a worthwhile project and allowed Eisenstein to present proof of growing sales. He indeed managed to increase the number of subscribers to 1,500 before issuing the tenth volume. Although it was far below the sales of the Jewish Encyclopedia and the estimations made by Ahad Haam for Otzar ha-Yahadut, the steady growth in sales of Otzar Israel was an achievement because the acclaimed Jewish Encyclopedia already occupied the market and Hebrew readers in the United States were scarce. Eisenstein’s relative success was mainly the result of aggressive marketing. Instead of selling the encyclopedias in bookstores, he contacted libraries, universities, and private customers and employed independent sales agents. He also asked the writers to join the sales effort, asking them to find agents and offer a subscription plan to their acquaintances.⁶⁸ In an effort to expand his readership, Eisenstein sought to enhance the quality of content by calling on well-known writers and renowned intellectuals to join the cadre of authors. As mentioned, most of the contributors to the first volume were autodidacts unknown in Jewish studies or within Hebrew literary circles. However, in the second volume, Otzar Israel boasted the names of esteemed scholars in its list of authors. Eisenstein managed to attract European intellectuals like Micha  It seems that Eisenstein’s explanation did not appease the critics as he added a more elaborated explanation to the addendum of the 10th volume. Introduction to the Fifth Volume, Otzar Israel.  See list of subscribers at the introduction of the second volume; “The Jewish Encyclopedia”, The Spectator, August 17, 1901. 18; Schwartz, 61.  Osher, 113.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

119

Josef Berdyczewski, the orientalist Wilhelm Bacher (Liptovský Svätý Mikuláš, 1850 – Budapest, 1913), the Hungarian Talmudists Lajos Blau (Putnok, 1861 – Budapest, 1936), the scholar of rabbinic literature, Meir Friedmann (also known by his Hebrew name ‘Ish-Shalom’; Kraszna, 1831 – Vienna, 1908), and the Polish expert of Karaism, Samuel Abraham Poznański (Lubraniec, 1864 – Warsaw, 1921). He also recruited notable American thinkers such as the Talmudist Jacob Zallel Lauterbach (Monasterzyska, 1873- Cincinnati, 1942), the renowned Talmudist Louis Ginzberg (Kovno, 1873 – New York, 1953), and Henry Malter (Zabno, 1867 – Philadelphia, 1925), a professor of oriental studies and Judeo Arabic literature at the Hebrew Union College. Eisenstein also managed to bring in some promising young scholars, for whom the Otzar was their first opportunity to present themselves to a wide non-academic readership. Bernard Revel (Prieni, 1885 – New York, 1940), for example, was an Orthodox rabbi and later the president of Yeshiva University, and Umberto Cassuto (Florence, 1883 – Jerusalem, 1951), a rabbi in Florence who would later become an authority in Bible Studies, both published their first non-academic articles in the Otzar. In his efforts to globalize the encyclopedia, Eisenstein recruited writers from places that did not normally partake in previous collaborative works of this magnitude. For example, Naphtali E. Roby (Cochin, 1863-?), historian of Jewish communities in Cochin, and Abraham Isaac Kook (Dineburg, 1865 – Jerusalem, 1935), who was at the time a rabbi in Jaffa contributed articles. He even managed to add influential maskilim, such as the historian Albert Harkavy (also known as Abraham Yakovlevich; Novogrudok, 1835 – Petrograd, 1919), Nahum Slouschz (Odesa, 1872 – Gederah, 1966), the historian Isaac Markon (1875 – 1949), and Yehudah Leib Katzenelson (also known by the pseudonym Buki ben Yogli; Chernigov, 1846 – Petrograd, 1917), who, as we shall see later, concurrently served as the editor of the Jewish encyclopedia in Russian.⁶⁹ Even though most of these scholars contributed only a handful of entries, while Eisenstein and his close associates continued to assume most of the burden of writing and editing, the names of notable scholars adorned the Otzar with academic recognition. As a result, universities, libraries, and research institutes purchased the encyclopedia.⁷⁰ However, the most significant commercial change Eisenstein sought to introduce was turning the encyclopedia into a global commodity. He hoped to extend commerciality by appealing to overseas markets, particularly that of Hebrew read-

 Others–like, Moritz Steinschneider and his student George Alexander Kohut—declined Eisenstein’s invitation. See: Brisman, 386 – 7 (n.67).  Yeshivas and Jewish academic institutes of all denominations bought the encyclopedia. The libraries of Yale and New York University were the only subscribers of the first edition among American universities, but several research institutes and universities in England and Central Europe purchased its first edition.

120

Chapter Three: Decentralization

ers in Europe. At first, he refrained from characterizing the exact identity of the European Hebrew reader. Eisenstein appeared to strive for universal appeal, advertising in both maskilic press and newspapers of Orthodox communities and calling on writers from all Jewish denominations to join the project. Thus, inadvertently and for purely commercial reasons, he hoped to implement Ahad Haam’s vision of a book suitable to Jews across geographical boundaries. But unlike the Cultural Zionist’s vision, Eisenstein did not seek to create a new national Jew but instead sought to reach a traditional Jew. In the last volumes of the Otzar, the publisher’s image of its readers’ conservative identity became more apparent when the encyclopedia turned more critical toward Haskalah, Reform Judaism, and Cultural Zionism. The decision to target overseas customers and rebranding the encyclopedia as a conservative publication proved to be a wise one. After taking complete control of the publishing company, Eisenstein managed to increase the sales outside the US from 15 % of the total sales of the first two volumes to around 50 % from the publication of the fourth volume forward.⁷¹ At first, Eisenstein directly contacted customers from Europe, Australia, Palestine, and North Africa who bought the encyclopedia from the New York office for $1.50 per volume.⁷² However, most of the sales were made by local agents, who often received the encyclopedia as ‘raw material’ of folio prints that they had to cut and bind in local printing houses. In return, agents were given exclusive rights to distribute the encyclopedia within a defined geography and complete independence in everything related to marketing and pricing. For example, Eisenstein sold 700 unbound copies of the first volume to Shalkovich’s Tushiya Publishers, who gained exclusivity rights to distribute Otzar Israel in Russia and Poland.⁷³ However, his investment turned out to be a devastating failure after Shalkovich was left with most of the stock during WWI and could not repay Eisenstein. Only after the war was the debt settled when Shalkovich was forced to pay Eisenstein part of the sum by a U.S. court order.⁷⁴ Otzar Israel was far more successful in Austro-Hungary, where the publishers of ha-Mitzpeh, a Galician weekly of the religious-Zionist movement, held distribution rights

 Based on the lists of subscribers attached to each volume.  Ha-Mizpeh, 22 November 1906.  Shalkovich offered the first volume for 5.5 rubles or a full subscription for 50 rubles, but after he realized that he would not be able to bind the books in Warsaw due to technical problems, he advertised an unbound edition for 4.5 rubles. Ha-Zman 11 September 1907; Haynt, 29 October 1908. 5. Unbind edition see: Haynt, 21 November 1908. 4; Haynt, 2 December 1908, 4.  In 1921, the dispute was settled in a court order in the US that ordered Shalkovich to pay Eisenstein $450 which, according to Eisenstein, was half of the actual worth. Otzar Zikhronotay 114– 115.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

121

and sold more than a hundred encyclopedias despite their high cost (double the price of the encyclopedia in the US).⁷⁵ Despite Eisenstein’s attempts to rebrand the encyclopedia as a global object suitable to all Hebrew readers, the press and the general public referred to it as a conservative American publication. The efforts to obscure the encyclopedia’s place of origin fell short when European sales agents emphasized its American identity to highlight its aesthetic qualities of printing and binding. The publisher’s American roots were also an essential issue in many of the review articles written about the Otzar, in which the reviewers used Eisenstein’s identity to praise or disqualify the encyclopedia. Indeed, none of the critique articles was impartial, as everyone took sides in what seemed to be a renewed battle between the proponents of tradition and advocates of Haskalah. Although the conflict between tradition and modernity had a long history in most Jewish communities around the world, it remained primarily a regional matter that touched on issues concerning community life and local identity. However, the literary tension surrounding Otzar Israel was a rare confrontation between ideological rivals on both sides of the Atlantic. The boundary between condemnation and acclaim roughly overlapped with the line between Reform and non-observant, on the one hand, and Orthodox commentators, on the other hand. It also had a geographical dimension as the book was a critically acclaimed and commercial success in the United States and Central Europe but was a complete failure in Poland and Russia. Religious newspapers such as ha-Mitzpeh, Moriah, and ha-Modiaa and American journals such as haLeom, Yidishes Tageblat, and Der Morgen Zshurnal endorsed Otzar Israel in several articles that commended the achievement of Eisenstein. Eisenstein’s initiative unified the rival Zionist newspapers ha-Tsfira, ha-Zman, and ha-Shiloakh to attack what they perceived as mediocre American scholarship. This East versus West rift was mainly due to different perceptions of the nature and scope of Jewish subjectivity and the role of language in designing a collective identity. If Russian Hebraists sought to ‘invent’ modern Hebrew in order to establish a new national culture, Orthodox Hebraists in Western Europe and the United States aspired to ‘return’ to tradition in the hope of bolstering Jewish religious identity in a reality of assimilation and secularization. Therefore, American Hebraists like Eisenstein wanted to preserve a religious sub-identity alongside the national identity of the broader society in which they lived. They perceived Otzar Israel as an attempt to define their community within the cultural federation that existed in the United States. As such, it was radically different from Ahad

 Each volume cost 15 krone, which was equivalent to 3$; twice as much as in the US. See; ha-Mizpeh, 16 December 1909.

122

Chapter Three: Decentralization

Haam’s idea of using encyclopedic knowledge to make a new national Jew because it aimed to regress to an imaginary form of tradition and perceived religion as a convenient construct that would not threaten their American national identity. Zionist reviewers from Eastern Europe attacked what they saw as the conservative perspective of the Otzar, especially the use of archaic Hebrew and the absence of academic criticism and scientific research in its bibliographies. For instance, the lexicographer and editor Abraham Solomon Waldstein (Jonava, 1874 – Tel Aviv, 1932) published a review of Otzar Israel’s volumes I and II, where he attacked what he condemned as the last remnant of early maskilic literature. He argued that the editor used complex wording and had a particular fondness for polemics, which was unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Waldstein also accused Eisenstein of portraying Jewish history from what he described as an anachronistic American perspective. For example, in an entry about the early Christian movement “Ebionites,” he opposed Eisenstein’s decision to define the group as a sect: This definition could only be created by the mind of someone who lives in New York, the American metropolis – a place where every political, social, and ethical idea turns immediately into a sect or an association with public meetings. The entry writer used a twentiethcentury American concept of a social corporation and installed it into Jewish history.⁷⁶

Waldstein, who at the time resided in New York but had close ties with Eastern European literary circles, concluded his review by stating that Eisenstein’s claim that the book would contribute to the new Hebrew culture was nothing more than a cynical marketing slogan.⁷⁷ “In short, Otzar Israel,” he argued, “is a pure ‘American commodity.’ It was initiated, [therefore,] not from a sincere intention to fill a lacuna in Hebrew literature or a desire to create a book that would supplement the nation’s property.”⁷⁸ Similarly, Israel Chaim Tawiow (Druja, 1858 – Riga, 1920), a witty publicist and translator from Riga, wrote a series of reviews against the encyclopedia where he attacked the overall quality of the articles and the credentials of the writers. He also accused Eisenstein of shattering the hopes of maskilim for a proper Hebrew encyclopedia:⁷⁹

 Abraham Solomon Waldstein, “Otzar Israel”, ha-Shiloakh 19 (1908), 66.  Waldstein immigrated around the same time to Palestine as a member of Poaley Zion.  Ibid. 70. Perhaps the harshest reaction to Otzar Israel was that of Ahad Haam who described it as a “wave of rubbish” in a personal letter to Dubnow. See: Ben Zion Katz, “Od Bidvar Otzar haYahadut,” ha-Zman, 11 May 1913, 3.  Tawiow, “Otzar Israel”, Hed ha-Zman, October 12, 1907, 1– 2; Tawiow, “Od al ha-Entsiklopedya haIvrit”, ha-Tsfira, February 12, 1912.

American Conservatism as Zionist Avant Garde

123

Four or five years ago, when the first volume of a Hebrew encyclopedia titled “Otzar Israel” was published, I had to write against this work of laziness to warn about a danger posed by the land of humbug and to crush it at birth, before the epidemic spreads further; Because it is devastating that a Hebrew encyclopedia—which was eagerly anticipated by Hebrew writers for many years and was considered an essential resource for maskilim—fell to the businessoriented hands of lazy American scribblers. Since our people do not have the time and are not knowledgeable enough to understand Halakhic nuances, book-sellers hand them this American ’Otzar of Darkness’ as a Hebrew encyclopedia. Hebrew maskilim’s hope would vanish for many years, perhaps forever, because the small Hebrew readership would not use two encyclopedias. Since this encyclopedia will take over the book market, there will not be additional room for a fair and dissent encyclopedia.⁸⁰

Like Waldstein, Tawiow claimed that the reason for Otzar Israel’s mediocre quality lay in the fact that it was initiated and issued in the US, a place where Hebrew publishers were motivated only by a willingness to gain profits, and literature was not a product of true inspiration as in the defunct encyclopedic projects initiated in Warsaw and Odessa. Eisenstein, who was deeply insulted by Tawiow’s review, replied in two lengthy articles where he argued in defense of the encyclopedia. Curiously, Eisenstein, like his critics, stressed the differences between Russian and American Jewish scholarships. Yet, for Eisenstein, it was not an epistemological difference that set his project apart from Goldman and Ahad Haam, but the publisher’s inability to finance a project of this scale and the hostile atmosphere in which Eastern European debates about Hebrew literature were taking place.⁸¹ He made similar claims on the printed pages of the encyclopedia, like this incidental note that appeared in the introduction to the second volume: Lately, those who work in Hebrew literature have noticed the need for a book of this kind. But the scholars who attempted [to publish it] have all failed due to financial problems… and indeed, the Europeans are not qualified to publish a work of this magnitude…⁸²

In later volumes, Eisenstein used his encyclopedia to launch harsher counterattacks against the encyclopedia’s critics. In a supplement to the last volume, he rejected reviews that labeled the encyclopedia as a non-scientific publication: There are some juvenile critics of the Otzar, but we should not be bothered by them because they claim that the Bible and rabbinic literature are not worthy as their own opinions, essays,

 Tawiow, “Od Al ha-Entsiklopedya ha-Ivrit”, ha-Tsfira, February 12, 1912.  Eisenstein, “Tshuva le-Mevaker Otzar Israel”, ha-Modiaa, May 16, 1912; Eisenstein, “Tshuva leMevaker Otzar Israel”, ha-Modiaa, May 20, 1912.  “Introduction”, Otzar Israel, First Volume.

124

Chapter Three: Decentralization

and translations of books like those of Tolstoy and others. Those critics have a latent hostility toward the Otzar for its support of Jewish tradition. [A support] that, in their opinion, is “nonscientific,” [while] those who reject the Bible and the Talmud are real scientists. Those young adolescents were brought up in [an environment of ] political and spiritual revolution. It is an infectious disease. But soon, it will vanish from the face of the earth.⁸³

Eisenstein’s emotional language signaled the final dissolution of the concept of the encyclopedia as a catalyst for cultivating a comprehensive Jewish identity. Despite attempts to brand it as a global commodity, the editor of the encyclopedia produced content that suited mostly the taste of conservative American readers. Eisenstein often mentioned topics concerning American lifestyle and culture, particularly that of the urban middle class. Yet more than the encyclopedia was an observation of current American society; it was a romantic attempt to observe premodern Jewish tradition. Despite rare allusions to contemporary Jewish politics and culture, the vast majority of the entries were about theology, religious practice, and Jewish ‘deep history.’ This empathic look backward to Judaism before the ‘interruptions’ of modernity was Eisenstein’s perception of a unified Jewish subject. Instead of offering a pathway to a new Jewish nation, as previous encyclopedists did, he provided his readers with harmony by returning to the golden age of tradition. For the critics, Eisenstein’s encyclopedia was nothing more than an American illusory of a fundamentalist utopia that Eastern European readers, who had experienced dramatic social changes and frequent political upheavals, could no longer imagine.

Worshipping the Present: A Russian Opposition to the National Utopia After the publication of the Jewish Encyclopedia and Otzar Israel, the idea that the encyclopedia should appeal only to a local Jewish readership became a convention as other publishers worldwide attempted to produce and market a local version of the genre. During the first decades of the 20th century, regional Jewish encyclopedias began to appear in Europe and Latin America in the local vernacular to reach a large readership. The editors of these encyclopedias tried to distinguish the local community from other Jewish communities by emphasizing its unique history and tradition. Despite the shelving of pan-Jewish encyclopedic vision and the local Jewish encyclopedia’s success, the similarities between many local projects were significant  “Tikunim ve-Hearot le-Otzar Israel”, addendum to vol.10. 1.

Worshipping the Present: A Russian Opposition to the National Utopia

125

both in terms of the epistemic structure and in terms of design and marketing. One of the reasons for the remarkable resemblance is that the Jewish Encyclopedia served as a model for publishers worldwide. They realized the American encyclopedia as a model for creating a thematic structure, building a business model, and sometimes even as a source of knowledge from which articles were translated directly. And so, despite the declared attempt to produce distinctively local publications, the Jewish encyclopedias of the period were an expression of the cross-border connections of Jewish intellectuals and cooperation between political and cultural organizations. One of the first projects that emerged from the Jewish Encyclopedia was the sixteen-volume Evreiskaia entsiklopedia [Jewish Encyclopedia] in Russian. The project was initiated by a group of Jewish scholars from Petersburg who sought to develop an encyclopedia that would be both a source of Jewish knowledge accessible to those not versed in English or Hebrew and a potent stimulator of research about the history and folklore of Russian Jewry. After the violence of the 1905 Revolution abated, leading scholars—among them Dubnow and Harkavy—established the Jewish Ethnographic Society that called for studying Jewish society and culture in the Pale of Settlement.⁸⁴ Most of the members also took an active part in the Society for the Promotion of Culture among the Jews of Russia and regularly contributed to the now-defunct Voskhod and the popular weekly Rassvet. ⁸⁵ Through their activity in these institutions, they sought to highlight Russian Jewry’s unique attributes and, simultaneously, improve Jewish education in what they perceived as underdeveloped Jewish communities of the Pale of Settlement. They also aspired for a political reorganization of the Czarist Empire as a multi-national empire with a degree of cultural autonomy for the Jews. The general uproar following the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and the 1905 Revolution provided an opportunity for Jewish scholars in Petersburg to set forth their claims. They did not call for establishing a radically different political and social order—as advocated by socialist intellectuals—or creating a distinct Jewish culture—as nationalist intellectuals had promoted. Instead, they aspired for cultural autonomy for the world’s largest Jewish community, while simultaneously increasing the level of acculturation by adopting Russian as the language

 Other major scholars who took part in establishing the Society, were Josif Hessen (Odessa, 1866New York, 1943), Saul Ginsburg (Minsk, 1866 – New York, 1940), and Israel Zinberg (Volhynia, 1873Vladivostok, 1939). See: Marcel Neubauer John Cornis-Pope, History of the Literary Cultures of EastCentral Europe : Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Vol. 2 Vol. 2 (Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2006). 198.  The previous chapter discusses more about the agenda of the Voskhod.

126

Chapter Three: Decentralization

of high culture and science.⁸⁶ The intense preoccupation with culture was not limited to the literary circles of Petersburg, as from the middle of the 19th century, it was a buzzword in European national discourse and, particularly, in discussions on issues concerning minorities. This was especially true in Eastern European Jewish political thought, where the solutions to Jewish society’s various problems were mainly from the realm of culture.⁸⁷ But the idea of creating cultural autonomy for the Jews within the Russian Empire was expressed predominantly within the narrow circles of Petersburg’s Jewish journals in Russian. Their articles and activities dealt extensively with defining the boundaries of autonomy, opting for appropriate knowledge, and establishing research and teaching institutions that will produce and disseminate the knowledge. The Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, so they hoped, would mediate between research institutions and the masses, who were not regular readers of literary journals. Considering previous failures in executing projects of this sort, Dubnow and his associates’ choice of issuing a book that was expensive and complicated to produce was not a trivial matter. Unlike the literary circles of Ahad Haam and Sokolow, however, the Petersburg Autonomists had a significant technical advantage as among their members was the most successful Russian publisher of encyclopedias and lexicons. Ilia Efron (Vilna, 1847- Petrograd, 1917), the Brockhaus-Efron publishing house founder, was a leading publisher of translated belles-lettres and reference works, including a popular science periodical, a historical lexicon, and the eighty-six volumes Encyclopedic-Dictionary Brockhaus-Efron. ⁸⁸ Efron planned to print the encyclopedia under standards hitherto unknown in the European Jewish book market using high-quality paper, illustrations, maps, and photographs. Yet, the budget needed for the project was estimated at 90,000 rubles, and subscribers alone would not cover the encyclopedia’s costs. Thus, Efron and the Ethnographic

 More about that in: Jeffrey Veidlinger, Jewish Public Culture in the Late Russian Empire (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2009).  Vladimir Levin, “The Jewish Socialist Parties in Russia in the Period of Reaction”, in Stefani Mendelsohn Ezra Hoffman, The Revolution of 1905 and Russia’s Jews (Philadelphia, Penn.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). 119 – 123; David Aberbach, Jewish Cultural Nationalism : Origins and Influences (London; New York: Routledge, 2008). 76 – 100.  Jeffrey Veidlinger argued that Efron was the initiator of the project while Shimeon Brissman argues that it was the Association of Ethnography. According to Dubnow’s testimoney, it seems that Brisman was right. See Dubnow to Ahad Haam, September 13, 1907. See: Simon Dubnow Simon Rawidowicz, Sefer Shimon Dubnov: Maamarim, Igrot (London; Waltham, Mass.: Hotsaat Erret, 1954). 263 – 4; Jeffrey Veidlinger, “”Emancipation: See Anti-Semitism:” The Evreiskaia Entsiklopediia and Jewish Public Culture,” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 9 (2010). 405 – 426; Shimeon Brisman, A History and Guide to Judaic Encyclopedias and Lexicons (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1987). 40 – 3.

Worshipping the Present: A Russian Opposition to the National Utopia

127

Society hoped to gather the necessary sums through fundraising in Eastern Europe.⁸⁹ Although the fundraising was not a success, the project was rescued when the Günzburg family decided to fund the production of the first volumes. The wealthy family of financiers contributed to numerous Jewish philanthropic projects with the purpose of educating the Jewish masses, promoting acculturation, and providing legal defense in times of crisis. Joseph Günzburg (1812, Vitebsk – 1878, Paris) founded the Society for the Promotion of Culture among the Jews, and his son, Horace (Zvenigorodka, 1833 – Petersburg, 1909), co-founded a network of vocational teaching and training institutions in the Pale of Settlement (later known as ORT.) However, after the 1905 Revolution, the family began to support liberal political parties and Jewish academic studies. This was in line with the 1906 “Temporary Regulations and Societies and Unions,” which allowed minority groups to establish a public association that highlighted national attributes.⁹⁰ Therefore, Horace’s son, David (Kamyanets-Podilsky, 1857 – Petersburg, 1910), diverted some of the support from philanthropy to the advancement of the ‘underprivileged’ to support high art, research, and liberal political movements. With the money of the Günzburgs, the Association assembled an editorial board that consisted of scholars from different political affiliations. The board then invited scholars to join the cadre of authors from circles of Bundists, Yiddishists, Russian socialists, and even Zionists like Ahad Haam and.⁹¹ Yet, most people on the initial list of editors and writers were local to Petersburg, and only a few had a background in Jewish studies. The attempt to bring together all political avenues of Russian Jewry to produce a Jewish encyclopedia in Russia raised Ahad Haam’s suspicions that the project was an apologetic act aimed at demonstrating the loyalty of Jews to Russia by discarding national tendencies. “The editorial board composition made me realize that this [project] does not have the ‘spirit,’ and the initiators’ sole goal is to present the beauty of Judaism for the gentiles and their leaders.”⁹² Ahad Haam, therefore, rejected an extraordinarily generous offer to be appointed deputy editor and demanded that the board would not imply that there was a linkage between Evreiskaia and Otzar ha-Yyahadut. ⁹³

 “Berusia”, ha-Shkafh, November 6, 1906.  Veidlinger, “”Emancipation: See Anti-Semitism:” The Evreiskaia Entsiklopediia and Jewish Public Culture.” 406 – 7.  Klausner. Darki Likrat ha-Tekhiya, (1955) 184– 5.  See: Dubnow to Ahad Haam. December 4, 1906, in Rawidowicz, Sefer Shimon Dubnov; Maamarim, Igrot. 259 – 260; Ahad Haam to Dubnow, December 27, 1906. Igrot vol.4, 77.  Dubnow tried to convince Ahad Haam to join the project by promising him a large salary: up to 3,000 rubles a year, 1,200 rubles only to be an editor of a sub-section 2,500 rubles to every print

128

Chapter Three: Decentralization

The Association chose Mikhail Kulisher (1847- Petrograd, 1919), a prominent lawyer with interest in Jewish ethnography, as chief editor. However, shortly after, the editorial board claimed that Kulisher did not have a proper Jewish studies background and nominated Dubnow and Yehuda Leib Katzenelson, a physician and a Hebrew writer, to the position.⁹⁴ One of the first decisions that Dubnow and Katzenelson made was to base most of the entries upon the acclaimed Jewish Encyclopedia. They hoped that by translating entries, they would cut expenses and complete the project on time. Efron reached an agreement with the American publisher, and Katsenelson studied English to choose the appropriate articles.⁹⁵ The editorial board formed nine sub-sections that shared some similarities to Singer’s original prospectus: Bible, Hellenic Period, Talmud, Geonic Period, Rabbinics, History of European Diaspora, Culture of European Diaspora, Modern Jewish Literature, and Russian Jewry since 1772. Katsenelson oversaw the Talmud section, the orientalist David Günzburg edited a section on Geonic Literature, Yisroel Tsinberg edited sections on European culture and Modern Jewish Literature, and Isaac Markon, a librarian at the Russian Imperial Library, edited a section on Greek history. Yet, until the work on the encyclopedia was completed, the sections’ titles were frequently altered due to personnel changes. All in all, more than 200 translators, writers, and editors contributed to the encyclopedia, including Klausner, who edited the Second Temple section, and the Hebrew poet Shaul Tchernichovsky (Mykhailivka, 1875 – Jerusalem, 1943), who worked as a translator. Since the editors and many contributors were among the top Jewish intellectuals in Russia, the encyclopedia received a great deal of publicity even before the first volume was published. The work in the encyclopedia’s offices was far from harmonious. Dubnow was hardly involved in the editing work and did not participate in writing. In fact, he was reluctant to participate in the project from the beginning and remained in it only because he was committed to the Association and Günzburg. In a letter to Ahad Haam, Dubnow criticized what he described as “a non-functioning editorial board” that consisted of people who were not versed enough in the field they were supposed to foresee and did not have the necessary proficiencies in Russian.⁹⁶ After the publication of the first volume, Dubnow resigned from his position. He

sheet in addition to royalties for the articles. Ahad Haam declined Dubnow’s invitation due to what he described as “jealousy”. Ibid.  Brisman, 41.  Judah Leib Benjamin Katzenelson, Mah she-Rau Enai ve-Shamu Oznai: Zikhronot mi-Yemey Hayai (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1947). 257.  Dubnow to Ahad Haam. December 4, 1906, in Rawidowicz, Sefer Shimon Dubnov: Maamarim, Igrot. 259 – 260.

Worshipping the Present: A Russian Opposition to the National Utopia

129

was unsatisfied with the overall quality of editing and argued that Katsenelson did not have the necessary skills to lead the editorial board’s work. Knowing that the resignation of Dubnow would damage the prestige of the encyclopedia, Katsenelson made a few futile attempts to convince the renowned historian to reconsider his decision. But Dubnow rejected Katsenelson’s request and even wrote a scathing review of the second volume to the Russian journal Evreyskiy mir. ⁹⁷ The publisher assigned Günzburg and later Harkavi to serve as co-editors. Still, Katsenelson did most of the work almost single-handedly in the understaffed offices of the encyclopedia. The second volume received primarily negative reviews; Katsenelson wrote to the Hebrew writer David Frischmann (Zgierz, 1859- Berlin, 1922) admitting that he “did not have the proper experience to handle a project so strenuous and full of responsibilities.”⁹⁸ Katsenelson then resigned from his work as a physician and devoted all his time to the encyclopedia. Attentive to the reviews, he decided to rely less upon the American encyclopedia and, instead, to produce more entries about Russian Jewry. The entries that were translated received a more detailed bibliography, and, for the first time in Jewish encyclopedic literature, a detailed index was attached to the last volume. Despite Ahad Haam’s assessment that Evreiskaia entsiklopedia would support acculturation and repress any signs of national tendencies, the encyclopedia under Katsenelson had a clear Zionist agenda. Katsenelson, who, after the Sixth Zionist Congress (1903), supported Israel Zangwill’s Territorialism, changed his stance to support the Zionist Movement shortly before he joined the encyclopedia’s editorial board. Even though the encyclopedia was written in Russian, backed by proponents of Russian acculturation, and hired editors who were outspoken critics of the national movement, a considerable part of it was dedicated to Zionist themes, and the overall tone was more favorable to the movement and its goals than previous Hebrew encyclopedic projects.⁹⁹ The support of Zionism was evident in the many entries about Zionist figures like Bialik and Herzl and the fifty-three-pagelong entry about Palestine. The first volume presented two-color prints of David Robert’s mid-nineteenth-century romantic depictions of Jerusalem (Fig. 10). The decision to present a romanticized landscape of the ’Holy Land’ during a period when geographical literature of Palestine was moving towards a more scientific mode of

 Ibid. 258. 25 years later Dubnow would eventually acknowledge that the encyclopedia was not as flawed as he initially believed, highlighting its inclusion of “many, quite good, original works.” See: Brisman, 43.  Ibid. See also Der Frynd, 2 January 1911. 3.  Later, after the 1917 Revolution, when Zionist activity in the Soviet Union was abolished, the Evreiskaia entsiklopedia served as a single source of Zionist knowledge. Brisman, 389, n.86; Yisrael Gutin, Kur Oni: Reshimot, Dmuyot, Zikhronot (Tel Aviv: Eked, 1979). 22.

130

Chapter Three: Decentralization

representation through the use of photography and numerical data, demonstrates the mythical significance that the editors assigned the national territory. Like Eisenstein’s encyclopedia, Zionism played a role in defining the local identity for the creators of the Russian encyclopedia. In essence, supporting Zionism did not necessitate Zionists to take radical measures such as immigration. Rather, it served as a means for those who wanted to avoid assimilation into the wider society.

Figure 10: David Robert’s drawing of the Kidron Valley in Jerusalem (Evreiskaia entsiklopedia, vol. 1).

Up Against the Zionist Utopia Before the completion of Evreiskaia entsiklopedia, Katzenelson planned to pursue a somewhat more ambitious project. Now that he has proven experience in editing and the best scholars have stood by him, he sought to revive Ahad Haam’s plan to issue a Hebrew encyclopedia.¹⁰⁰ Despite the time passed and the disastrous dual failures in producing Otsar ha-Yahadut, Katzenelson’s plan attracted considerable public attention as many sought to support or participate in the project. He raised 35,000 rubles from Jewish philanthropists in Moscow and Petersburg and reached an agreement with Shalkovich, who became the largest Hebrew publisher in East-

 Judah Leib Benjamin Katzenelson, Mah she-Rau Enai ve-Shamu Oznai. 257.

Up Against the Zionist Utopia

131

ern Europe.¹⁰¹ Shalkovich agreed to manage the project and take care of all administrative and printing expenses.¹⁰² To assemble the editorial board and an initial cadre of authors, Katsenelson sent letters to leading scholars in Russia and Poland, inviting them to join his project. In a letter to Ahad Haam, he stressed the importance of the new project and its feasibility: An encyclopedia written in a foreign language [i. e., any language other than Hebrew] must be directed outward. Although I managed to considerably improve it [i. e., Later volumes of Evreiskaia entsiklopedia] … the plan for a Hebrew encyclopedia must be entirely different because it must be directed inward. The abundance of knowledge collected for both encyclopedias [i. e., the American Jewish Encyclopedia and Evreiskaia entsiklopedia] will ease our work and enable us to present a refined piece.¹⁰³

Aware of Ahad Haam’s early critique of the Russian encyclopedia’s apologetic tone, Katznelson assured him that the Hebrew encyclopedia would contain a different type of knowledge. Katznelson hoped that by implementing Ahad Haam’s longawaited plan, he would fulfill the two original goals of producing a commercial object with the potentiality of global marketing and inducing the creation of a new national culture by disseminating national knowledge. Another purpose he intended for the encyclopedia was to expand the vocabulary and linguistic boundaries of the Hebrew language. After visiting Palestine in 1909, where he was fascinated by the Hebrew-speaking communities, Katznelson stopped using archaic linguistic forms of Hebrew in his writings and adopted a register closer to a colloquial dialect.¹⁰⁴ Katznelson, a prolific Hebrew writer, sought to hire poets and writers with proven proficiencies in Hebrew to present an easy-to-read language. Among them were the renowned feuilletonist and translator David Frishman (Zgierz 1859 – Berlin 1922), who agreed to edit the literature section, and Tchernichovsky, who was in charge of a section about poetry.¹⁰⁵ But before the project was officially introduced, Katsenelson faced an unexpected obstacle. Isaac Markon, his co-editor at the Evreiskaia entsiklopedia, initiated a similar project titled “Otzar ha-Yahadut.” Markon announced the project in

 Ibid. 264; Katsenelson, “bi-Dvar ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit”, ha-Tsfira, 25 February 1913, 2.  Judah Leib Benjamin Katzenelson, Mah she-Rau Enai ve-Shamu Oznai. 264.  Katsenelson to Ahad Haam, February 1913, quoted in Katsenelson’s biography, Ibid.  Ibid. 264– 266.  Katsenelson never published a complete list of writers, but during the dispute with Markon (see below), writers like Bialik, Dubnow, Simon Bernfeld and Ben-Zion Katz presented their alliance with him. Katzenelson did not discuss the obvious discrepancies between the language of the poets and the language of science. Judah Leib Benjamin Katzenelson, Ibid. 266; Mah she-Rau Enai ve-Shamu Oznai. 265.

132

Chapter Three: Decentralization

ads published in ha-Zman and ha-Tsfira, where he also presented a preliminary list of editors and writers. In the ad, he promised subscribers that for a relatively high price of nine rubles (or four dollars for subscribers in the US), they would get fifteen volumes of “high-quality paper and beautiful font, rich with paintings and different color drawings. Illustrations, photographs, and maps will be printed by the best and most advanced printing houses.”¹⁰⁶ Markon, who came from an affluent background, was the prospected encyclopedia owner and planned to cover all its expenses.¹⁰⁷ However, despite a large budget, the project faced difficulties from its inception. Two months after officially initiating the plan, a few of the editors, who were unhappy with the rivalry at Evreiskaia’s editorial board, left the project; Markon then decided to move his office to Vienna, where he gathered a group of local scholars to serve on the editorial board.¹⁰⁸ In a workshop in Budapest, they developed the encyclopedia’s prospectus together with a preliminary list of entries for the first volumes.¹⁰⁹ The move to Austro-Hungarian territory forced Markon to rely upon a smaller circle of Jewish scholarship.¹¹⁰ Therefore the number of contributors and editors diminished, and the fields of knowledge decreased; Markon also had to cancel sections about modern history and ethnography to focus on Jewish antiquity. For two months, associates of Katsenelson and Markon mutually vilified each other in aggressive essays and op-eds in Hebrew journals. Ben-Zion Katz (Doyg, 1875 – Tel Aviv, 1958), the editor of ha-Zman and a close friend of Katsenelson, criticized Markon’s initiative, claiming that the potential contributors did not have the necessary credentials. He also argued that Markon was a mediocre scholar who could not lead a project of this scope and was not versed in Hebrew. “There are

 Ha-Zman, 1 February 1913, 1; ha-Zman, 2 March, 1913, 4; ha-Tsfira, 2 March 1913.  Judah Leib Benjamin Katzenelson, Mah she-Rau Enai ve-Shamu Oznai. 265.  The list as appeared on “Bekhutz la-Aretz”, ha-Tsfira, 18 April 1913, 3. The proposed structure for the editorial board would be as follows: Bible edited by Bloy, Mahler would edit Egyptology, Talmud by Becher, Gutmann, Avigdor Aptowitzer [Mizrachi Zionist Organization] and Kroys, a single section will be dedicated to Jewish History and Thought edited by Goldziher, Literature of Responsa (‫ )שו"ת‬edited by Jacob Freiman and Aptowitzer, Piyyut by Bradi, Apocrypha and Jewish-Hellenic Literature by Khayut, Popular Folklore by Greenwald. Moshe Gideman (a Rabbi in Vienna), Abraham Epstein, Lev and Schwartz. Assistants: Blakh, Kaminka, Shifer, Kinstelyamor, Tahon, Waxstein, Pachsteweiner, Bata, Bikhler, Venitsianer, Neuman Klein and many others.  “be-Khutz la-Aretz”, ha-Tsfira, 18 April 1913, 3. About the list see: Bar Tuvia (Sharaga Frenkel) to Menakhem Mendel Zlatkin, 7 October 1913. Faiwel Fränkel, Ketavim Nivharim (Tel Aviv: Agudat haSofrim ha-Ivrim al yede Hotsaat Mahbarot le-Sifrut, 1964). http://benyehuda.org/frenkel/igrot_zlat kin.html.  Compare the two lists of contributors: “Bekhutz la-Aretz”, ha-Tsfira, 18 April 1913, 3; ha-Zman, 1 February 1913, 1

Up Against the Zionist Utopia

133

a few Hebrew writers,” wrote Katz, “who could take it [i. e., editing the Otzar] forward, but Isaac Markon is certainly not one of them, a man who had hardly written in Hebrew during his entire lifetime.”¹¹¹ Shortly after the publication of Markon’s ad, the journalist and historian Simon Bernfeld (Stanislau, 1860- Berlin, 1940) wrote a letter to ha-Zman claiming that he agreed to add his name to the project out of a sheer mistake. “I mistakenly thought that this is the same encyclopedia that Dr. Katsenelson is about to establish because Dr. Markon is [also] a member of the editorial board of the Russian encyclopedia.” Bernfeld demanded that his name would be removed from future publications of Markon’s encyclopedia, adding: “I have already promised Katsenelson that I will work only with him on the future Hebrew encyclopedia that he is about to publish. I do not have the moral right nor the will to make [such] a mistake.”¹¹² Three days later, Bialik condemned Markon and his project in a letter to ha-Zman after finding his name in Markon’s list of authors, although he declined the offer in person. Who told him [i. e., Markon] that I think he is qualified to lead a project like this? On the contrary… a Hebrew encyclopedia should become a national project led by a large group of the most distinguished Jewish scholars from around the world.”¹¹³ In another op-ed on ha-Zman, an anonymous writer renounced Markon’s project claiming that “with all the respect we have to Mr. Markon’s business acumen, we do not find him qualified to head a tremendous national project of a Hebrew encyclopedia.”¹¹⁴ On the other hand, Markon’s associate, Daniel Pasmanick (Hadiach, 1869 – Paris, 1930), argued that “as the editor-in-chief of the Russian-Jewish encyclopedia, Katsenelson proved that he is, at the most, able to provide a mere ‘interesting book for the masses.’” He also argued that Katsenelson decided to initiate his project only after discovering that his co-editor was working on a Hebrew encyclopedia and that his real intentions were to produce a Hebrew version of the Evreiskaia entsiklopedia. ¹¹⁵ Although the two projects were developed simultaneously by Zionists of the same literary milieu, a closer look at the plans and the people who initiated them reveals significant political differences. The main point of contention regarded the different perspectives on Jewish history. In Evreiskaia entsiklopedia, Katsenelson presented Jewish history and the Land of Israel as central themes. Although he published many entries about Jewish communities in Russia, most stressed the communities’ history while giving little attention to their present reality. By divert    

Ben Zion Katz, “Al ha-Sotrim”, ha-Zman, 2 February 1913, 2. Dr. Simon Bernfeld, ha-Zman, 6 February 1913, 3. H. N. Binalk, “Mikhtav el ha-Maarekhet”, ha-Zman, 9 February 1913, 3. L., “Al ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit”, ha-Zman, 14 February 1913, 2. Daniel Pasmanick, “ha-Bonim el ha-Sotrim”, 13 February 1913, ha-Zman, 2.

134

Chapter Three: Decentralization

ing the gaze from the current reality of Jewish life in Russia to both the past (Jewish history) and the future (Palestine as the future national territory), Katsenelson formed an encyclopedia of predominantly utopian knowledge. The present was a period that a fervent Zionist like Katsenelson had limited interest in because it was a mere mediating period between two eras of national sovereignty, a golden age of prophets and Biblical kings, and a future of political autonomy. Similarly, the language Katsenelson planned to use in his encyclopedia was utopian; it was a poetic language to be designed by poets, and the encyclopedia was expected to be an essential tool in its creation. The utopian knowledge and utopian language, according to Katsenelson, would forestall the new Zionist persona that would redeem itself from the degradation of the Diaspora.¹¹⁶ On the other hand, Markon’s encyclopedia was not about a national utopia but about the present condition of the Jews. Although in his advocacy of Markon’s plan, Pasmanick claimed that a Hebrew encyclopedia was needed “to express our national work” and present insights into Jewish history, he had nevertheless stressed that the encyclopedia required to supply first “a full and comprehensive picture of our present life.”¹¹⁷ Markon and Pasmanick sought to highlight the political and social reality of Russian Jewry by stressing ethnographic knowledge and information about the political parties and political leaders. Pasmanick also tried to counter the attacks against Markon’s lack of proficiencies in Hebrew by claiming that Hebrew was not an end goal of the encyclopedia but a tool to “unite the nation and present our national endeavor.”¹¹⁸ For Pasmanick and Markon, Jewish life in the Diaspora should be the Zionist Movement’s main interest. Alongside developing a future national territory in Palestine, the national movement should struggle for political and social rights for Jews in their present locations. Their encyclopedia would be the cultural extension of the idea presented in Helsingfors Resolution (1906) that called for the Zionist movement to give more attention to the political rights of the Jews in the Diaspora rather than focusing primarily on the Zionist endeavor in Palestine as presented in the Basel Declaration (1897). The Helsingfors Resolution was an act identified with an ideological current in the Zionist movement known as the ‘Worship of the Present’ [Avodat ha-Oveh].¹¹⁹ Its origins were already in Hibbat Zion, and its power within the Zionist movement grew due to the failure of Theodore Herzl to grant

 Ibid.  Originally emphasis. Daniel Pasmanick, “ha-Bonim el ha-Sotrim”, 13 February 1913, ha-Zman, 2.  Ibid.  The term coined by Martin Buber in 1901 had a rather different critique on Zionism than it had later received. Buber demanded that the movement would turn from a circle polemics and endless ideological discussions to an action plan.

Up Against the Zionist Utopia

135

a charter for the colonization of Palestine and the competition with the Bund and Dubnow’s Autonomism over political power. The reasoning behind the Helsingfors Resolution was that the implementation of national aspirations in Palestine would take more time than mainstream Zionists anticipated because the Zionist Organization did not reach meaningful diplomatic agreements, and a cohesive social and political unity was yet to be established. While Ahad Haam asserted that the national resurrection would occur only after installing a new Hebrew culture, Markon and Pasmanick conditioned its success on the making of a political body to fight against anti-Semitism.¹²⁰ Despite the heated debate, nearly all leading Hebrew journals called the rivals to join forces. The Warsaw daily ha-Tsfira, involved in many encyclopedic disputes since Goldman’s ha-Eshkol, called them to merge the two projects. The author of the front-page article— most likely to be Shaul Tchernichovsky (signed with the initials S.T.), who, according to Katsenelson and Markon, agreed to contribute articles to both projects—argued that splitting the meager financial and intellectual resources between two projects would lead to failure. “Otzar ha-Yahadut in Hebrew,” he wrote, “is a project with immeasurable importance to our nation; hence there is no room for a competition between two private men.”¹²¹ Ahad Haam, who had received requests from both editors for his endorsement, also condemned the rivalry and demanded that the two would edit the Otzar together. Knowing that Ahad Haam’s support would shift the balance of power, both Markon and Katsenelson bragged about their abundant financial resources and potential list of contributors. But Ahad Haam, who followed the public dispute and replied only after consulting with Katz and Dubnow, declined both offers. “…this is a work that demands us to collect together all of our possible strengths,” he wrote to Katsenelson, “as long as there is no solution to the personal disputes, there will not be a hope for this grand project and, eventually, it will dissolve as its predecessors and, obviously, I will not agree to have my name among the list of contributors.” David Naumark, the co-editor of the previous attempt to publish Otzar ha-Yahadut, argued that “it is necessary and even possible that Mr. Katsenelson and Mr. Markon would make peace,” adding that, a decade before, the skirmish between Ahiasaf and Sokolow led to the failure of both plans. He claimed that after unifying the two projects, all the leading Hebrew scholars would be willing to contribute to the encyclopedia, and Ahiasaf Publishers would probably share the work it had

 About differences in Pasmanick’s and Klausner’s approaches regarding the ways of achieving Zionist national goals see: Yaakov Rabinovich, “Even va-Even”, ha-Zman, 7 February 1912, 2.  S. T. “Shtayim o Akhat”, ha-Tsfira, 25 February 1913, 1.

136

Chapter Three: Decentralization

made in preparation for its own attempt to publish a Hebrew encyclopedia.¹²² The call of leading Hebrew writers and scholars to unite the competing projects led some of Katsenelson and Markon’s associates to consider a merger. Although Katsenelson first claimed that his rival convinced his donors to contribute more money to his project, it was later revealed that the funding was conditioned on merging the two projects.¹²³ Indeed, after a few months in which both sides tried to change their alliances and tactics, they both swallowed their pride and agreed to join forces. The former rivals agreed that Katsenelson would be the editor-in-chief and Markon would be the publisher.¹²⁴ After an agreement was signed, Markon was quick to establish the administration. He registered the new company in Petersburg, claiming in the signed forms that in addition to Otzar ha-Yahadut, the company would “market and distribute a portfolio of books of Hebrew classics, a few books about religion, science, history, and culture of the Jews.”¹²⁵ He also presented a surprisingly high sum of 100,000 rubles as the company’s initial budget.¹²⁶ However, despite the impressive reorganization and the public attention the encyclopedia attracted, the company was slow to act. Only in January 1914 did Markon and Katsenelson publish a prospectus and a call for Hebrew writers to join their project. To divide themes into sections and organize the work on the first volumes, they produced a 139page booklet containing a list of nearly 5,000 potential entries in the letter Alef.¹²⁷ Markon sent the booklet to leading Jewish scholars, asking them to respond within a month with suggestions and a list of entries they would like to contrib-

 Neumark, “Shapaat Kalgasim”, ha-Olam, 7, vol.15, 10. Republished in ha-Tsfira, 12 May 1913; See also Katz’s response: Ben Zion Katz, “Od al Dvar Otzar ha-Yahadut”, ha-Zman, 11 May 1913, 3.  Katsenelson, “Bidvar ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit”, ha-Tsfira, 25 February 1913, 2; Judah Leib Benjamin Katzenelson, Mah she-Rau Enai ve-Shamu Oznai. 262– 265.  “ha-Shavuah”, ha-Mitzpeh, 25 July 1913, 7. But Ahad Haam, who advocated unity, refused to join the new encyclopedia’s editorial board and declined even a request to contribute articles, see: Ahad Haam to Katsenelson, 26 February 1913, in Igrot vol.4 85 – 7; Ahad Haam to Dubnow, 25 February 1913, Igrot 4, 82– 5.  “Inyaney ha-Yehudim”, ha-Zman, 1 August 1913, 1.  Worth of $51,000 in 1913. System Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, Banking and Monetary Statistics, 1914 – 1941. [Pt. 1.] (Washington, D.C: [Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1976). 677.  As mentioned, Markon had already prepared a list of entries in 1913. It seems that this is, in fact, Markon’s list because there are inconsistencies with the prospectus; for example, the prospectus dedicate only one division (out of 27) to biographies, while the majority of the entries in the list are biographical. Yehudah Leib Katsenelson Yitshak Dober Markon, Reshimat Haarakhin Shel haEntsiklopedia ha-Ivrit “Otsar ha-Yahadut”, Hayotset la-Or al yedey Yitshak Dober Markon ve-Neerkhet al yedey Dr. Yehudah Leib Katsenelson, Yitshak Dober Markon (Petersburg: Markon, 1914).

Up Against the Zionist Utopia

137

ute.¹²⁸ Due to the many repetitions, inconsistencies, and mistakes, the prospectus and the list of entries seemed to be prepared in haste. Nevertheless, Markon and Katsenelson promised to publish all fifteen volumes by 1918 before the centennial anniversary of Wissenschaft des Judentums. Although the project’s initiators saw it as a continuation of the monumental plan of Ahad Haam, they had no intentions of making it a tool for creating a new national culture or an overarching Jewish identity. On the contrary, Markon designed his Otzar ha-Yahadut as an academic work intended only for the use of experts. His vision was of a Wissenschaft-like publication in Hebrew that would mark the thriving of Jewish academic studies in Petersburg.¹²⁹ The new prospectus presented a project designed primarily to preserve the knowledge that was under existential danger and would be used by researchers or those interested in examining from a distance ‘exoticism’ that was about to become extinct.¹³⁰ The prospectus also differed from Ahad Haam’s plan in the representation of Judaism. Unlike

 Ibid. 1.  Markon and Katsenelson planned 27 sections: A. Jewish History, which will construct out of 13 sub-sections [with some repetitions]: 1. Antiquity until Ezra and Nehemiah, 2. History to the Completion of the Talmud, 3. The Jews in Bezant and Persia until the Arab Period, 4. The History of the Jews under Arab Rule in Babylonia, Persia, North Africa and Spain, 5. The History of the Jews in Western Europe: Spain and Portugal [sic!], South France (Provence), North France, Italy, England and Ashkenaz, 6. History of the Jews in Eastern Europe and the Slavic Lands: Poland, Lithuania, Bohemia and Moravia, Russia (Crimea and Caucasus), Serbia, Bulgaria, 7. History of the Jews in Turkey and the Levant until the Modern Period, 8. History of the Jews in Western Europe form the End of the Middle-Ages to the nineteenth Century, 9. The History of the Jews in the Levant until the nineteenth Century [sic!], 10. History of the Jews in Europe from the nineteenth Century to our Present Day, 11. History of the Jews in the Levant from the nineteenth Century to our Present Day, 12. History of the Jews in Russia, Poland and Lithuania from Modern Period to our Present Day, 13. History of the Jews in America, Australia and South Africa until our Present Day. B. Holy Scripture [i. e., Bible], B. Secular Jewish Literature from Deuterocanonical to Philo, C. From Ezra to the Talmud, D. Geonim and Karaite Literature, E. Judeo-Arabic Literature, F. Rabbinic Literature, G. Poetry, H. Modern Hebrew Literature, I. Literary Divisions (Judeo-Spanish, Greco-Jewish, Ashkenazi, Other Languages, Journals), J. Hebrew Grammar, K. Land of Israel, L. Masoretes (albeit the title, this section was dedicated to Jewish folklore), M. Philosophy of Religion, Kabbalah and Hasidic Judaism, N. Jewish Ethics, O. Liturgics, P. Anthropology, Q. History of Jewish Culture, R. Jewish Arts, S. Jewish Sects, T. Jewish Ethnography, U. Jewish Influence on the General Culture, V. The Jewish Book, W. Jewish Law, X. History of Rabbinic [Literature!?], Y. Biographies. Ibid.  Ha-Zman published the complete prospectus while ha-Tsfira and ha-Modia published only part of it. The religious ha-Modia added a disclaimer stating that it does not accept “any free thought” but publish the prospectus from a sheer interest in introducing the latest news. “Meet Maarekehet ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit Otzar ha-Yahadut”, ha-Tsfira, 18 January 1914, 3; “Dvar el Khkhmey Israel ve-Sofrav, Hovevey ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit u-Mokirey Sifrutenu”, ha-Zman, 19 January 1914, 3 – 4. “Dvarim Akhadim”, ha-Modiaa, 29 January 1914, 6 – 7.

138

Chapter Three: Decentralization

the original prospectus of Otzar ha-Yahadut, Markon and Katzenelson did not plan to focus mainly on Jewish theology but on culture and economics. According to their plant, the Otzar would introduce: the history of Jewish communities in the Diaspora, their political and economic conditions, trade and industries of the Jews, farming, etcetera, Jewish life throughout different periods of its existence, traditions concerning the individual and society, education of boys and girls, the attire of men and women, family life, means of presenting sorrow and joy… The structure of each community and their inner life…¹³¹

The idea was to deviate from the path of previous Jewish scholars and encyclopedists who emphasized the work of individual intellectuals and instead to describe Jewish society in the broadest sense possible. Influenced by Dubnow, Markon and Katzenelson planned to highlight aspects of popular culture, daily life, folklore, and religious movements outside the rabbinic mainstream. This broad perspective offered a much more stratified picture of Jewish society, which challenged perceptions of a cohesive primordial Jewish nation and perhaps even questioned the Zionist utopia. Unlike the unifying approach of Ahad Haam, which in his search for a Jewish Geist emphasized common halakhic denominators, Markon and Katsenelson divided Jewish knowledge into four autonomous geographical units (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Arab lands, and Anglo-Saxon lands). According to their approach, the Jewish societies in each geographical unit had a unique culture, and cultural exchanges were limited. Although Markon and Katzenelson devoted a considerable part of their encyclopedia to history and memory, they objected to a Jewish identity built on the foundations of historical consciousness. In their prospectus, they gave only limited room to historical events perceived as constitutive, such as the Exodus from Egypt and the destruction of the Second Temple, with the narrative framed by mechanical time structures (centuries) rather than dramatic events. Also, unlike other encyclopedias, the editors did not lay down metahistorical guidelines of destruction or redemption but sought to use history to differentiate between Jewish societies and to present a linear pace of progression. Like previous attempts to publish Otzar ha-Yahadut, however, the Markon-Katsenelson encyclopedia was eventually shelved. In February, only a month after the publication of the prospectus, Katsenelson resigned due to deteriorating health. In a letter to ha-Tsfira, he publicly stated: “From this day and on, I do not take any

 Ibid.

Conclusions

139

responsibility for the editing work.”¹³² Despite Katsenselson and the other editors’ willingness to continue the project as planned, with the break of WWI, all hopes for publishing a comprehensive Hebrew encyclopedia in Europe had shattered.¹³³

Conclusions In some respects, the attempts to publish Hebrew encyclopedias at the beginning of the twentieth century and the attempts that preceded them in the late nineteenth century were similar. The thematic dispute about whether Jewish encyclopedias should deal only with Jewish matters continued to occupy the literary sections of Hebrew journals, and some of the writers and editors that took part in ha-Eshkol and Otzar ha-Yahadut also contributed to later projects. Projects like Otzar Israel, Evreiskaia entsiklopedia, and Markon’s Otzar were similar to Ahad Haam’s original prospectus also in scope and commercial aspirations. Yet, there were three key differences between the two periods: a change in the geography of production, a change in the expert’s status, and a change in the social purpose of Hebrew encyclopedic literature. First, while all attempts to publish encyclopedias in the late nineteenth century were based in Warsaw, the efforts to publish later encyclopedias moved both westward to Germany and the US (the second attempt to publish Otzar ha-Yahadut, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Otzar Israel) and eastward to Petersburg (Evreiskaia entsiklopedia, and the Markon-Katsenelson initiative). Although Warsaw continued to be an important center of Jewish literature, other centers, like New York and Petersburg, were created due to immigration and changes in legislation that enabled the bourgeoning of cultural initiatives in Russia for a short time. The move to New York and Petersburg changed emphases in the encyclopedias as the new projects turned their attention to American and Russian Jewry’s local history and culture. Instead of a unified Jewish nation, the second generation of Hebrew encyclopedias presented a more nuanced picture of Judaism by observing sub-identities and regional practices. The localization of Jewish knowledge was related to increased diversification within Jewish national thought and the broadening of the national political sphere. Within the Zionist movement, the authority of Herzl and Nordau was challenged by others who confronted the vision of colonizing Palestine and the diplomatic efforts of Political Zionism as a necessity. The encyclopedias of the period voiced such oppositional calls by shifting  He dedicated the following year to conduct a study about the Talmu’s view of modern medicine. ha-Tsfira, 16 February 1914, 4; Ben Zion Katz, “Dr. Yehudah Leib Katsenelson: le-Yovel ha-Shivim”, ha-Am, 29 December 1916, 14– 5.  “be-Olamenu”, ha-Tsfira, 26 March 1915, 2.

140

Chapter Three: Decentralization

the gaze from a desired vision of the future to the reality of the present and from a faraway land to the Jewish communities in Diaspora. For Eisenstein and Markon alike, Zionism was not only a revolutionary movement designed to lead the Jews into a utopian world but a cultural project and a political arena established to elevate the Jews from their present condition. Second, unlike previous encyclopedias, most writers and editors graduated from German universities. The ‘truths’ produced by autodidacts and graduates of Eastern European yeshivas like Fridberg, Shefer, and even Ahad Haam and Sokolow could not fulfill the demand of the readership and the Hebrew literary circles. Many critics argued that if publishers desire to ‘free’ Hebrew from pilpul and other traditional forms of argumentations, then knowledge producers should be versed in the modern rhetoric of science. And so, many editors and writers of this period, like Klausner, Neumark, Tchernichovsky, and Markon, received doctoral degrees from universities in Heidelberg, Vienna, and Berlin. They entered these prestigious academic institutions when Central European universities decided to admit more Jewish students and expressed greater interest in Jewish studies. The editors graduating from these institutions designed their publications to disseminate academic knowledge. Thus the encyclopedic projects of the turn of the century intended to showcase a broad range of contemporary research across various disciplines, setting them apart from previous encyclopedias. Third, unlike Ahad Haam, Eisenstein and Markon were not interested in publishing a book that would create a unified Jewish culture. Ahad Haam sought to establish a new identity that would be nourished by knowledge that marks national unity (Halakah, theology). However, the encyclopedists who followed him sought to issue books for readers who felt relatively secure in their regional and national identities. The call to collect, unite, and redeem the Jews gave way to a more subtle purpose of aiding curious individuals who sought knowledge. Therefore, the encyclopedias of this period were not designed as tools for agitating a national revolution but rather a sign that the Jews were an integral part of society. That is, despite being culturally and religiously distinct, they were curious, modern, and mostly ‘normal.’ For Eisenstein and Markon, the revolution already took place in Basel, with the Basel Program’s initiation at the First Zionist Congress. Thereafter, the encyclopedists’ task was a more mundane work of making Jewish knowledge accessible to wider audiences. The battles that Hebrew writers conducted only a few years earlier against traditional Judaism and acculturation faded when the tradition was no longer an enemy, and cultural autonomy became a possibility worth considering for Jewish communities in America and Russia. When Bialik, in his poem “Lifney Aron ha-Sfarim,” [“In front of the Bookcase,” 1910], observed the religious books that accompanied him during his childhood, he recalled the distant days of a clash with traditional Judaism that resulted in a decisive victory of a new

Conclusions

141

identity: “I was the last of the last, on my lips a patriarch prayer had twitched and died.”¹³⁴ The change in the purpose of the Hebrew encyclopedia was largely a result of a ‘cultural turn’ in the Jewish national movement. If, for Ahad Haam, the common denominator between Jewish individuals was an ethical schema, then, for his successors, it was a culture that bound the nation together.¹³⁵ While Jewish cultural institutions flourished earlier in Western Europe, North America, and Palestine, the Kishinev Pogrom and the reforms enacted after the 1905 Revolution induced their rise in Russia. The Pogrom created a shift in sentiments toward the Pale of Settlement’s rural communities, while the reforms enabled cultural institutes to operate with considerable freedom. The cultural turn was also a shift in the perception of the agency of the national subject. While Ahad Haam perceived Jewish ethics as an underlying marker of everything Jewish, later encyclopedists understood Judaism as a bundle of different ideas and practices. From this point on, the genre reflected a far more diverse Judaism without a coherent ethical and political center. In doing so, the encyclopedists promoted, often unintentionally, a vision of a Jewish Federation. The encyclopedias that they had developed were, in fact, declarations of cultural autonomies within the larger political framework of the Jewish nation. From their perspective, the Jewish nation was an abstract entity whose political goals were limited, while the local was a real social structure that could be described in detail and deserved cultural institutions and clearer political objectives. However, despite the proven success of early 20th-century Jewish encyclopedias, the major communities in Eastern Europe ceased to produce encyclopedias at the end of the First World War. Following the War, the dramatic geopolitical changes led to a re-examination of the idea of Jewish autonomy and the federalist vision. As we shall see in the next chapter, the War brought Zionists from different countries to fight each other in the trenches, undermined the idea of “worship of the present,” and reduced Zionism again to Herzl’s Basel program and the colonization of Palestine. In turn, Hebrew encyclopedias became the exclusive domain of publishers in Palestine.

 Compare to his earlier poem “ha-Matmid” (the Persistent, 1894– 5), where traditional Judaism is not a forgotten memory but a paralleled reality to his own: “‫ ָּבֶהן‬,‫עוֹד ֵישׁ ָע ִרים ִנְכָחדוֹת ִּבְתפוּצוֹת ַהגּוָֹלה‬ ..‫” ֶיְע ַ ׁשן ַּב ִּמְסָּתר ֵנ ֵרנוּ ַה ָּי ָ ׁשן‬.  The rise of ‘cultural nationalism’ among Russian Jews challenges the dichotomy of Hans Kohn of ‘ethnic nationalism’ vs. ‘cultural nationalism’. Kohn perceived official Zionism (as well as other Eastern European and Middle Eastern national movements) as a form of ethnical nationalism. Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism : A Study in Its Origins and Background (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2005). xxiv.

Chapter Four Normality: The Migration of Knowledge to Palestine Diaspora is losing its Hebrew writers and literature. The growing concern is causing a grave and loud outcry. Some continue to struggle for their lives, announcing a slogan in support of our work in the Diaspora. “The World Association for Hebrew Language and Culture” came to block further damage that has been increasing every year. I do not know if they will succeed in their mission. They, indeed, should exclaim and warn. The fact of the matter is that our life is destroyed [by forces] from all over, that includes aspects of our financial, political, social, and cultural lives. Culture cannot flourish without a land to grow on. One after the other, all the Hebrew cultural establishments in the Diaspora are disappearing. Not only have newspapers and libraries gone, but even well-rooted institutes like schools and seminars that have enriched the communities with teachers and rabbis have also been destroyed. I met with the principals of them. They are all in deep sorrow and lamenting the great destruction. Even their scientific means of expression are about to be obliterated.¹

With these words, given by Bialik in a gathering in honor of Nahum Sokolow, the national poet lamented the decline of Jewish studies and Hebrew culture in Europe. Shortly before the rise of the Nazi Party to power, Bialik saw no hope for the struggle of those who vowed to cultivate a Hebrew culture in Europe. Instead, he proposed to relocate the center of Hebrew knowledge production to Palestine and urge Jewish scientists and scholars to immigrate there. The pinnacle of the cultural activity would be the revival of the idea of a general encyclopedia in Hebrew. “The encyclopedia [is] a question of honor,” he proclaimed, “it should be produced in the Land of Israel with the support of the Zionist Movement, and I dare to say that it will be more valuable for announcing [our cause] than a thousand newspapers and advocates.”² In 1933, after decades of futile attempts to create a comprehensive Jewish encyclopedia in Hebrew, Bialik’s call seemed like an anachronistic echo of the maskilic-era hope of redeeming a nation with a new book of all knowledge. In the poet’s view, Zionism had not attained the anticipated national identity. Nearly forty years after Bialik wrote his iconic poem Birkat Am (better known by its first word Tehezakna—i. e., “be strong”) where he called the scattered people to “gather and amass” to establish a new nation, the Hebrew subjectivity that he envisioned has yet to emerge. Bialik himself actively tried to establish a national character in the ethnographic compilation Sefer ha-Aggadah that he edited with

 “Mesibat Preda miam N. Sokolow”, Davar, 9 February 1933. 4.  Ibid. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-006

Chapter Four: Normality: The Migration of Knowledge to Palestine

143

Rawnitzki.³ As mentioned in the second chapter, in Sefer ha-Aggadah, he sought to supply Hebrew culture with a rich infrastructure of folklore similar to the contribution of the Grimm Brothers to German national culture a century earlier. “With the folkloric tale,” he wrote in its prospectus, “one enters the eternal national house of living.”⁴ By collecting Jewish tales, he went against the imperative of his mentor, Ahad Haam, that claimed halakah—i. e., Jewish law and the dichotomous twin of aggadah in rabbinic culture—to set the basis of the new culture.⁵ Despite the immense success of Sefer ha-Aggadah, Bialik would later admit his failure in supposing folklore as the core of national knowledge. He argued that the variety of stories and literary topoi could not accommodate a coherent national persona. It was, after all, the halakah that enabled them to sustain a stable and autonomic Jewish subjectivity that would overcome the wide geographical spread of Jews and their affiliations with the local cultures. “We do not seek a specific halakah,” he wrote, “but its very core, as an overreaching principle as a tangible and specific form of real life.”⁶ Bialik did not leave a clear remedy for the characteristics of the new national knowledge that would exhibit the core of halakah. Only at the end of his life, at the speech mentioned above, he embraced the encyclopedia as the genre that would be a modern incarnation of halakhic literature and infrastructure to a new national culture. During the interwar period, the idea of “reviving” the Hebrew language attracted far fewer supporters in the European intellectual centers than before the war. Bialik’s impression of a dwindling national culture had a strong indication in the Hebrew book market and the Hebrew press. The slowdown in the circulation of literary journals and first editions of Hebrew belles-lettres in the first decade of the century continued after the end of WWI and reached a record low in the 1920s. If, in 1902, Ahad Haam predicted that the future of Yiddish was “to be forgotten along with its literature, and only Hebrew literature would live among us forever,”⁷ after the war, the reality of the Jewish book market was utterly the opposite. While in the 1920s, circulation of the Warsaw-based Yiddish dailies Haynt  Bialik was also involved in the Markon-Katsenelson debate over the third attempt to publish Otzar ha-Yahadut in 1914. See chapter three.  Bialik, H. N. “le-Khinusah shel ha-Aggadah,” Odessa (1908). Quoted from: Yonah Frenkel, Midrash ve-Aggada, (Tel Aviv: ha-Oniversita ha-Ptukha, 1996). 1007.  He criticized the selection of some of the Aggadahs, the arrangement of the book, the brevity of the stories and the anachronism inherent in the deletion of Aramaic and the adaptation of the stories to the reader’s ethical requirements. Haam Ahad, Igrot Ahad Haam, vol. 4 (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1958). 234– 7.  Bialik, H. N. ”Halakah ve-Aggada” (Odessa: 1917) in Bialik, H. N., Divrey Sifrut [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1957) 81– 2.  Haam Ahad, “Tkhiyat ha-Ruakh,” ha-Shiloakh 10, no. 5 – 6 (1902).

144

Chapter Four: Normality

and Der moment printed around 25,000 copies, and the New York-based monthly Forvert reached 275,000, most Hebrew newspapers had ceased to exist. The decline of Hebraic enthusiasm in Europe was partly a result of the political turmoil in Eastern Europe in the first two decades of the 20th century. After the 1905 Revolution, the authorities strengthened their control over Hebrew publishers and ordered them to close all Hebrew dailies. However, First World War completely shattered the hopes of Jewish Hebraists in Europe. Throughout the war, Zionist fought on different sides of the front lines, and the hostility within the national movement continued to govern the relationships for the years to come. The political core of the movement slowly recovered when American Zionists took over the leadership. But this was no time for large cultural projects such as the encyclopedias that crossed geopolitical lines in Europe. Thus, unlike earlier attempts of publishers to use the encyclopedia to mend geographical gaps between Jewish communities, the interwar period was a time in which most encyclopedic literature was produced in a single country for a local Jewish readership. During these two decades, much of the prewar enthusiasm of Jewish publishers had abated, leaving only two centers of encyclopedic production: Berlin, of the 1920s and the early 1930s, in which two major Jewish encyclopedias were produced, and Palestine. The second was a direct result of the demise of the first, as the political turmoil in Germany led some German intellectuals to move to Palestine. This chapter observes this process and focuses on the motivations and interests in grounding the genre in Palestine. In addition, the chapter follows the epistemic modifications made to facilitate the distribution of knowledge within the Jewish communities in Germany and Palestine.

Berlin: An Intellectual Getaway The idea of resurrecting the Hebrew encyclopedic project in Palestine was induced by the genre’s success in Germany. Within a relatively short time, four German publishers had issued Jewish encyclopedias, among them two ambitious multi-volume encyclopedic projects.⁸ The four-volume Jüdisches Lexikon (1927– 1930) and the larger Encyclopaedia Judaica (1928 – 1934) competed in the small market of the Jewish-German readership.⁹ The two encyclopedias were part of a momentary proliferation of Jewish studies during the Weimar Republic, with a noticeable in-

 The smaller publications were Philo-Lexicon, and das Jüdische abc.  Ten out of the planned fifteen volumes were issued published before the publisher shelved the project.

Berlin: An Intellectual Getaway

145

crease in interest in Judaism from within the German-Jewish community and the larger society.¹⁰ At first glance, the two projects shared much in common with prewar encyclopedias and between each other. As reflected in their titles, the German encyclopedias continued a four decades trend of the Jewish encyclopedia, and like pre-WWI encyclopedias, Zionism was the basis for many of the entries. Some of the publishers, editors, and writers of the two encyclopedias were outspoken Zionist supporters.¹¹ It was most apparent in Encyclopaedia Judaica, where its publisher Nahum Goldmann (1895 – 1982) and its chief editor Jacob Klatzkin (1882– 1948) took active roles in Zionist organizations. The latter even argued that the “basic categories of the nation being” are the Hebrew language and life in Palestine.¹² Yet, a closer look at the two encyclopedias discloses different epistemic structures, reflecting two perspectives of Jewish subjectivity. The editors of Jüdisches Lexikon structured their encyclopedia according to the model of German lexicons, with primarily short entries of less than a column in size accompanied by an abundance of illustrations and photographs. Most entries were short biographies of which many described contemporary Jewish political figures, scientists, and artists. Although the Jüdisches Lexikon contained many entries about the Bible and rabbinic literature, it had an unprecedented number of entries about modern Jewish culture and society. The panoramic outlook of modern Jewish society in Central Europe was set to provide the reader with an essential toolbox of national knowledge. Thus, the editors of the Jüdisches Lexikon presented the German Jewish community as a distinct and long-existed group of people that shares some historical links with other Jewish communities, but, at the same time, maintained its unique characteristics. After a century of emancipation and in a time of growing hostility toward Jews and Judaism, the idea of promoting moderate Jewish cultural autonomy in Germany was a desperate attempt to reconstruct a collective identity. Goldmann and Klazkin, on the other hand, did not design their Encyclopaedia Judaica to distribute knowledge among the masses nor present a coherent political solution to a “Jewish Question.” Their main goal was to offer an up-to-date scholarship of all Jewish knowledge and store it in a vault for the use of educated readers and future generations. The entries were long—often more than ten pages—and despite the subtitle “Das Judentum in Geschichte und Gegenwart” [Judaism in

 Michael Brenner, The Renaissance of Jewish Culture in Weimar Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Pr., 2013).  Arndt Engelhardt, “Palimpsests and Questions of Canonisation the German Jewish Encyclopedias in the Weimar Era,” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 5, no. 3 (2006).  Ibid. 303, taken from Hertzberg Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader (New York: Atheneum, 1969). 318.

146

Chapter Four: Normality

Past and Present], nearly all of the articles covered issues in Jewish history and rabbinic literature. In its size and physical appearance, as well as the academic rhetoric (i. e., broad bibliography, use of graphs and illustrations, the inclusion of authors’ and editors’ names), Encyclopaedia Judaica resembled leading comprehensive encyclopedias, such as the acclaimed 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. However, instead of adopting the method of Britannica—where entries were broad in size and interconnected by a web of cross-references—Klatzkin adopted Ahad Haam’s hybrid model that combined both long articles about major trends, concepts and ideas, and brief “peripheral” entries about specific issues and biographies. Klatzkin explained this approach as a means of juxtaposing themes that reflect the unity of Judaism.¹³ In its themes and academic rigor, Encyclopaedia Judaica resembled the early work of the movement Wissenschaft des Judentums (“Science of Judaism”) from a century earlier. Like their scholarly forefathers, Goldmann and Klazkin pursued making the philosophy and history of Judaism legitimate academic fields of study and were less concerned about reaching the Jewish masses and offering them a political pathway from their misery. In other words, Encyclopaedia Judaica resembled a museum exhibition of Judaism, exhibiting a rich and diverse culture that has influenced its neighboring cultures throughout the ages. Yet, apart from Zionist biographies and knowledge about Central European communities, the Judaism on display seemed like a dying relic, with its past grandeur contrasting starkly with its somber present. Long articles about “Alchemy” (26 columns) and “Craft from late antiquity to the middle of the 19th century” (51 columns) were installed to convey a strong Jewish influence on European culture in the past. On the other hand, entries about Jewish communities in the present were scarce and brief, like the Galician Hasidic center “Belz” (a single column) and the large Jewish community of “Babruysk” (half a column).¹⁴ Following the business model of Britannica, Goldmann and Klazkin constructed Encyclopaedia Judaica as a global commodity that would compete beyond the narrow boundaries of the local Jewish-intellectual market. Their idea was to create a storage of knowledge that would later be distributed worldwide in different languages and printed formats. Their initial plan was to coproduce English and Hebrew editions of the encyclopedia at the same time as the German edition.¹⁵ Financial constraints, however, forced them to postpone the English edition and to issue

 Jakob Klatzkin, Eshkol: Entsiklopedyah Yisreelit (Berlin: Hotsaat Eshkol, 1929). Xi. While the hybrid model was welcomed at the beginning of the century, it drew criticism by reviewers who argued that it created confusion and duplications. See: Cf. J. H. Greenstone, “New Jewish Encyclopedias,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, 20. 351.  Hirsch Horowitz, “Beltz”, 4th volume, 42– 3; Mark Wischnitzer, “Bobrujsk”, 4th volume, 892– 3.  Brisman, 53.

Berlin: An Intellectual Getaway

147

a Hebrew edition that would be smaller in size (12 volumes) and partly based upon the original German edition. The Hebrew edition, titled “Eshkol”—alluding to the first modern encyclopedia in Hebrew—was launched in 1929, three years after the publication of the first German volume. Its directors were the historian Yaakov Naftali Simhoni (1884– 1926) and, later, Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik (1879 – 1941). The journalist and writer Alter Druyanov (1870 – 1938) oversaw the translation work from the encyclopedia’s office in Tel Aviv. Although Judaica was praised for its superb quality, in Eshkol, the editors laid an even more rigid academic structure to each entry. In addition to the rich bibliography and prudent citations in each article, Klatzkin added cross-references that were almost absent from the German encyclopedia. This network of links binds the articles together to create a unified and accessible encyclopedia unparalleled in Hebrew literature. The user of Eshkol could access a specific entry and embark on a journey of curiosity by following the trail of cross-references. However, although the cross-references had linked the articles to each other and seemingly distorted the autonomy of the single encyclopedic entry as an isolated unit of knowledge, Eshkol, like its German sister encyclopedia, did not have a clear political agenda. It seems that in Eshkol, Klatzkin sought to further blur the mark of political identity by presenting contemporary Judaism as a disarrayed circus of theological approaches and political ideas. If Klatzkin and Goldman circumvented controversial political issues in Judaica by focusing on Jewish history, in Eshkol, they presented a different strategy of an assortment of opinions to maintain political neutrality. In the smaller Hebrew edition, Klatzkin chose not to use most of the historical entries from Judaica while applying most of the entries about political movements and current affairs. In addition, he placed entries with clear Zionist agenda next to entries that promoted Jewish autonomy in Diaspora. For example, in the entry “Autonomy” in the German Judaica, Dubnow, who authored it, maintained a somewhat dispassionate tone, describing it as an attempt to preserve unique Jewish characteristics that “until the present day, encountered no fundamental resistance.”¹⁶ In the sample booklet of Eshkol, however, the same article by the same author became a manifesto of an ideological movement:

 A third version of the same article with a similar tone to that of the sample booklet had been published in the encyclopedia. Compare: Simon Dubnow, “Autonomie. In der Geschichte” in Jacob Klatzkin, Encyclopaedia Judaica: Das Judentum in Geschichte Und Gegenwart, vol. 3 (Berlin: Verlag Eschkol, 1929). 749; Jakob Klatzkin, Enzyklopaedie Des Judentums : Probeheft (Berlin: “Eschkol”, 1926). 16; Simon Dubnow, “Avtonmya, BeToldot Israel” in Jakob Klatzkin, Eshkol: Entsiklopedyah Yisreelit, vol. 1 (Berlin: Hotsaat Eshkol, 1929) 134.

148

Chapter Four: Normality

Autonomy is a guiding principle that the house of Israel had insisted to maintain when under occupation and since the beginning of Exile. The inherited aspiration of all civilized nations [that are living] among foreign people, to organize their life according to its own unique laws and to resist any influence by the foreign environment when it aimed at damaging the foundations of nationalism is an especially prominent [phenomena] in the history of the Jewish nation that has been a distinct unit since ancient eras.

It is not easy to know why the publisher was interested in presenting the Autonomous movement in a particularly positive light in Hebrew. Since most of the marketing efforts of the encyclopedia were conducted in Palestine, it seems that Goldman’s motivation was to expose the reader to cultural and theological forms of Judaism that had not been common in Palestine. He assumed that readers of Hebrew already had a cohesive national identity and, therefore, the encyclopedia would not serve a purgatory in forming a collective identity. Thus, the editors did not have to present distilled political messages nor carefully examine the contents as in the Jüdisches Lexikon and even the cautiously edited Judaica. It seems as if Goldman sought to make the encyclopedia an instrument to build a more diverse national identity that would embrace and accommodate various ideological and theological perspectives (like Reform Judaism and the Autonomous Movement,) which did not leave a significant mark in the burgeoning Zionist culture in Palestine. Nevertheless, the project failed to inspire a new national identity, as it received little commercial and cultural recognition in Palestine. As a result, it was eventually abandoned with only two out of the intended ten volumes went out for print. Although reviewers praised Eshkol for the high standard of research and editorial work, some argued that the days of the genre of the Jewish encyclopedia were over.¹⁷ Their main concern was that while the academic study of Judaism is abundant, there is still no general encyclopedia in Hebrew at the library. Another reviewer attacked the encyclopedia for maintaining a “Wissenschaft style” by overemphasizing and using maskilic Hebrew of complex grammar and lexis.¹⁸ Nonetheless, with the disbandment of Eshkol, other Hebrew publishers attempted to acquire Goldmann’s rights and continue the project in Palestine.¹⁹ Despite the heavy toll of debts and lawsuits by suppliers, Goldmann initially refused all busi-

 Asher Barash (Raf-Raf ), “Eshkol: Kuntras Ledugma” Hedim 4 (1926) 114– 6; Fishel Lahover, “Bikoret Sfarim”, Moznayim 1– 34 (1930); Fishel Lahover, “Bikoret Sfarim: Eshkol, Kerekh Sheni”, Moznayim 4– 31 (1933). 14– 5.  Lahover (1933). 15.  Klatzkin to anonymous, 14 May 1934. Printed in Gnazim 5, 1977. 131; From Alfred Cassirer to Goldmann, 21 January 1937. CZA Z6/2538 – 14; From Sam Cohen to Goldmann, 1 August 1938. CZA Z6/2538 – 46.

Berlin: An Intellectual Getaway

149

ness propositions. Eventually, however, he consented, and Encyclopaedia Judaica became a vital resource and a model for encyclopedic projects in the second half of the 20th century, such as Encyclopaedia Hebraica [ha-Entsiklopedia haIvrit] and the American Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eshkol was the last link in four decades of continuous attempts to publish a comprehensive Jewish encyclopedia in Hebrew. In hindsight, the genre never gained commercial success or fulfilled Ahad Haam’s hope of fostering a new national subjectivity. In fact, besides the mediocre project of Otzar Israel, none of the encyclopedic projects in Hebrew had reached completion. The failure of the Jewish encyclopedia was all the more apparent considering the success of other Hebrew literary projects that aspired to encompass the meaning or history of Jewish collectivity, such as the folklorist compilation Sefer ha-Aggadah and the Hebrew editions of the historical works of Graetz and Dubnow. The collapse of the vision of Ahad Haam and his followers was largely the consequence of a change in how encyclopedic knowledge was consumed. The editors, who expected the users to read the entire encyclopedia as if it was a modern Talmud, did not anticipate that the users would regard the Jewish encyclopedia as a mere referential compendium in which a single entry was used at a time. That is, the users did not perceive the Jewish encyclopedia as a sacred body of knowledge that should be learned constantly but rather as an auxiliary tool in fulfilling school’s requirements. When in 1935, Reuven Mas, a Jerusalemite publisher, advertised the third edition of Otzar Israel, he did not use the religious Imagery and text saturated with national pathos like the ads of previous editions from pre-World War I. Instead, he stated in large ads that the encyclopedia would be “a useful book and a nice decoration in every Jewish house.”²⁰ The critics of the genre rested their attacks upon the fact that encyclopedias dedicated exclusively to national themes were out of fashion for nearly half a century. Even in 1894, when Ahad Haam introduced his prospectus for Otzar ha-Yahadut, the genre had already lost its lore in other national cultures as age-old publications had gradually ceased to exist. As discussed in the first chapter, the national encyclopedias gained popularity in England and France in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and emerging nations adapted the genre throughout the 19th century. While these encyclopedic projects received acclaim for cultural defiance of a foreign power and gained commercial success when first published, they gradually lost their markets for all-inclusive encyclopedias.

 An ad for Otzar Israel, ha-Yarden, 19 April 1935. 9

150

Chapter Four: Normality

Yiddish, the Language of Progress Although debates over the thematic structure of the national encyclopedia had appeared in various cultures, particularly in those of emerging nations, it had never deeply concerned Yiddish publishers. Leading Yiddish scholars had already grappled with the idea of publishing a multi-volume general encyclopedia at the beginning of the 20th century. However, unlike other attempts to publish encyclopedias in the Jewish book market, they had no interest in issuing a Jewish-themed encyclopedia and envisioned their projects as general encyclopedias. They also did not expect their project to set the foundations for a new national culture but perceived them solemnly as educational instruments. Shortly after the completion of the Jewish Encyclopedia, the editors of the Petersburg-based daily Der Fraynd announced its intention to publish a Yiddish encyclopedia. The declared purpose was to provide “the large masses, who unfortunately do not understand any other language than our mother tongue [with knowledge] about all the important things in nature, in social life, and about everything connected with general and Jewish history.” Nevertheless, they enlisted a group of notable Yiddish writers, such as Reuben Brainin (1862– 1939), Saul Ginsburg (1866 – 1940), Isaac Katsenelson (1886 – 1944), and Isaac Markon (1875 – 1949), and contacted a large publisher to take the responsibility on printing and distribution. However, the editors decided to halt the project for lack of public interest. In 1912, David Goldblatt (1866 – 1945), a Yiddish newspaper publisher from Cape Town, attempted to issue an illustrated encyclopedia. He first published twelve fascicles that served as a sample for a future encyclopedia. Goldblatt traveled to Europe with his sample booklets to fund the project and met with political leaders like Haim Weitzman (1874 – 1952) and Israel Zangwill (1864– 1926) to gain support and promote the project.²¹ After settling in New York, he began to write his Algemeyne ilustrirte enstiklopedye, which he printed shortly after the war in two hefty volumes. These volumes, which covered only part of the Hebrew letter alef, were also the only volumes Goldblatt managed to publish. Despite the significant investment, he had to shelve the encyclopedia due to harsh critical reviews.²² In the following years, three other attempts to publish a Yiddish general encyclopedia in the Jewish metropolitans of Poland, Ukraine, and Russia suffered a similar fate.²³ After the First World War, the genre of the Jewish encyclopedia lost its lure both as a national emblem and as a lucrative endeavor. Except for Eshkol, Hebrew  Yitskhok Kharlash, “David Goldblat”, in Leksikon fun der nayer yidisher literatur, ed. Samuel Niger and Jacob Shatzky (New York: Alveltlekhn Yidishn Kultur-Kongres, 1958). 37– 39.  Brisman, A History and Guide to Judaic Encyclopedias and Lexicons. 44– 5.  Ibid. 34– 6, 44– 7.

Yiddish, the Language of Progress

151

and Yiddish publishers did not lay any plans to develop encyclopedic projects of this sort. The two tongues, which earlier mainly served liturgical or colloquial proposes, had gradually become legitimate languages of the sciences, arts, and belles lettres. If the 19th-century reading of poetry or popular science book in Yiddish and Hebrew was an act charged with ideological significance, by the 1930s, much of the political load had been defused with the emergence of a new generation of Hebrew natives and as genre has gradually gained strength among Yiddish readers. Thus, the general encyclopedia in Yiddish and Hebrew was not only a political statement of opinionated publishers but a referential tool intended for users who did not have the necessary proficiencies in other languages and could not use Britannica, Brockhaus, and alike. In the Yiddish book market, conditions matured earlier when the general encyclopedia became a common goal for publishers seeking profit, Autonomist politics, and educators. Shortly after the establishment of the Yiddish Scientific Institute (YIVO) in Vilna, the idea of promoting the production of the first multi-volume encyclopedia in Yiddish became a significant issue on the institute’s agenda. In 1930, after five years of discussions, the Yiddish writer Nachman Meisel (1887– 1966) presented a plan for the “Great Yiddish Encyclopedia.” To sponsor the initial work, YIVO created a fund named after Simon Dubnow in honor of his 70th anniversary. A year later, the editorial board of the encyclopedia led by Dubnow met in Berlin to discuss the structure and content of a future publication, now with the official title “Algemeyne Entsiklopedye” [General Encyclopedia]. YIVO managed to bring together prominent intellectuals like Jacob Lestschinsky (1876 – 1966), co-founder of YIVO, Yiddishist ideologist Chaim Zhitlowsky (1865 – 1943), the historian Victor A. Tcherikover (1894– 1958), and the Zionist activist and physician Julius Brutzkus (1870 – 1951).²⁴ The plan was to issue within five years a ten-volume encyclopedia with 40,000 entries to be modeled according to Ahad Haam’s hybrid plan of Otzar ha-Yahadut that presents both long and brief entries.²⁵ In addition, subscribers would receive a supplementary volume titled “Yidn” [Jews] that covers only Jewish topics. To raise the necessary funds, the board decided to sell shares in Eastern Europe and immigrant communities abroad and later sell the encyclopedia through distributors worldwide. Despite the initial enthusiasm, however, the project was slow to emerge. Delegates of YIVO failed to promote the sale of shares in the United States amid the economic crisis, and the rise of the Nazi Party to power resulted in the closure of the main office in Berlin. In 1934, after relocating the offices to Paris, the  Kadish Silman, “Al Hotsaat Entsiklopedia be-Ivrit”, Doar Hayom, 22 March 1931. 3.  Brisman. 59 – 61. About the outcome of these projects, see: Trachtenberg, Barry. “Di Algemeyne Entsiklopedye, the Holocaust and the Changing Mission of Yiddish Scholarship.” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 5, no. 3 (2006): 285 – 300.

152

Chapter Four: Normality

first volume went into print, following three more volumes published until 1937. With the break of WWII, the publisher moved to the United States, where it published the fifth volume in an attempt to resurrect the ailing encyclopedia. All in all, the ambitious project was shelved after reaching only the second letter in the alphabet due to poor sales and low public interest. However, the planned supplementary volume Yidn drove much attention before it went into print. Thus the editorial board decided to produce a second volume. The two volumes, issued months before the occupation of Paris, were not alphabetically organized and contained large monographic articles, separated thematically to material aspects of Jewish life such as demography and economics (first volume) and spiritual aspects (second volume). Although the initial plan was to give Yidn as a gift for subscribers of the Algemeyne Entsiklopedye, it had turned into a separate publication of seven volumes (the last one published in 1966). The failure of Algemeyne Entsiklopedye and the success of Yidn reflected the drastic social change in Yiddish-speaking communities in the middle of the 20th century. The plan to publish a referential work of general knowledge had no clientele when Jewish communities in Eastern Europe were annihilated, and American Jews had had access to English all-inclusive encyclopedias. Yidn, on the other hand, was like its Hebrew predecessor Otzar Israel a much-needed platform to distill a Jewish collective identity in the United States. While virtually disappearing from the European market, the genre of the Jewish encyclopedia became an endemic work for the Jewish community in the United States. Along with Yidn, which appealed to recently arrived Eastern European immigrants, American publishers had designed Jewish encyclopedias in English whose target readership was Reform and well-rooted communities. Most prominent was the ten-volume Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, published in the 1940s. Like the early 20th-century Jewish Encyclopedia, the purpose of the new encyclopedia was twofold: to formulate an inclusive American Jewish identity and to revoke anti-Semitic perceptions among non-Jewish readers. The project’s initiator, Rabbi Isaac Landman (1880 – 1946), was impressed by Jüdisches Lexikon, and after buying the rights, he sought to issue an English edition of the German Encyclopedia.²⁶ He recruited leading scholars—like Salo Baron (1895 – 1989) and Louis Ginzberg (1873 – 1953)—to a steering committee that decided to expand the encyclopedia’s scope from its initial plan by requesting hundreds of American writers to join the project. The result was an encyclopedia specifically intended for American readers or, as Landman described it: Perhaps one of the most attractive features of this fine work is that it is especially suited for American Jews and non-Jews who may seek information on Jewish subjects. Not that other

 Julius H. Greenstone. The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, 32, no. 1 (1941): 97.

Yiddish, the Language of Progress

153

Figure 11: “Heads of Semitic Prisoners (According to Egyptian Sources),” from the entry “Jewish Anthropology” in Yidn, vol. 1. 9. Jewries are in any way neglected, but the approach, the treatment, the numerous illustrations, and the general light and simple tenor of the articles are reflective of the American method of dealing with subjects and will be readily understood and appreciated by the American reading public.²⁷

The American character of the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia was not only a matter of its “simple tenor” and numerous illustrations but also its focus on contemporary Jewish-American themes. Landman, known as a stout opponent of Zionism and an advocate of integrating Jewish immigrants into American society, perceived the encyclopedia as a tool for building Jewish collective identity.²⁸ Unlike the German encyclopedias of its time, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia focused on contemporary Jewry, modern art and sciences, and particularly American culture.

 Ibid.  In 1911, Landman established an agricultural colony in Clarion, Utah for Jewish Russian immigrants and opposed the Lodge-Fish Resolution that endorsed the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate of Palestine. Joseph Brandes and Martin Douglas, Immigrants to Freedom: Jews as Yankee Farmers! (1880s to 1960s) (2013). 36 – 8.

154

Chapter Four: Normality

Landman’s thematic choices had a stark apologetic tone in defense of Judaism, which he presented as a religion that paved the way for Western philosophy and Jewish intellectuals as leading proponents of modernity. The encyclopedia’s most significant thematic section, “Jewish Contributions to Civilization,” had listed mainly biographies of celebrity Jews “who have made notable contributions to the science, culture, and institutions of modern life.”²⁹ Among them, 21 chess players, 14 aviators, 30 architects, and four British boxers, but only twenty biographies of Zionists and brief articles about ‘foreign’ political issues such as “The Basel Program” and “Territorialism.”³⁰ Landman hoped that the “light and simple tenor of the articles” would reflect and perhaps make the image of American Jewry as ingrained in the unique geographical settings of the United States. Despite the focus of the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia on American Jewry, its great success led to the release of updated editions, including the ten-volume Encyclopaedia Judaica Castellana, which was printed in Mexico City between 1948 to 1951 and enjoyed commercial success in Spanish-speaking communities worldwide.

Becoming Native Immediately after WWI, the immigration of Jewish intellectuals to Palestine increased significantly. Indeed, prominent young writers like Yosef Haim Brenner and Shmuel Yosef Agnon had already settled in Ottoman Palestine, but they were part of a small Zionist intellectual milieu. In 1919, on board the S.S. Ruslan, which sailed from Odessa and inaugurated the wave of postwar immigration known in Zionist historiography as the Third Aliyah, arrived a diverse group of writers, scholars, and artists. Soon after they arrived at the port of Jaffa, they laid the foundations for various institutions such as the Hebrew University, the Jerusalem Conservatory of Music, Haaretz daily, and Hadassah Hospital. Among them was Joseph Klausner, a veteran editor of various encyclopedias and the monthly literary journal ha-Shiloakh. Klausner relocated to Jerusalem, the journal Ahad Haam had established two decades earlier to serve as a platform for the new national literature. In the following decade, many leading Hebrew writers, editors, and critics, including Ahad Haam himself, made the same voyage to settle in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. The small Jewish communities in Palestine, where many writers

 The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. The Seven-Branched Light; a Reading Guide and Index to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, ed. Isaac Landman (New York: Ktav Pub. House, 1969). 57.  Ibid. 57– 77; 54.

Becoming Native

155

and intellectuals congregated, proved to be a suitable setting for rekindling the idea of a national encyclopedia. Hebrew gained significance for the Zionist Movement shortly before WWI as it turned from a political tool of a faction within the Movement fort he purpose of establishing cultural autonomy to a vital part of an autochthonic identity of native Jewish-Palestinians. Immigrants to Palestine were welcomed by the slogan “Become Hebrew” to facilitate a great change in the personality of the new national Jew that turned from a passive subject of history to an active and vital actor.³¹ This call intensified after the war when Hebrew defeated its competitors in the so-called “Language War” and remained the main language of all realms of life. The new community of Hebrew natives was no longer in need of the introspective outlook of the Jewish encyclopedia. Instead, it sought to supply its schools with textbooks and referential literature in an accessible language. Before Bialik’s speech, intellectuals from the Jewish community in Palestine called for publishing a comprehensive Hebrew encyclopedia. Klausner, who had rich experience as an editor and writer in several Jewish encyclopedias of various languages, claimed that the time was ready to execute a project of this magnitude. “If the Yiddishists, who do not have a language, do not have the qualifications, and do not have the proper terminology, are now attempting to publish a comprehensive encyclopedia in their language, then we all the more so deserve it.”³² The Jerusalemite publicist Kadish Silman (1880 – 1937) used an even harsher language to portray the urgency of the matter. In a series of articles in the daily Doar haYom, he described the importance of the encyclopedia to the survival of Hebrew culture. “As long as there is no encyclopedia in our language,” he wrote, “the very essence of our literature will be absent.”³³ In consecutive articles, Silman sketched a general guideline to implement his vision, with an estimation of the costs and the suitable content for the project. To ensure the success of the encyclopedia, he argued that the center of production should be in Palestine and the content should be that of the general encyclopedia: The Land of Israel is a vital key to the project’s success. It provides the national Hebrew language its very life and offers a background to the entire culture from kindergartens to the [Hebrew] University, and Technion… [this land] will endow the work on a comprehensive Hebrew encyclopedia with all the necessary components. The encyclopedia would, eventually, be a leap forward in developing all the literary projects (particularly translated works)… In this

 Shai Ginsburg, Rhetoric and Nation: The Formation of Hebrew National Culture, 1880 – 1990 (2014). 5.  Kadish Silman, “Paz bi-Rushalayim: Sikhat ha-Prof ’ Yossef Kloyzner al Yeridat Sifrutenu”, Doar ha-Yom, 17 July 1931. 2  Kadish Silman, “Al Hotsaat Entsiklopedia be-Ivrit”, Doar ha-Yom, 22 March 1931. 3

156

Chapter Four: Normality

land, the boundaries between “Judaism” and “humanity” are blurred, [because it is here] that the Jewish man is mending his soul and seeks to straighten up and complete his national stature…³⁴

Although notable writers from across the political map had argued for the issuance of a comprehensive encyclopedia, none had discussed the thematic structure of the anticipated publication. In his speech, Bialik left the type and structure of the new encyclopedia in vogue, leaving his followers to interpret his literary will. Shortly after his sudden death, Sokolow urged the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency to establish a publishing house that would bear the poet’s name and “follow his path line and spiritual guideline.”³⁵ The objective was to publish an extensive catalog of books, ranging from religious literature to popular science. One of the most ambitious projects would be “a Hebrew encyclopedia, dedicated entirely to Hebrew themes, or a general encyclopedia.”³⁶ For this purpose, the publisher contacted faculty professors from the Hebrew University to discuss the thematic span of the project. Hence, the directors of the new publishing house, named Mossad Bialik, perceived the future encyclopedia not as a popular lexicon like its Hebrew predecessors but as a quasi-academic project that would be used mostly by researchers and students. They assumed that the work on the encyclopedia would take a few years before the project would materialize. Developing the idea into reality, however, took more time than initially expected because various meetings and discussions on structure and content delayed the work during the planning stage. Eventually, instead of a general or Jewish encyclopedia, the elected experts designed a few purely academic and discipline-focused projects. Out of the different projects, the Encyclopedia of Education [Entsiklopedia Hinukhit] and Encyclopaedia Biblica [Entsiklopedia Mikrait] were realized and reach completion, though after several decades.³⁷ Following Mossad Bialik’s lead, other publishers also created multi-volume encyclopedias on a variety of topics. Despite the different thematic focus of each project, most Hebrew encyclopedias of the time had two things in common: (1) public institutions financially supported them, and (2) their primary interest was Jewish life in Palestine. Yet, the editors of Mossad Bialik did not seek to indoctrinate or present a clear national agenda; instead, they aimed

 Ibid. 2.  “Al Mossad Bialik”, Davar, 24 January 1935.  Ibid.  Mossad Bialik officially established the steering committee of Entsiklopedia Hinukhit in 1941 and Encyclopaedia Biblica in 1942. Many of the editors and writers of both encyclopedias had been contributors or members of the editorial boards of the German Encyclopaedia Judaica and Jüdische Lexikon. Among them: Martin Buber, Umberto Cassuto, and Ernst Simon.

Bracha Peli and the Making of a Normal Nation

157

to create a platform for publishing the works of scholars of emerging academic institutions in Palestine. With no commercial motivations, however, the work on these academic encyclopedias was slow and demanded significant intellectual and technical effort. To cope with the challenges, Mossad Bialik collaborated with private publishers and outsourced part of the technical work. Its directors contacted Bracha Peli, who owned Masada Publishers—an emerging publishing house specializing in lexicons and books of popular science—in the hope of tapping her production and distribution experience.

Bracha Peli and the Making of a Normal Nation Peli was an unusual publisher in the Jewish community of Mandate Palestine. She led a successful business in a market accustomed chiefly to businessmen and was a professional businesswoman in an industry accustomed to intellectual publishers like Bialik and Rawnitzki. She established Masada in 1932, hoping to publish the allinclusive Entsiklopedia Klalit [General Encyclopedia], a multi-volume encyclopedia designed to be “accessible to all types of readers of nearly all ages.”³⁸ The idea was to provide high school students with an easy-to-use book with “concise entries written in a simple and popular language” on all types of knowledge. Peli was the owner of a small bookstore in Tel Aviv when Haim Zipprin, a First Aliyah schoolmaster from Zikhron Yaakov, approached her shop counter with a single-volume manuscript of a general encyclopedia.³⁹ Zipprin, a pioneer of Hebrew education and co-founder of the Teachers Union, hoped the encyclopedia would serve as the last stage in the War of the Languages that started as a debate about the language in schools in Ottoman Palestine. Although this “war” abated before WWI with a decisive victory of Hebrew, educators like Zipprin felt that students in the expanding Jewish community did not have reliable and comprehensive reference books. Despite her lack of experience in publishing, Peli accepted the manuscript on the spot and signed a contract with Zipprin. However, after reading the manuscript and discussing it with her associates, she expanded the project into a broader encyclopedia of six volumes. She envisioned her project as an easy-to-read encyclopedia accessible to all in the expanding Jewish community of Palestine. Unlike Ahad Haam and his many predecessors, she had no academic aspirations and sought to sell the book at a rel-

 From the prospectus of Entsiklopedia Klalit. B.S. “Kol Kore: Entsiklopedi Klalit be-Ivrit” Moznayim, 40 (140) [March, 1932]. 13.  Bracha Peli, Hayim Shel Bracha (Givatayim: Masada, 1984). 156.

158

Chapter Four: Normality

atively low price to people who were not necessarily educated. Therefore, Entsiklopedia Klalit was a return to the concept promoted by Isaac Goldman in his ha-Eshkol that was shelved nearly half a century earlier. In its structure, type of knowledge, and prospective clientele, Peli’s encyclopedia was, to some extent, a mascilic product. Like Goldman, she did not seek to fulfill the task of generating a national identity but to help individuals obtain knowledge. It was a retreat from the national ideology of early Zionist encyclopedists to that of a business entrepreneur that sought simply to fill the lack of all-inclusive encyclopedias in catalogs of Hebrew publishers. Jewish and Zionist themes, therefore, were of lesser importance to Peli than they were to previous encyclopedists. The return of the general encyclopedia marked the formation of a cohesive Jewish-national subjectivity. The seeming contradiction in producing universal knowledge in the making of national culture was part of what set encyclopedias apart from belles-lettres and other genres of Hebrew literature. Encyclopedias’ editors of the period had little to no interest in fulfilling national tasks, and their books could not be easily linked to the growing national literature of what is known as the “Renaissance Period” of modern Hebrew literature because general encyclopedias lacked what Dan Miron describes as “Jewish responsibility and identification with Jewish history.”⁴⁰ The normative foundation of Hebrew Renaissance literature enabled mainstream authors of all literary genres to install a voice that speaks on behalf of a nation and focus its introspective gaze on Jewish history and culture. However, the encyclopedists’ deviation from the norms was not a dissident gesture aiming to agitate the readers into taking political action against authority. On the contrary, by offering knowledge beyond the domain of the nation and intending their books to meet the mundane task of aiding the individual student, the initiators of the encyclopedias signaled their readers to lay down their weapons. From their point of view, the call for arms of previous encyclopedias was no longer needed because now, when the foundation of a stable national culture had already been created, it was time to use knowledge to fulfill “normal” political and educational tasks. In other words, the attempts to publish general encyclopedias and distribute them among Yiddish speakers in Europe and among Hebrew speakers in Palestine marked the stabilization of the two cultures. After more than a century of living outside traditional social corporations, autonomous subjectivities began to burgeon as they rested on stable political institutions and thriving cultural activities. For Yiddish speakers, the new subjectivity relayed on the language, the rich literary work that had accumulated throughout the last century, the arts and

 Dan Miron, “Safruyot Yehudiyot Moderniyot: Mavo,” in Zman Yehudi Hadash, ed. Yuval Yirmiyahu (Jerusalem: Keter, 2007). Vol.3. 13.

Bracha Peli and the Making of a Normal Nation

159

theater, the strong relationship between expatriates in the West and their community of origin, and often, radical socialist ideology, Yiddishism, and Autonomism. Similarly, for Palestinian Jews, the spoken Hebrew and Hebrew art and literature helped bring about the new national identity. It was, however, more difficult to define it with overarching political terms as the political map of the small community was highly stratified.⁴¹ The bourgeoning Zionist identity followed a more traditional definition of nationalism, comprising the national territory of its most vital components. In its prospectus, Masada Publishers attacked the genre of the Jewish encyclopedia and, instead, called for the production of universal knowledge: Although self-absorption is undoubtedly vital, the Jewish encyclopedias had done it wrong. Our lives—in all their aspects—are a consequence of a mixture. A mixture is what we are, and it is what we ought to be. The “whole” concerns us; we find a great interest in the “multitude,” and we indeed identify “ourselves” in the “whole” and “multitude.” We need a comprehensive general encyclopedia with the right balance of quality and quantity, like any other nation and language.⁴²

To carry this agenda further, Peli adopted the model of popular German lexicons and encyclopedias like the German Brockhaus Enzyklopädie that presented large and diverse indexes of entries that touched all fields of academic knowledge. As mentioned earlier, previous Jewish encyclopedias had followed the hybrid model of Ahad Haam, in which entries were connected through a web of links. That is, a user interested in a broad topic like sociological phenomena, theological concepts, or religious rituals had often been directed to other entries and external sources that added information about the people involved and the different historical expressions of the topic at stake. This allowed the editors of Jewish encyclopedias to convey a sociological texture of a nation in which Jewish thought and practice were not confined to a specific historical moment but were common in many places and throughout a long time. Peli, however, did not seek to answer a Jewish question or to delineate the contour lines of national identity. To generate public attention, Peli appointed Tchernichovsky as chief editor. Having a poet to head a non-fiction project of this size was another maskilic habit that disappeared over the years. Since Sholem Abramovich (1836 – 1917) edited and translated the three-volume Book of Natural History, most encyclopedic

 About disunity of the Jewish community before the war, see: Arieh Bruce Saposnik, Becoming Hebrew : The Creation of a Jewish National Culture in Ottoman Palestine (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 23 – 40.  B. S., “Kol Korim: Entsiklopedia Klalit be-Ivrit,” Moznaim 40, no. 240 (1932). 13.

160

Chapter Four: Normality

projects were the product of scholars and academics.⁴³ For Peli—as well as for 19thcentury maskilim—an expert was not a professional scientist but rather a man of words or what was known to earlier generations as a “popularizer of science.”⁴⁴ The 19th-century maskilic popularizers of science sought to expose readers to knowledge that was previously inaccessible to them due to language barriers and lack of scientific education in traditional Jewish schools.⁴⁵ Similarly, Peli did not seek to present groundbreaking scientific discoveries or up-to-date scholarly debates but to provide a carefully edited book of easy-to-read Hebrew and complete it within a short time. Nonetheless, science was not a foreign terrain for Tchernichovsky, who had recently settled in Palestine. Alongside his literary work, he worked as a physician and edited the medical section in Eshkol, and in addition to his work on Entsiklopedia Klalit, he also co-edited a Hebrew-Latin-English medical thesaurus.⁴⁶ Shortly after his appointment, he produced a sample booklet of Entsiklopedia Klalit to distribute among potential authors and editors. Peli ensured the booklet would be of superior quality by using the finest paper available, hiring a graphic designer, and displaying many photographs and illustrations. She then sent the booklet to reviewers in Palestine, the United States, and Poland, hoping to attract writers from all major Jewish centers. The reactions, however, were unsympathetic. The reviewers accused Tchernichovsky of presenting sloppy work, full of errors and grammatical mistakes. Peli, therefore, fired Tchernichovsky and searched for a new editor to carry on the project.⁴⁷ Insisting on pursuing the plan, she called a group of editors and journalists to convene at her Tel Aviv apartment and discuss the encyclopedia’s structure. Eventually, she nominated Shmuel Perlman (1887– 1958), who previously edited with Jabotinsky the first Hebrew Atlas, to lead the team of editors.⁴⁸ Perlman then immersed himself in the task, spending days and nights in the small office, where he produced singlehandedly hundreds of entries without consulting Peli or following a thematic guideline. He based all his articles on entries from Hebrew biographical lexicons and foreign encyclopedias. Therefore, the new encyclopedia’s

 Literary and folkloric ontologies like Sefer ha-Aggadah are exceptions to this rule.  Ruth Barton, “Just before Nature: The Purposes of Science and the Purposes of Popularization in Some English Popular Science Journals of the 1860s,” Annals of science: a quarterly review of the history of science since the Renaissance 55, no. 1 (1998).  Yaakov Shavit and Jehuda Reinharz, ha-El ha-Madai: Mada Populari be-Ivrit be-Mizrakh Eropa ba-Mahatsit ha-Sheniyah Shel ha-Mea ha-19 (Jerusalem: ha-Kibuts ha-Meuhad, 2011).  Shaul Tchernichovsky, Sefer ha-Munakhim le-Refuah u-Madaey ha-Tevah (Jerusalem: Margalit, 1934).  Peli, Hayim Shel Bracha. 156.  Vladimir Jabotinsky and Shmuel Perlman, Atlas (London: Hevrat ha-Sefer, 1925).

Bracha Peli and the Making of a Normal Nation

161

index turned unintentionally into an outline of a multi-volume biographical encyclopedia. However, Perlman’s strenuous work led him to physical exhaustion, so his health deteriorated rapidly, and he could no longer work on the project.⁴⁹ Thus, Peli decided to separate the administrative work from the editorial tasks. She nominated David Kalei (1898 – 1948), an experienced editor, to be in charge of the administrative work and Joseph Klausner to proofread and edit the last drafts. Klausner, who by that time was a faculty professor at the Hebrew University, agreed to help Peli in return for her assistant in issuing his academic publications.⁵⁰ Yet, due to his limited time, Klausner did not participate in editorial meetings and did not take part in planning the structure of the encyclopedia.⁵¹ To improve the pace of work, Peli appointed more editors and hired additional full-time personnel. She preferred to employ editors and writers who had gained experience in Encyclopaedia Judaica, among them Joseph Braslavski (1896 – 1972), who edited the section about the geography of Palestine, Raphael Seligmann (1875 – 1943), who edited the section on philosophy, and the writer Baruch Krupnik (1889 – 1972), who was the secretary of Eshkol’s editorial board. The summoning of veterans of the German-Jewish encyclopedias was another aspect of Masada’s adaptation of German encyclopedic knowledge, which was seen by the publisher as an ideal model at the time. Unlike other encyclopedias, the importation of knowledge was not done directly through the purchase of copyright and translation but by hiring veteran writers, the adoption of epistemic patterns, and, as we shall see, the appropriating the thematic structure of German encyclopedias. The editors contacted over a hundred scientists and scholars from the Hebrew University and the Technion who agreed to contribute articles. To the surprise of Peli and her editors, nearly all of the scholars they contacted agreed to contribute articles to the project.⁵² Articles by renowned scholars, such as the psychoanalyst Haim Ormian (1901– 1982), the philosopher Hugo Bergmann (1883 – 1975), the linguist Naftali Herz Tur-Sinai (Torczyncer; 1886 – 1973), the scholar of Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem (1897– 1982), and the writer Yakov Fichman (1881– 1958), then filled the small desk of Kalei.⁵³ This caused an unexpected problem for the publisher, who now had to revise the purpose, content, and form of her modest youth encyclopedia.

 Peli. 157.  Ibid.  Joseph Klausner, Darki Likerat ha-Tehiyah ve-ha-Geulah: Autobiyografyah 1874 – 1944 (Tel Aviv: Masada, 1955). 316.  Peli. 158.  For a list of contributors see an advertisement brochure: Entsiklopedia Klalit: Rishona be-Ivrit, Masada, 1937, 14.

162

Chapter Four: Normality

Peli’s first step was to considerably extend the plan of Entsiklopedia Klalit into a twelve-volume all-inclusive encyclopedia. She sought to rely mostly on content produced by scholars, professional writers, and other experts. As a result, the plan changed from a popular youth lexicon to an academic encyclopedia suitable primarily for educated users. To edit the scholarly entries, Kalei and Klausner expanded the editorial board to 26 members, similar in size to those of large projects such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia Judaica. Each editor was in charge of a single thematic section ranging from Astronomy to Yiddish Literature. With the large editorial board, the work at the small office of Masada Publishers became a hectic affair. Nonetheless, within a few months, Kalei and Klausner collected enough entries to facilitate the production of a couple of volumes.⁵⁴ Together with their editors, they contacted hundreds of potential contributors and started to work on designing the layout of the content. However, the move to a scholarly encyclopedia demanded more time than Peli anticipated. The large number of articles sent to the apartment-office of Masada had slowed down the pace of work. Therefore, Peli decided to make a further thorough revision by turning Entsiklopedia Klalit back to the initial plan of a lexicon of short entries and publishing alongside a children’s encyclopedia and a large academic encyclopedia. The two additional projects would nourish the large staff and the content that was already being gathered in Masada’s archives. To cut expenses, Peli decided to hasten the publication of Entsiklopedia Klalit and, only with its completion, commence the work on the more extensive academic encyclopedia. This would allow her to use the same staff in the strenuous work required by the large encyclopedia. She dismissed all the editorial board, leaving Klausner as the only academic expert in the office, and called to cut down the number of volumes of Entsiklopedia Klalit back to six. Peli set a deadline of one year (1935) for publishing the first volume and three years for publishing the entire project (1937).⁵⁵ To meet the short schedule, Kalei sent to print many of the printing sheets without consulting Klausner and without proofreading. Klausner later blamed Masada for printing many faulty articles that he could not edit within the limited time frame because of the publisher’s “commercial considerations.”⁵⁶ Peli insisted, however, that the graphic design would be of superb quality and that Entsiklopedia Klalit would present many photographs and illustrations. She hired a team of designers—among them, the typographer Ismar David (1910 – 1996), the photographer Avraham Suskin (1881– 1963), and the cartographer Mi-

 Klausner, 316 – 7; Entsiklopedia Klalit, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Masada, 1937). 3 – 4.  Ibid.  Klausner, Darki Likrat ha-Tehiyah ve-ha-Geulah: Autobiyografyah (1874 – 1944). 317.

Bracha Peli and the Making of a Normal Nation

163

chael Pikovski (1866 – 1943)—who were responsible for the typography and the many illustrations. The printing of the different works of art required Masada to hire lithographers and to commission part of the work to print houses in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Bnei Barak. To gather the many photographs and illustrations, Peli made an agreement with Siegmund Kaznelson (1893 – 1959), manager of the Jüdischer Verlag that published the Jüdische Lexikon a decade earlier, and Avraham Schwadron (Sharon; 1878 – 1957) who established the portraits collection at the National Library in Jerusalem. In both cases, the archives claimed that Masada did not pay the agreed amount, and the dispute became a legal battle that lasted for years.⁵⁷ All in all, the number of authors was similar to that of the designing team.⁵⁸ In the Hebrew book market, where every publishing house and large literary enterprise had a distinct political identity, Entsiklopedia Klalit was unusual for its lack of a clear political agenda. The lexical format of short entries allowed the editors of the encyclopedia to avoid delving into controversial issues and to blur any linkage to one of the parties in the Yishuv. Although many of the writers had a distinct political identity (Klausner, for example, was associated with Revisionist circles), their presence was limited because their names did not appear at the end of the articles. The rare instances in which political inclinations were apparent were usually the result of poor editing or financial considerations of the publishing house. Thus, for example, the first volume of the encyclopedia was accompanied by a colorful half-broadsheet map of Palestine that was initially prepared by the Israel Land Development Company for fundraising and propaganda. The map marked “the lands redeemed by Jews” and included a text saturated with national pathos. The caption that does not characterize the mostly dispassionate encyclopedia calls on the user of the map to observe and discover “how small is the area of the Jewish communities” and demands that the user “volunteer in order to hasten the fulfillment of our great goal by redeeming the land in the territory of our forefathers.”⁵⁹ This explicit appeal to the reader to support the Zionist movement, how-

 “Tviaa le-Hakhrim et Hotsaat ha-Entsiklopedia”, Davar, 31 January 1950, 4; “Sikhsukh Entsiklopedisti be-Veit ha-Din”, ha-Boker, 31 January 1950, 3; “Kalei to Schwedron,” 22 August 1935, NLA, arc. 4* 1215 6 144; “Kalei to Schwedron,” 20 October 1936, NLA, arc. 4* 1215 6 144; “Kalei to Schwedron,” 2 November 1936, NLA, arc. 4* 1215 6 144; “Kalei to Schwedron,” 7 July 1937, NLA, arc. 4* 1215 6 144; “Kalei to Schwedron,” 14 July 1937, NLA, arc. 4* 1215 6 144.  28 authors compare with four printing houses, two artistic lithographers, a team of cartographer headed by eng. Sorev, six illustrators and an unknown number of inhouse designers. Vol.1, b; “le-Hofaat ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Klalit”, Doar ha-Yom, 25 January 1935. 7.  Volume 1.

164

Chapter Four: Normality

ever, was an anomaly that does not indicate the success of the editors in distancing the encyclopedia from any kind of affiliation and political identification. The result of the small staff and the little attention paid to editing and proofreading was evident on the printed pages of the encyclopedia. Despite creating an index list in advance that included both Jewish and ’general’ titles, it appears that Peli and its editors abandoned this initial plan and instead opted for a complete adaptation of the thematic structure found in German encyclopedias. This is evidenced by the abundance of entries concerning Central European issues while other geographical regions and cultures were ignored. For example, the editors had included entries about the German conductor Hermann Abendroth (1883 – 1956), the German economist Georg Obst (1873 – 1938), the German author Anton Ohron (1846 – 1924), and the town of Adelsberg near Trieste (present-day Postojna, Slovenia), although these titles were not included in the recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. The imbalance continued in Jewish entries that, despite their frequency, the editors’ selection seems arbitrary.⁶⁰ Although many illustrations accompanied the entries, the articles were particularly short, with a short sentence of a general dictionary-like description, following a few more sentences that expanded one of the issues. The editors made intensive use of abbreviations and omitted prepositions to reduce the size of the text as much as possible. For instance: Anhalt: A state in Germany north of the Hertz Mountains, 2299 km, 375,000 in. (thousand Jews c.). Capital: Dessau. Salt industry, beer, and sugar.⁶¹

The absence of a bibliography, cross-references, and authors’ names at the end of the entries damaged the image of the encyclopedia as literature with objective value and gave it the status of a glossary for pupils in elementary schools. Aware of the many flaws, Klausner claimed that the justification for the publication of Entsiklopedia Klalit was its novelty as the first Zionist encyclopedia. At the first volume’s launch, he explained that the importance of the encyclopedia was not found necessary in its content: I will say it out loud; this volume contains things that I do not like. Some entries are too long, while others are too short, and many questions have not been adequately answered. There are indeed issues that should be scrutinized. But at the same time, it is a project that we

 For example: the encyclopedia presented an entry about the amora Rabi Ammi, while there was no entry about his close associate Rabbi Assi. Abba Shaul an important fourth generation tanna did not receive an entry, while lesser tannaim were mentioned. See more in: Fischel Lachower, “Skirot: Entsiklopedia Klalit”, Moznaim, vol. 4 (1) (1935) 198 – 201.  “Anhalt”, vol.1. 328.

Bracha Peli and the Making of a Normal Nation

165

shall all be both proud and amazed by it… A project such as this, usually initiated by governments, should have been taken care of by our academia. However, we do not have the professors and students that could be brought over and teach, and if there are [those who are willing to come], they do not speak Hebrew. If we have experts in some special field of knowledge —and they are scarce—they are apostates, and we shall not allow apostates to enter our temple.⁶²

For Klausner, the encyclopedia had a unique national value not only because of the identity of its authors but also because of two other characteristics that could be found only in Entsiklopedia Klalit: (1) being the first Hebrew general encyclopedia and (2) being the first popular Hebrew encyclopedia. As a student of Ahad Haam, he described his advocacy for a general encyclopedia as its only disagreement with his late mentor. “We have dealt with Jewish topics throughout the many years of Exile, now we must also deal with general humanistic issues,” he stated. According to Klausner, the reason for emphasizing Jewish knowledge in Diaspora was also due to the intention of rabbinic and maskilic knowledge producers, who sought to serve only a narrow intellectual elite while ignoring the Jewish masses. “Not everyone needs to be smart,” he exclaimed, The Jew shall know Hebrew like the common German man knows German. This is what marks a living language, and this encyclopedia was made for the masses.⁶³

Klausner presented Jewish national subjectivity as a new entity created in Palestine over the past few years. To facilitate its continued development, the new immigrants have to break with the elitist tradition that preferred the introspective outlook of Jewish knowledge and choose the “normal” national path of general knowledge and education. To attain normality on the pages of the encyclopedia, Klausner asked Masada that alongside the biographies of rabbis and articles taken from German lexicons, a substantial part of the content would be dedicated to the ancient history and myths of Mesopotamia, Canaan, Egypt, and especially Greece. By presenting a non-Jewish antiquity, he hoped that the true image of the ancient Hebrews and their national culture that was continuously obscured by rabbinic literature would be revealed.⁶⁴ An encyclopedia dedicated exclusively to Jewish knowledge would be detrimental to the cause of reviving the Hebrew na-

 “Hanukat ha-Kerekh ha-Rishon shel ha-Entsiklopedia: Neumo ha-Mekif shel Prof. Klausner”, ha-Yarden, 30 January 1935. 1, 4.  Ibis. 4.  He called to replace Bialik with Tchernichovsky as the “national poet” because “the national poet could not limit Judaism to an exclusive gaze on Jewish intellectual work.” Yosef Haefrati (ed.), Shaul Tshernihovski: Mivhar Maamrey Bikoret al Yetsirato, (Tel Aviv: Am-Oved, 1976). 1– 130.

166

Chapter Four: Normality

tion in Palestine because it observes Judaism as an isolated social unit that had no interaction with the world around it. Klausner, on the other hand, argued that a complete examination of Jewish nationalism would be the one that examined the relations that Judaism had with its neighbors during the period and the geographical region in which Jewish collectivity had first emerged, namely in antiquity. Entsiklopedia Klalit, therefore, did not look like other general encyclopedias because Klausner limited the category “general” to non-Jewish social sciences and philosophy, with hardly any entries dealing with topics of natural sciences and biology. The encyclopedia did not present empirical findings of a scientific experiments or visual aids and data common in popular general encyclopedias, such as statistics, graphs, cross-section images, and the like. Nonetheless, Entsiklopedia Klalit was a commercial success on an unprecedented scale. When the first volume was ready for print, Peli offered a monthly subscription plan spread over three years and cost 180 mils. A fee that any employee at the Mandate’s civil service could easily afford.⁶⁵ This price tag would have led to profit if all 5,000 copies of the first edition were to be sold. To her surprise, even before the last volume was published, all the volumes were sold through the subscription plan, leaving no additional copies for sale at bookstores. Therefore, as early as 1936, she printed another edition, and other editions followed. In all, until 1948, close to 40,000 copies were sold, considerably high demand for a book market of half a million readers. Entsiklopedia Klalit also had an unusual commercial life span that continued to the 1970s with a thoroughly revised edition.⁶⁶ Its commercial success turned Masada into the largest Hebrew publishing company in Mandatory Palestine. With the monthly revenues from subscribers’ fees, the company began to print and distribute several books of different literary genres. Unlike its competitors, however, Peli preferred not to expand the company’s catalog significantly and focused mainly on reference books and other non-fiction genres, such as an illuminated publication of the Bible, a biographical lexicon, and a series of history books. The main titles of the publishing house, however, were multi-volume encyclopedias.

 The annual subscription fees comprised to 2.16 Palestine pounds. In 1937, a tenured Jewish employee in the Mandate’s civil service earned on average 171.85 Palestine pounds a year. See: Jacob Reuveny, Memshal ha-Mandat be-Eretz Israel 1848 – 1920 (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1993). 115.  The revised edition, titled “Entsiklopedia Klalit Masada” was published under the auspices of Alumot publishers. Entsiklopedyah Klalit Masada, (Tel Aviv: Hotsaat Alumot, 1958).

The Nation’s Young Vanguards

167

The Nation’s Young Vanguards Shortly after the completion of Entsiklopedia Klalit, Peli asked Kalei to proceed with the plan of issuing a children’s encyclopedia titled “Neurim” [Youth]. The genre that had a rather short history of three decades was ideal for Masada publishers due to the small staff that it required and its strong prospect for gaining profit that derived from a steady demand for popular science books as bar mitzvah gifts. Peli, however, had to cancel her initial plan to use content from Entsiklopediah Klalit with minor modifications for a younger readership because she realized that the prose and themes of the youth encyclopedia were utterly different. She, therefore, acquired rights from the British publishing house Educational Book Company Ltd. For translating its successful Children’s Encyclopædia (or The Book of Knowledge as it was known in the United States.) The Children’s Encyclopædia was initiated in 1908 by the British educator Arthur Mee as a biweekly Magazine for children and was quickly turned into an eight volumes encyclopedia (and later ten volumes) that was translated into Chinese, French, Italian, and Portuguese. The non-alphabetically organized youth encyclopedia had a comprehensive index at the last volume, enabling readers to search for specific knowledge. However, for school assignments, the youth encyclopedia was not a reliable referential source as it primarily functioned as an evening newspaper for children. It contained randomly presented pieces of information, including a section dedicated to current affairs, and was intended for long cover-to-cover readings. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Mee did not use proper names in the titles of the articles; instead, he posed questions or vague phrases to stimulate readers’ curiosity. The article “Man Begins to Think of God,” for example, was a history of religion in early antiquity and part of a longer section that portrayed “The March of Man from the Age of Barbarism to the League of Nations.”⁶⁷ A typical article was ten columns long, followed by two to five pages of photographs and illustrations. Mee used didactic language with a clear distinction between “right” and “wrong”, and “progressive” and “primitive” and left a little room, at most, for in-depth discussions of controversial issues. Thus, the frequent use of superlatives, dramatic language, and rhetorical questions and the direct address to readers in the first-person plural (e. g., “We have to talk now about simplest kinds of living creatures”⁶⁸) attested to one of the editor’s central goal of making the articles ready-made school lectures. In Neurim, Kalei adopted the writing style and the format of the Children’s Encyclopædia but made two noticeable modifications in content: the secularization of

 “The Children’s Encyclopedia,” ed. Arthur Mee (London: Amalgamated Press, 1922). Vol.1. 543.  Ibid. “The Tiniest Living Things”. 575.

168

Chapter Four: Normality

the text and occasional discussions on Jewish aspects of the phenomenon in question. The Children’s Encyclopædia had a strong religious tone, particularly in articles related to astronomy, Christian holidays, and history. For example, in the first article of the encyclopedia “Earth and its Neighbours,” the author explained that although the world is a small fraction of a vast universe, all things “have their place in God’s great scheme of things.”⁶⁹ The editors of Neurim, on the other hand, had secularized the article by avoiding references to God and alluding to evolution and natural selection. In the Hebrew edition, the same entry begins with a description of the prehistoric world with no boundaries: “The primordial man, who was feral or half-feral, knew only a small portion of the land of which he inhabited, that was his entire world.”⁷⁰ Although the editors had often added quotes from the Bible and rabbinic literature, their purpose was not to ratify the existence of God but rather to portray Jewish tradition and shared beliefs. Another change the editors made was the insertion of Jewish knowledge, either by adding a section to existing articles or by composing new articles on Jewish topics. In the first volume, these additions usually appeared at the margins of the entries, representing only a small part of the total written content. However, following criticism of the scarcity of Jewish knowledge, from volume two onward, Kalei allocated more space to articles written by in-house authors, amounting to more than fifty percent of the content.⁷¹ In these volumes, Neurim passionately supported Zionism and often demanded its young readers take part in building and defending the Yishuv and Zionist enterprises in Palestine. Today we are living in the era of Zionism. The nation, in all its diasporas, directed all its efforts at one goal: the return of the people of Israel to their old homeland, to the Land of Israel, to renew their days as before… With these efforts, we have revitalized vast areas in the desolated Land of Israel, and in a short time, we turned from a miserable little community of 8,000 – 10,000 people to a Hebrew tribe of half a million people. With our power [i. e., Zionism], we brought life and hope to the soring Diasporas that are under the grip of evil oppressors by providing a reason for their life. The mission had yet to be accomplished. Realizing the Zionist aspirations is the goal of this generation, the imperative of the entire era.⁷²

The transformation of the encyclopedia from a universal body of knowledge that deals primarily with natural sciences and geography to a book dealing mainly with national content created a noticeable epistemological difficulty. The translated articles, designed to arouse the reader’s curiosity by slowly exposing the subject,

   

The Children’s Encyclopedia. 9. Entsiklopedyah Neurim, ed. David Kalei (Tel-Aviv: Masada, 1938). 9. M. Kore, “Neurim”, Davar, 4 November 1938. 3. “Ha-Tsionot: Yameiha ke-Yemey ha-Galut”, Entsiklopediah Neurim, vol. 4. 143.

The Nation’s Young Vanguards

169

were placed alongside articles on Judaism written according to patterns common to standard lexicons and dictionaries. That is, the titles were simple concepts or objects like “Hanukkah” or “Pesach,” and the articles typically began with a general description followed by a more in-depth portrayal of the subject in hand. The merger of two knowledge domains proved to be unsuccessful, especially in the translated entries. The editors had exhausted the already lengthy texts with stories featuring Jewish anecdotes that resulted in multiple narrative complexities. Indeed, it was common to youth popular science books that the description he encyclopedic object developed gradually through a story instead of a more rigid structure of the encyclopedic entry that began with a general definition followed by peripheral information. In Neurim, however, the inclusion of Jewish perspectives made the entries quite complex and difficult for child readers to comprehend. In the article “Clocks Throughout History,” for instance, the author presented a long history of different time measurement techniques, including an account of an early renaissance watch: “Around the year 1500, in the German city of Nirenberg—which in recent years is notoriously known for her evil laws against the Jews—the first pocket watch was invented; due to its oval shape it was known as the ‘Nirenberg Egg.’”⁷³ Half a century after the first attempt to publish a general Hebrew encyclopedia (and the last one until Masada’s Entsiklopedia Klalit), Hebrew encyclopedists continued to struggle to create a coherent language that would facilitate articles in both general and Jewish knowledge. Despite the long period that has elapsed, in which Hebrew had turned to an everyday language with a more extensive vocabulary, Jewish knowledge remains preserved and protected through the screens of traditional linguistic patterns. Despite the Epistemic difficulties and the non-alphabetical arrangement, Neurim was a great success. After completing the first edition, a second edition went into the press to fulfill the growing demand. In the 1940s, Masada published other editions, and a sixth volume was added. Numerous copies were sold either as a perk to labor unions or as a gift to subscribers of daily newspapers. About a decade after the completion of the encyclopedia, other publishers tried to produce encyclopedias of similar arrangement and content, but in most cases, the success was only partial.

 Neurim, vol.4. 81.

170

Chapter Four: Normality

Conclusions Bialik’s lamentation of the fate of Hebrew culture in the Diaspora was also a eulogy to the encyclopedists’ hope of creating a global Jewish subjectivity. After five decades of ongoing attempts to produce a Jewish encyclopedia that would mend the theological tensions and the cultural gaps between Jewish communities, there were no significant indications of such an identity emerging. If, in the past, Bialik and others held some hope in light of the formation of a Jewish national establishment and the expansion of the Hebrew language after World War I, they lost confidence in the possibility of creating an overarching body of knowledge. The efforts of early Zionists like Ahad Haam and Julius Eisenstein to present a nuanced panoramic view of Judaism along its long history and vast geographic distribution had been replaced with cultural convergence within narrow geographical spheres. Instead of an encyclopedia for the entire Jewish people, publishers produced encyclopedias for separate national Jewish communities. Thus, Jewish encyclopedias published in Berlin were designed to stimulate the emergence of a cohesive Jewish-German identity, and Jewish encyclopedias in English were intended to refine a Jewish-American identity. This preoccupation with forming local collective identities had abrupted attempts to publish general encyclopedias for Jewish readers in Europe. YIVO’s effort to print a general encyclopedia in Yiddish failed miserably when due to the political turmoil in Europe, the publisher reduced it to Jewish reference books for Jewish immigrants in the United States. In Palestine, on the other hand, the universal knowledge of the general encyclopedias was in great demand. Notwithstanding its small consumer base, the limited Hebrew book market provided a fertile ground for the publication of the first general encyclopedias in Hebrew after five decades of failed attempts. The main reason was the lack of easy-to-read referential knowledge in Hebrew to serve the expanding Jewish community in Palestine. Although the time that had elapsed since the establishment of the first Zionist colonies was rather short, the Yishuv succeeded in creating a distinct and stable identity of natives that was deeply connected to the Hebrew language and its surrounding geography. Thus, unlike Jewish communities in Germany and the United States, the national subjectivity that ascended in Palestine did not have to define its collective persona and examine the boundaries that demarcated it. When introspection had no value, there was no significance to national knowledge, and the encyclopedia was no longer needed to make a new culture. Instead, the encyclopedias of the Yishuv reflected a wellgrounded culture that was no longer obsessed with its past and diasporic tradition but was comfortably situated in the Middle East. Since the creation of this autochthonic knowledge was paradoxically a result of the importation of knowledge from Germany or England—either through employing editors and writers who worked

Conclusions

171

on German encyclopedias or through translating content—the editors of the Hebrew general encyclopedias made the necessary revisions to adapt them to needs of the typical Yishuv reader. Peli and her editors at Masada Publishers tried to represent the new national identity on the pages of the Entsiklopedia Klalit and Neurim. The two encyclopedias were the first attempts to publish Hebrew general encyclopedias in the 20th century. Interestingly, the effort of Masada had some similarities with the early attempt of Isaac Goldman and the maskilim around him to produce a general encyclopedia that would provide young Jews with knowledge about the world outside the Jewish community and encourage them to enter the Polish and Russian labor market. But while the maskilic experience was mostly the fantasy of a handful of intellectuals who tried to reconcile the contradictions between cultural preservation and exposure to the knowledge of the world, the encyclopedias of the 1930s operated within a community that sought this type of literature. Peli, therefore, responded to a demand of a readership that had little interest in the age-old Jewish encyclopedias and was eager to know more about the world beyond the thresholds of its community. She crafted her encyclopedias in accordance with the desires of the readership and the developing character of the Zionist Yishuv, indirectly making her readers passive co-authors. This made Masada’s encyclopedias different in their themes, register, and political and theological agendas than the Jewish encyclopedias that preceded them and the European general encyclopedias that served as their templates. Entsiklopedia Klalit and Neurim presented an image of a secure, secular, curious, and European national culture. Although the encyclopedias were phenomenally successful, not everyone was pleased with the final result. Fischel Lachower, who praised the initiative to publish a multi-volume referential book in Palestine, expressed his frustration at the reduction of the great aspirations of earlier Hebrew encyclopedists to the production of a superficial lexicon of short entries. While they sought “to enrich our literature and expand the boundaries of our holy language,” he wrote, “we have to settle with less for the time being.”⁷⁴ As we shall see in the next chapter, Peli took the criticism of the encyclopedias seriously. Over the next two decades, she spearheaded the creation of Hebrew encyclopedias that were entirely different in their content and purpose, in a period of unprecedented prosperity for the genre.

 Fischel Lachower, “Skirot: Entsiklopedia Klalit”, Moznaim, vol. 4 (1) (1935) 201.

Chapter Five Omnipotence: Making the Israeli Canon The 1940s and 1950s will undoubtedly be remembered as the period of Hebrew Encyclopedism. Although these two decades—that saw the destruction of European Jewry and the establishment of the State of Israel—are critical [to the future of the Jewish people], they have not been adequately depicted in the literature of our time. Even when an artist or a writer tries to portray the great drama of this era, their talent is merely enough to illustrate the intensity of events as they happened in reality and to embody the magnitude of the disaster or the miracle. Recently, however, there have been initial signs that a single literary project is about to leave its mark on the period; It is the genre of the Hebrew encyclopedia in all its variants.¹

In the decade following the establishment of the State of Israel, the genre of the Hebrew encyclopedia flourished. Multi-volume encyclopedias adorned the bookcases in the living rooms of most Israeli households. Thousands of Israelis had joined subscription plans, while others stood in line to purchase the remaining copies in bookstores. At the same time, encyclopedic entries served as a criterion for truth when their articles functioned as expert witnesses in courts, and the Israeli media relied on them as supreme arbitrators. For Israelis, the encyclopedias were a source of pride and an indication of a promising bright future and the talent ingrained in the new state. This decade was a moment of optimism in which the readers perceived the printed pages of the encyclopedias as a powerful cure from years of misery in the Diaspora. The creators of these new publications positioned them as compilations of fresh studies conducted by young Israeli scholars, with the aim of replacing diasporic literature and ushering in a renaissance of Hebrew scholarship. It was a moment of expectation for a new collective identity to emerge in the Land of Israel after the Jewish community in Europe had dwindled spiritually and physically destroyed in the Holocaust. To some extent, the public thirst for encyclopedias was the fulfillment of Ahad Haam’s vision of reorganizing Jewish society by laying a new infrastructure of knowledge that would serve as a reservoir of symbols which in turn induced the crystallization of national identity. The idea was to replace canonical books and rabbinic literature with knowledge that would appeal to modern Jewish readers and provide them with a flattering reflection of their collective national self. The writer and critic Shelomoh Skulski (1912– 1982) described this time as the beginning of an “encyclopedic era,” a period of national creativity and knowledge

 S. Alidan, “ha-Entsiklopedizem ha-Hadash” Herut, 3 November 1950, 5. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-007

Chapter Five: Omnipotence: Making the Israeli Canon

173

production that stands in contrast to the calamity of previous years.² Similarly to encyclopedias from the turn of the century, the initiators of the ambitious projects of the 1950s perceived encyclopedic knowledge as a vehicle of national resurrection that would renew the spirit of a defeated nation and form a modern national culture. Interestingly, however, the public fascination with encyclopedias increased after territorial sovereignty was achieved. For both the readership and the encyclopedic writers, the national territory and political sovereignty were not enough to install a clear national persona. They needed these large-scale projects to enrich the new culture by connecting Israelis with the Jewish literary culture of the Diaspora and, at the same time, expand their understanding of the world. Although local publishers had already laid plans in the 1930s to publish comprehensive encyclopedias, their plans were slow to materialize as the technical conditions developed adequately only after the establishment of the State of Israel. The encyclopedias published during this period—particularly Entsiklopedia Mikrait, Entsiklopedia Hinukhit, Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevra, and ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit —were all celebrated by the growing republic of letters. Critics had praised these large literary projects, while customers anticipated the publication of each volume and joined in masses subscription plans. These projects flourished throughout most of the 1950s until public enthusiasm waned down at the end of the decade. In the 1960s, the lively debate over the national role of encyclopedias had vanished, and so did the flow of readers who joined subscription plans. Israeli readers were no longer seeking cultural projects of this magnitude, were not in search of a collective identity, and lost interest in the introspective gaze on the national self. They sought, instead, universal knowledge that reveals the world outside. Publishers had, therefore, turned to translate popular Italian, French, and American encyclopedias that, from the 1960s, gained significant commercial success. Without the vigor of enthusiast editors and the financial backing of a broad clientele, encyclopedic endeavors such as ha-Etsiklopedia ha-Ivrit and Entsiklopedia Mikrait continued to exist until reaching completion in the 1980s. When the projects were over, the history of the printed Hebrew encyclopedias had virtually ended. The publishing of the revised edition of the ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit in 1992 was also the swan song of the genre, after which no other commercial encyclopedias of this size were published. This chapter examines how editors and publishers chose to display knowledge during the genre’s heyday. It looks closely at the four decades of Israeli encyclopedias, from the inception of Entsiklopedia Mikrait in the early 1940s to the publica-

 S. Alidan, “ha-Entsiklopedizem ha-Hadash” Herut, 3 November 1950, 5.

174

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

tion of the last commercial Hebrew encyclopedias in the 1980s.³ Throughout this period, the meaning of a “national encyclopedia” and the content that it entailed were products of a negotiation between the three, often contradictory, goals of making profits, educating the masses, and making scholarship. The chapter also observes the effect of the dramatic political events of the establishment of the State of Israel and the mass immigration that followed it on the public status of the encyclopedias as a supreme staple of truth and objectivity.

The Bible and the Cosmopolitan Levant Despite the enthusiastic support of scholars in the Yishuv and the agreement of the Zionist Organization to provide funding, the projects of issuing multi-volume encyclopedias faced significant delays beyond the original plans. Long debates over form and content at the offices of Mossad Bialik resulted in the formulation of initial position papers, at most. Despite the public enthusiasm, it seemed as if the vision of the Hebrew national encyclopedia was doomed to another failure. In contrast to the idle discussions that characterized the work on most academic encyclopedias, the editors of Entsiklopedia Mikrait [Encyclopedia of the Bible] succeeded in creating an efficient working environment and, within a relatively short time, managed to publish a meticulously edited and well-designed first volume. The success of Entsiklopedia Mikrait was a result of three reasons. First, the publisher had invested special efforts in the project because Bialik himself tried to promote the publication of an encyclopedia exclusively dedicated to the Bible on two separate occasions.⁴ Second, most editors and authors were committed to the project and devoted much of their time and energy to it. Lastly, the Bible was a source of great interest to the Israeli public, who closely followed the work of the editors and supported it by the positive turnout to the subscription plan. Although the directors of Mossad Bialik had already discussed a plan to issue an encyclopedia dedicated to the Bible during the inception of the publishing house, the project started to materialize only six years later amid World War II. In January 1942, Eleazar Lipa Sukenik (1889 – 1953), co-founder of the Department of Archeology at the Hebrew University, offered Mossad Bialik to join a project of the Hebrew University to publish a series of books on contemporary Bible studies. Mossad Bialik agreed on the condition that the publishing house would be involved

 Masada published a supplementary volume in 1985, and Sifriyat Poalim published a revised edition of the entire encyclopedia with an additional supplementary volume in the early 1990s.  Brisman. 134.

The Bible and the Cosmopolitan Levant

175

in all stages of production. After a memorandum of understanding was signed, a joint steering committee was formed with members of both institutions. The Hebrew University was represented by Sukenik, the philologist Naftali Herz TurSinai (Torczyner; 1886 – 1973), the orientalist and rector of the university Leo Aryeh Mayer (1895 – 1959), the Talmudist Moshe Zvi Segal (1876 – 1968) and the Bible scholar Umberto Cassuto (1883 – 1951). The editors on behalf of the publishing house were the educator Joshua Gutman (1890 – 1963), the archeologist Shmuel Yevin (1896 – 1982), the literary critic Fischel Lachover (1883 – 1947), the archeologist Benjamin Maisler (Masar; 1906 – 1995), the veteran editor of Judaica Maksas Soliali (Soloveičikas; 1883 – 1957), and Moshe Gardon (1892– 1974), director of Mossad Bialik, who attended many of the early meetings. One of the committee’s early decisions was to withdraw from Sukenik’s original plan of issuing a thematically organized book series dedicated to recent research in Bible Studies in favor of an alphabetically arranged encyclopedia.⁵ The stirring committee also decided to adopt the hybrid model of Ahad Haam, in which short entries about biblical biographies, events, and places of secondary importance were laid next to studies about general subjects or geographical regions, such as “Mesopotamia” and “Precious Stone.” It took the committee another two years to compose a detailed index of potential entries. The plan was to produce around 6,700 entries in five volumes (5,000 columns) and complete the project within five years.⁶ The committee also decided to nominate Cassuto as the editor-in-chief, Sukenik and Yevin as chairman and secretary of the editorial team, respectively, and Lachover as the copy editor. At the planning stage, the steering committee hoped to turn the encyclopedia into a canonical Zionist book that would reach every Jewish home in the Yishuv. In the many meetings they held at the Cassuto and Sukenik’s private apartments, all committee members agreed to abstain from hiring non-Jews as writers and editors.⁷ “If for the goyim the Bible is a historical document,” Gardon has concluded

 Mossad Bialik, however, would later publish a series of books titled “Sifriyat ha-Entsiklopedia haMikrait” [Encyclopaedia Biblica Series] that was dedicated to recent studies in the field. Although, some of the studies were, in fact, elaborated entries, Mossad Bialik continued to publish books in the series after the completion of the encyclopedia.  “Introduction”, in Entsiklopedia Mikrait: Otsar ha-Yediot al ha-Mikra u-Tekufato, ed. Umberto Cassuto (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1950). ix-xiii; “Protocol of a Meeting of Entsiklopedia Mikrait’s Editorial Committee,” 14 January 1943, INLA, Cassuto Archive, 1787 02 92.2.  The steering committee made an official rule that “whenever possible, entries authors would be Jewish scholars from the Land of Israel, second choice would be Jewish scholars from abroad, and only then [we would call upon] non-Jewish scholars. There will certainly be a few entries, that we would not be able to ask foreign scholars to write. “Protocol of the Fifth Meeting of Entsiklopedia Mikrait’s Editorial Committee,” 9 July 1942, INLA, Cassuto Archive, 1787 02 92.2.

176

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

an editorial meeting, “for us, it is a matter concerning all things.”⁸ This decision had produced a minor quarrel at one of the committee’s meetings as some of its members claimed that an all-Jewish cohort of authors was contrary to the universality of the genre, especially in light of the fact that many of the world’s leading biblical scholars were non-Jews, including the linguist David Diringer (1900 – 1975) and William F. Albright (1891– 1971), who was a close associate of some of the committee’s archaeologists. Cassuto replayed that “despite the scientific standpoint of the editorial board, the Christian minister’s approach is different [from the encyclopedia’s], and beneath the surface of consciousness, there is a need here for a Jewish soul.”⁹ Cassuto convinced the committee to agree that under no circumstances can authors of distinctly Jewish entries—like “Solomon’s Temple” or “Torah Ark”—be non-Jews.¹⁰ Yet, for its initiators, the national status of the encyclopedia would not only derive from the identity of its staff but rather from its thematic layout. Like many other modern Jewish thinkers, they perceived the Bible as the cornerstone of a new Jewish collective identity.¹¹ For them, the Bible was antithetical to the Talmud and later halakhic literature, which represented Diasporic Jews as politically passive subjects who dealt with minor technicalities of legal quibbles. On the other hand, they understood biblical figures as much-needed models for a desired Jewish self that governed its own destiny and was engaged in intellectual and artistic creativity. The Bible also signified the possibility of remaking a Hebrew culture and reclaiming a national territory in Palestine. Unlike their maskilic forerunners, however, the editors of Entsiklopedia Mikrait had to demarcate the boundaries of biblical knowledge constantly. Although many of the entries examined postbiblical events and the Bible’s influence on later literature, the editors refrained from including themes that were not part of the mainstream avenues of Jewish theology and thought. They were particularly wary of including interpretations of the Bible that were considered “foreign,” like “the belief in the origins of human sin (the sin of Adam and Eve) or the issue of Immanuel, and alike.”¹²

 “Protocol of the Second Meeting of Entsiklopedia Mikrait’s Editorial Committee,” 28 May 1942, INLA, Cassuto Archive, 1787 02 92.2.  9 July 1942, INLA, Cassuto Archive, 1787 02 92.2.  Ibid.  Many of the editorial meetings were dedicated to issues concerning the extent and limits of biblical themes. See for instance a lengthy meeting of the steering committee: Ibid.  “Protocol of the Fourth Meeting of Entsiklopedia Mikrait’s Editorial Committee,” 25 June 1942, INLA, Cassuto Archive, 1787 02 92.2.

The Bible and the Cosmopolitan Levant

177

Despite the editor’s enthusiasm, the meticulous preparations, and the large staff, it took the publisher more than 40 years to complete the project. Although the writing continued with great vigor, the editing work was delayed due to Lahover’s death and the frequent absences of Cassuto. Eventually, the first volume went into print in 1950 after further delays caused by the 1948 War. Notwithstanding the critical and commercial success of the first two volumes (1950, 1954), the publication of subsequent volumes had been postponed due to the sudden deaths of both Cassuto and Sukenik.¹³ Until 1962 Mossad Bialik had published two additional volumes, but as time passed, the public interest in Entsiklopedia Mikrait had dwindled, and, in turn, the pace of work had slowed considerably. The fifth volume was published in 1968, and the following volumes (1976, 1982, 1989) were the work of an entirely new generation of orientalists and Bible scholars. Nevertheless, the delays and the personnel changes did not affect the high academic standards of the encyclopedia. The main reason for this is that many of the writers and editors, who belonged to Jerusalemite intellectual circles, saw it as a primary tool for communication between different research fields and mutual enrichment. It was an intimate cohort of renowned scholars for whom the encyclopedia had two very different functions: to disseminate knowledge among the general public and to serve as an environment for the development of academic research. In several instances, discussions over entries became the basis for further research that Mossad Bialik published in a special book series under the title “Sifriyat Entsiklopedia Mikrait” [Encyclopaedia Biblica Library].¹⁴ Although Bible encyclopedias are among the oldest types of encyclopedic literature, they did not have a significant presence in the Jewish book market. Bible encyclopedias were an essential genre within the Christian curriculum, whose sources could be traced in Byzantine lexicons, and from the 18th century, it was rejuvenated with the flourishing of philological and archeological research. In contrast, Jewish encyclopedias authors were careful not to distinguish between the Bible and later halachic literature. In this case, the prudency derived from earlier editors’ desire to maintain a degree of traditional rabbinic interpretation of the script and avoid higher criticism of the Bible that seeks to observe the Bible by placing it within its historical context. While the problem of higher criticism was an issue that previous Jewish encyclopedists dealt with—often by avoiding

 All 5,000 copies of the first edition were sold within a year and a second edition of 10,000 copies went into print with the publication of the second volume in 1954. Immanuel Ben Gurion, “Entsiklopedia Mikrait”, Davar, 20 April 1951, 5; “Yatsa la-Or”, ha-Tsofeh, 16 April 1954, 10.  Expansion of the entries “Commentary” (Moshe Grinberg, 1983), “Semitic Languages” (Haim Rabin, 1991), and “Jewish Holidays in Antiquity” (Yaacov Licht, 1988) were among the books in the series.

178

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

Figure 12: “Map of the Biblical World.” The depiction of the Levant as a borderless sphere of cultural exchange, stood in stark contrast to a reality of hostility and violence. (Entsiklopedia Mikrait, appendix to Vol. 5).

it entirely or adding a traditional perspective (as in the Jewish Encyclopedia)— Yevin and Cassuto made it their most important lens of looking at the script.¹⁵ For them and their many readers, the Bible was not a moral text or a spiritual guide to Jewish metaphysics but rather a book of history. Understanding the Bible could be only achieved by broadening the research lens to observe the vast geography of the ancient East, particularly that of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Many biographical entries were dedicated to non-Jews that were not mentioned in the Bible, like Alexander the Great, Hammurabi, and Thutmose [Fig. 13]. Similarly, Yevin and Cassuto had included numerous entries about places not mentioned in the script and were not part of the “Promised Land,” such as Ugarit, Asia Minor, and the ancient Egyptian town of Elephantine. Even in the entry “Eretz Israel”—the most extensive entry in the encyclopedia, consisting of 139 columns—only a single section was dedicated to Biblical history (section eight, writ-

 See in chapter two, a discussion about higher criticism in the conservative Otzar Israel.

The Bible and the Cosmopolitan Levant

179

ten by Maisler), while the rest of the long entry dealt with issues such as flora, fauna, and geology. Many editors and authors were not biblical scholars in the narrow sense of the word but were orientalists who had engaged in studying Semitic languages and cultures of the Near East. Even Cassuto, renowned for his critique of Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis of the Bible, turned to study Canaanite poetry and mythology during his later years.¹⁶ Similarly, Haim Tadmor (1923 – 2005), who later replaced him as chief editor, was an Assyriologist whose work focused on the philology of Mesopotamian texts. The observation of the Near East as a single cultural unit led to the use of research tools that were not common in popular Jewish literature of the Bible. While there was nothing new in comparing the Bible to legal documents and mythological eposes from the region and using ancient Semitic languages as philological tools, the authors seemed to heavily rely on Modern Arabic. This is particularly true in some of the articles written by Tur-Sinai, like the entry about “Bridegroom of Blood” (hatan damim): In the Book of Exodus, chapter 4, verse 26, in the story of Moses who returned from meeting Pharaoh where he had warned him that the plague of the firstborns would come upon him if he refused to send Israel, the firstborn of God, it was said: “And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a flint, cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and she said: ’Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me.’ So He let him alone. Then she said: ’A bridegroom of blood regarding the circumcision.’” Since Moshe’s name is not mentioned in the rest of the passage, it is difficult to decide who is the epithet “bridegroom of blood” refers to. Chazal argued about this subject… The meaning of the stem [ha.ta.n] in Arabic (circumcise=‫ ) ﺧﺘﻦ‬indicates that this signifier refers to a circumcised person, according to the ancient tradition of conducting circumcision to a thirteen years old boy (cf. Circumcision, Ishmael) and prepares him in this way to his wedding day. It seems that this tradition is essentially etiological, which explains the title bridegroom of blood given to the circumcised child, and this is the literal explanation: ‘Then (Zipporah) bridegroom of blood for circumcision, i. e., the title to the circumcised child came from this action.¹⁷

Tur Sinai’s extensive use of these philological tools had brought wrath from Israel Eldad (1910 – 1996), a nationalistic critic: Of all the ancient languages, only Hebrew remains to this day in its full and complete form. Thanks to the Bible. Other languages did not survive history, except fragments on tools, stones, and broken potsherds. Since other nations’ texts are hardly readable, their meaning is assumed, and their intentions are lost in oblivion and cease to exist. Professor Tur-Sinai

 Umberto Cassuto. Biblical and Canaanite Literatures (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1972).  Naftali Herz Tur-Sinai, “Bridegroom of Blood,” Entsiklopedia Mikrait vol. 3. 357. The translation from the Book of Exodus is from Tanakh (Jewish Publication Society, 1917).

180

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

takes our surety, our fine instrument, and breaks it into pieces to re-unite it with other sources. I do not claim that everything is well with us [i. e., the accuracy of the Biblical source]. This is not being advocated even by those who consider the Bible a sacred text, but Tur-Sinai’s use of other sources to clarify the Biblical text is like illuminating the sun with the light of distant stars.¹⁸

In addition to challenging traditional patterns of Jewish Bible studies, the editors’ call for observing the Bible within a broad geographical context was a political challenge to mainstream Zionism. Just as it is impossible to understand the stories of Genesis without Gilgamesh and ancient Hebrew law without Hammurabi, the editors strove to ease cultural seclusion within the modern Middle East. The fresh studies presented on the pages of Entsiklopedia Mikrait resulted from archeological excavations that were possible when empires imposed a reality of open borders and considerable freedom of knowledge exchange. In the middle of the 20th century, the emergence of national movements was a source of concern for Cassuto and Yevin. The work on their Entsiklopedia Mikrait began during a period of relative freedom of movement before physical barriers had prevented travel from Israel to its neighboring countries. On a symbolic level, the Bible set an example for a different Middle East than the one that was gradually taking shape. It was an imaginary Middle East of open borders, a degree of tolerance, and constant contact between neighbors. The editors of the Entsiklopedia Mikrait, for example, rejected the notion that the Israelites were a well-defined collective subject that lived on a secluded territory with minor cultural exchange with its surroundings. From their perspective, this notion was not only historically inaccurate but also inadequate as a symbol for a modern and liberal nation. The editors of Entsiklopedia Mikrait also deviated from the path laid by Jewish geographers of Palestine that perceived the Bible as a guidebook to the geography of the national territory. Like Klausner before them, Cassuto and Yevin marked a geography that ranged from the Eastern Mediterranean through Mesopotamia to Central Asia as an open space in which diverse cultures interacted with each other (Fig. 12). The emphasis on the geographical and cultural context stood in contrast with the prevalent view of the Bible, which primarily centered on its ethical and theological dimensions. Instead of focusing on the story of the Israelites as it appeared in the Bible, Yevin and Cassuto offered their readers a panoramic outlook of various cultures in the entire region. In that sense, the scholars of the Hebrew University presented antiquity as a proposal for a new framework of collective memory that would lay a cultural basis for a cosmopolitan nation-state. The idea of cosmo Israel Eldad, “ha-Mikra Hozer le-Veyto u-li-Fshuto”, Sulam, 1 September 1950. 16.

The Bible and the Cosmopolitan Levant

181

Fig. 13: The editors dedicated several entries to issues that were not related directly to the biblical text (“A head of an Akkadian Ruler: Nineveh, the second half of the third millennia BCE.” from “Mesopotamia,” Entsiklopedia Mikrait, 5th volume)

politan nationalism was developed by Immanuel Kant as a normative structure to a new political order and was later hailed by Giuseppe Mazzini and others as a new and healthier form of patriotism.¹⁹ Mazzini urged the establishment of a peaceful Europe composed of autonomous nations ruled by the authority of the law and bound together with a sense of regional solidarity. Cassuto and Yevin had a similar hope for the Middle East in which all nations would have political and cultural independence, but an overarching regional identity would link the nations into a Levantine commonwealth. By referring to the ancient history of the Levant in constructing a regional identity, the editors of the encyclopedia continued a political and aesthetic trend that reached its peak in the 1940s with the  sabella, Maurizio, ’Mazzini’s Internationalism in Context: From the Cosmopolitan Patriotism of the Italian Carbonari to Mazzini’s Europe of the Nations’, in C. A. Bayly, and E. F. Biagini (eds), Giuseppe Mazzini and the Globalization of Democratic Nationalism, 1830 – 1920 (London, 2008; online edition, British Academy Scholarship Online, 31 Jan. 2012) 11– 35.

182

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

rise of Canaanism. Yet, unlike the Canaanites, who sought to integrate the Levant into a single civilization under the hegemony of a Hebrew nation, the editors of Entsiklopedia Mikrait offered to maintain cultural stratification through tolerance. The editors of the encyclopedia were cautious not to promote chauvinism or nationalistic tendencies, and therefore refrained from placing undue emphasis on material artifacts while making historical claims. Although their initial motivation was to present recent studies in the field—such as archeological excavations and geographical surveys—in many of the entries, the authors had hardly presented them. Instead, most authors of biblical entries had rested upon literary analysis of the Bible or other texts from the period.²⁰ Abstaining from the physical artifact was not a common feature in modern Bible studies, which were deeply immersed in archeology to determine how the Bible’s geography could be identified in the landscape of the present. The diversion of Entsiklopedia Mikrait is even more apparent when comparing it to earlier Hebrew publications—such as the geographical studies of Schwartz, Luncz, Oliphant, and Jabotinsky—in which the physical reality of the Bible was attained through an act of clearing a thin layer of dust from the geography of the present. In doing so, earlier geographers of Palestine sought to mend the gap between the past and the present to assert that the Zionist endeavor is a direct continuation of the Bible. On the other hand, for the editors of Entsiklopedia Mikrait (and for Klausner, who preceded them in contextualizing the Bible in Entsiklopedia Klalit), the Bible was, at most a symbolic source in the creation of a new regional identity. This is not the belligerent identity of the biblical Israelites, nor is it the segregated identity of a diasporic ghetto, but rather an identity that is building its collective home in a territory saturated with symbolism and living peacefully with its neighbors. Until the mid-1960s, with the rise of public interest in the biblical history of the Land of Israel, Entsiklopedia Mikrait was at the center of many public debates. Alongside the media coverage of archaeological excavations in the Judean Desert, the encyclopedia was the focus of ongoing debate on issues related to biblical geography. The publication of each volume was accompanied by arguments in various literary supplements about the identification of biblical sites and the exact locations of historical events. To tailor the genre to this specific discourse and appeal to a wider audience, two other publishers issued much thinner encyclopedias with a completely different agenda based on the content of the Entsiklopedia Mikrait. The first was Entsiklopedia shel ha-Mikra ve-Yemey Bait Sheni [Encyclopedia of  e. g., the entries “Ovadia”, “Avodat Elohim”, “Agalah Arufah”, “Ada”, “Azazel”, “Ezrah ve-Nekhemya”, “Amos”, “Emanuel”, “Arey Miklat”, “Purim”, “Zedek”; More about the literary analysis in Entsiklopedia Mikrait see: Shmuel Avramski, “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Mikrait”, Moznaim 34 1– 6 (1972) 415 – 7.

The Bible and the Cosmopolitan Levant

183

the Bible and the Era of The Second Temple], a single-volume pictorial encyclopedia that presented mostly long articles about biblical sites.²¹ In the introduction to the encyclopedia, the editors added a disclaimer clarifying to the reader that despite the book’s title, “it is, in fact, a book about the People of Israel from the time of the Patriarchs to the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the redaction of the Mishnah. It represents a continuous and uninterrupted era during which the People of Israel resided in their homeland.”²² Thus, the thematical framework of the encyclopedia was not the Bible but the Jewish presence in Palestine. The focus on a post-biblical period and the emphasis on the geography of the Land of Israel signified a return to the perception of the Bible as the embodiment of the legal right of Zionism to claim the Land of Israel as its national territory. In the short encyclopedia and several biblical atlases published in the 1960s, the cosmopolitan agenda was abandoned in favor of secluded nationalism.²³ The second encyclopedia was the two volumes Leksikon Mikrai [Biblical Lexicon], initiated by Maksas Soliali, who previously edited the Bible section at the German Encyclopaedia Judaica and was on the steering committee of Entsiklopedia Mikrait. The Leksikon consisted of mostly short biographical and geographical entries.²⁴ Similarly to Entsiklopedia Mikrait, it hardly mentions the time of the Second Temple or subsequent events, yet unlike the encyclopedia, its articles observe the Land of Israel as a homogenous Jewish sphere where interactions with other nations were limited to violent clashes. Therefore, the cosmopolitan tone that characterized Entsiklopedia Mikrait was utterly absent from the subsequent publications in which the focus was re-instated on the centrality of the Land of Israel to the creation of Judaism as a religion and Jews as a nation. Following the success of Entsiklopedia Mikrait, several other scholars tried to promote the production of encyclopedias in other academic fields. Two of the var-

 Three years prior to the publication, the editor, Gaalyahu Cornfeld produced in New York an encyclopedia similar in its format that was also based on Entsiklopedia Mikrait, yet much of its content was dedicated to the New Testament and early Christianity. Cornfeld Gaalyahu. 1964. Pictorial Biblical Encylopedia; a Visual Guide to the Old Testaments. New York: Macmillan; Gdalyahu Cornfeld ed., Entsiklopedia shel ha-Mikra ve-Yemey Bait Sheny (Tel Aviv: Ahiasaf, 1964).  Emphasis in original. Entsiklopedia Shel ha-Mikra ve-Yemey Bait Sheni. 6.  Around the same time, other publishers had issued atlases of ancient Palestine that also highlighted Jewish presence in the region. Michael Avi-Yonah, ed. Atlas Geografi-Histori Shel Erets-Yisrael (Anaf Haskalah ba-Matkal, 1955); Benjamin Mazar and Josef Szapiro, eds., Atlas li-Tkufat ha-Yanakh: mi-Yemey ha-Avot ve-Ad Ezra u-Nehemyah (Tel Aviv: Grafit, 1957); Yohanan Aharoni, Atlas Karta li-Tkufat ha-Mikra (Jerusalem: Karta, 1964); Ben-Zion Luria and David Benvenisti, eds., Atlas Tanakhi ve-Arim ba-Mikra (Tel Aviv: Ahiasaf, 1966).  Maksas (Menahem) Soliali (ed.) Leksicon Mikrai, (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1965).

184

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

ious projects were materialized and published in a format similar to that of Entsiklopedia Mikrait. The first to be published was the five volumes of Entsiklopedia Hinukhit [Educational Encyclopedia] that reached bookstores in 1959. Initiated by Mossad Bialik in 1941, the project was slow to emerge due to conflicts over structure between its editors. With the success of the first volume of Entsiklopedia Mikrait, the Ministry of Education offered Mossad Bialik to fund the project “to search for the scientific and administrative foundations for a pedagogical encyclopedia.”²⁵ The editorial board—composed of leading scholars like Martin Buber (1878 – 1965), Akiba Ernst Simon (1900 – 1988), and Hugo Bergmann (1883 – 1975)—assigned each volume a distinct theme (foundations, approaches, institutions, history, and auxiliary tools.) To settle disputes between rival pedagogical approaches, Buber, the editor-in-chief, decided to present the different views alongside “to reflect in a liberal way diverse (and often contradictory) opinions.”²⁶ Like many other Hebrew encyclopedias, long monographs have been placed in conjunction with short dictionarylike entries, and their titles covered a wide range of subjects, such as “Sex Education,” “Optimism in Education,” and “Slide.”²⁷ However, the small number of entries dedicated to Jewish education stood out within the vast range of titles.²⁸ Thus, like Entsiklopedia Mikrait, Buber and his fellow editors were not interested in presenting a mirror image for the Hebrew reader, emphasizing themes relating to the nature and manner of the Jews, but rather to present universal knowledge to establish a national school system based on European traditions and modern pedagogical tools. However, the random selection of entries, frequent contradictions between them, and thematic organization made the encyclopedia challenging to use as a referential source. Consequently, readers had to carefully skim through each volume to gain the necessary knowledge.²⁹ The second project to emulate the format of Entsiklopedia Mikrait was the six volumes Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevra [Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences]. Initiated as an independent project under the title “Encyclopedia for the Social Sciences and the State” by the Director of the Ministry of Finance, David Horowitz

 “Introduction” Martin Buber, ed. Entsiklopedia Hinukhit vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1961). vi-vii.  Ibid. v.  Uri Rap, “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Hinukhit”, Al ha-Mishmar, 30 October 1959. 6.  Critics had acknowledged this problem: Dr Israel Margalit, “Entsiklopedia Hinukhit Kerekh D’”, ha-Boker, 9 April 1965. 5.  Many critics acknowledged the limited usability of the encyclopedia. See for instance: Israel Zmora, “Zo Entsiklopedia Hinukhit?”, Maariv, 29 January 1960. 14; S“S, “Entsiklopedia Hinukhit – Kerekh Hadash”, Herut, 2 June 1961. 5; Uri Rap, “Kerekh Hadash shel ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Hinukhit”, Al ha-Mishmar, 2 June 1961. 5.

The Bible and the Cosmopolitan Levant

185

(1899 – 1979), Member of Knesset David Livschitz (1897– 1973), and the philologist Moshe Schwabe (1889 – 1956), to “provide political and civil education to the public, particularly to the young generation.”³⁰ Their model was the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, an influential American encyclopedia that succeeded in spreading radical ideas to the general public in its thirty years of existence. In the prospectus, the initiators claimed that Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevra would display knowledge mainly from sociology and political science “from an Israeli and socialist perspective” for a society in which civil traditions have not yet been established. The initiators sought to complete the entire project within five years and fund it through a public partnership similar to Mossad Bialik. They sought to create a joint venture of the state and the Jewish Agency—like Mossad Bialik—with the addition of the Histadrut Labor Federation as a full partner.³¹ However, the project, which included ten volumes and was officially endorsed by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, was not granted funding from the state, so its initiators decided to cancel it. Shortly after its disbandment, however, David Canaani (1912– 1982), director of Sifriyat Poalim Publishing House [The Workers Library], decided to adopt the project. Leading the publishing division of the Socialist-Zionist ha-Shomer ha-Tsair Movement, Cnaani aimed to reach beyond the limited circles of the Israeli left and provide “3,000 articles that ought to be fundamental knowledge for all Israeli readers.”³² Within a few months, he established an editorial board and created an index of entries. He hired 17 section editors and 67 authors, and in 1962, a decade after the plan was issued, the first volume went into print. Although the publisher belonged to a political movement on the fringes of the Israeli left and many of the editors—like the MAPAM MK Yaakov Hazan (1899 – 1992) and the Marxist historian Raphael Mahler (1899 – 1977), were active members of ha-Shomer ha-Tsair and its political party MAPAM—Cnaani attempted to provide the encyclopedia with a more balanced political identity. By primarily including entries on institutions and historical events, avoiding Marxist terminology, and adding novice scholars and writers of different political affiliations, he presented a scholarly encyclopedia without a clear political agenda. Cnaani claimed that although it is impossible to make an encyclopedia that “does not reflect the position of its producers,” as an editor-in-chief, he argued that he made considerable efforts to provide the authors with complete autonomy, to encourage them to “consciously strive for

 12– 5, 1952, “Tazkir bi-Dvar Entsiklopedia Ivrit le-Madaey ha-Hevrah ve-ha-Medina”, ISA, Ministry of Prime Minister, 5363 / 31 – ‫ג‬.  12– 5, 1952, “Takziv (Meshoar) shel ha-Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevrah”, ISA, Ministry of Prime Minister, 5363 / 31 – ‫ ;ג‬12– 5, 1952, “Proposal”, ISA, Ministry of Prime Minister, 5363 / 31 – ‫ג‬.  “Introduction”, David Cnaani, ed. Entsiklopedia Lemadaey Hahevrah, 6 vols. (Merhavia: Sifriyat Poalim, 1962– 1970). xii.

186

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

the truth.”³³ Indeed, alongside Mahler’s articles in which he utterly supported the Soviet Union and applied historical materialism as the primary analysis tool, Cnaani presented various critical positions of Stalinism, Communist states, and Jewish socialist movements.³⁴ This earned him praise from critics who were surprised that a publisher with political leanings could find a relatively neutral path in a publication of this scope.³⁵ However, in the 1960s, a rapidly changing political terminology gave the encyclopedia an archaic image. For example, the encyclopedia lacked an article about Palestinians, although, at the time, the term became common in newspapers affiliated with the left. Cnaani, who, as stated, presented other radical ideas, attacked his critics by saying that “to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a state called Palestine.”³⁶ Nonetheless, the encyclopedia, like the two encyclopedic projects of Mossad Bialik, was a staple of liberal thought for incorporating diverting positions and radical ideas. Despite the abundance of funding and the initial public enthusiasm, Entsiklopedia Mikrait, Entsiklopedia Hinukhit, and Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevra did not fulfill Bialik’s vision of creating an encyclopedia that would set the foundations for a national culture. Although the first gained commercial success and all of them were critically acclaimed, they did not turn to become important landmarks in Israeli culture or become status symbols that all members of the national community must keep on their bookshelves. The encyclopedias were acquired only by people with a special interest in the specific fields of inquiry and a few curious readers. Their public resonance was also limited to narrow intellectual circles, professionals, and university students. In hindsight, the reasons for their failure were both a result of the identity of the publishers and their limited thematic scope. All three encyclopedias suffered from being products of public institutions. Although

 Those who praised the neutrality of the encyclopedia were mainly socialist reviewers who were not members of ha-Shomer ha-Tzair. On the other hand, critics from the right were not pleased with the sympathetic attitude toward Palestinian nationalism and the criticism of the Revisionist movement. R. Bahan, “Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevra”, Al ha-Mishmar, 28 September 1962. 13; A. Heller, “Birei ha-Mada ha-Akum shel ha-Shomer ha-Tsair”, Herut, 18 January 1963.6; B. Shomron “ha-Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevrah – Kerekh Sheni”, ha-Boker, 19 June 1964. 5.  Compare Maler’s entries “Antisemitism” (where he presented pogroms “not as a result of religious hatred and xenophobia, rather in social and economic conflicts of interests”) and the entry “Emancipation” (where he praised the Soviet Union for officially granting cultural autonomy for the Jewish community), to entry “Democracy” (“the abolition of private property does not grant automatically a real democratic order and the protection of human rights,” vol. 1, 915).  Getzel Kressel, “Saarey Daat”, Davar, 30 November 1962. 8; Yehoshua A. Gilboa, “Otzar Daat beHamisha Krachim”, Maariv, 15 May 1970.  David Cnaani, “Mh Zeh Palestinaim?” Al ha-Mishmar, 30 September 1968. 3.

The Encyclopedic Lexicon

187

state-owned projects, such as The Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Italiana, were highly influential and popular in their native cultures, they were exceptional for being published in totalitarian regimes where they did not compete against other publications, and the state promoted them aggressively. Most modern multi-volume encyclopedias, however, were financial projects initiated by entrepreneurs who sought to establish long-running and lucrative investments. Without business motivations, the three Hebrew encyclopedias were produced as academic works whose language was foreign to the general public. Although all three encyclopedias focused on themes of significant importance to the emerging Israeli culture, their narrow scope was a burden to their publishers because the Hebrew readership perceived them as expert literature and not as a tool for defining a collective identity. In contrast to the public institutions’ failed attempts, Bracha Peli initiated the only Israeli project that gained a reputation as a national encyclopedia. By learning from the mistakes of Mossad Bialik, she created a comprehensive encyclopedia that, in its early years, was a remarkable academic achievement and a commercial success.

The Encyclopedic Lexicon Peli, who knew of Mossad Bialik’s efforts to produce academic publications, decided to create an extensive encyclopedic project of her own. Unlike public encyclopedias, she wanted to produce a general encyclopedia that would not be limited to a single field of knowledge. In the summer of 1944, she tasked a group of scholars with creating a preliminary plan for ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit. Joshua Prawer (1919 – 1990), a graduate student from the Hebrew University, prepared an index of forty thousand titles, and an advisory committee of six experts presented a plan “to determine the paths, needs, and approach of the encyclopedia.”³⁷ Although Masada Publishers had their own in-house editors, the members of the advisory committee were outsourced and hired for their knowledge in academic publishing or experience in multivolume encyclopedias, such as the German Encyclopaedia Judaica and Jüdische Lexikon. ³⁸ The committee identified potential contributors and

 Arieh Avneri, “A Trickery Instead of an Encyclopedia,” Rimon 11.4 (1958): 4– 5; Moshe Braslevski, “About Israeli Zhdanovshchina and the Authority of the Party: The Truth about ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Davar, 7 February 1958, 7, Preface to the first volume.  The members of the committee were Maksas Soloveičikas, a bible scholar and a former editor at Judaica; Yehoshua Gutman, Hebrew University historian of second temple and Hellenism; Shmuel Yevin, archeologist and secretary of the editorial board of the Biblical Encyclopedia; Mar-

188

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

divided all entries into three categories: general knowledge (ten volumes), Jewish knowledge (four volumes), and knowledge concerning Zionism and the Land of Israel (two volumes). In early 1946, Masada recruited administrative staff and assembled an editorial board. The publisher then sent hundreds of letters to potential contributors, requesting them to write one or two entries for the first volumes of the encyclopedia. Two hundred scholars agreed to serve as writers, most of whom were faculty members of the two largest academic institutes of the Yishuv – the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Technion in Haifa—as well as several civil engineers, lawyers, and physicians.³⁹ The number of contributors was higher than anticipated, so the advisory committee recommended expanding the project. From Peli’s initial plan of six volumes, the project grew to twelve volumes; however, shortly before the first volume was printed, the publisher projected that the encyclopedia would consist of no fewer than sixteen volumes.⁴⁰ From the very beginning, the encyclopedia was a relatively independent project that had not been directly influenced by the commercial constraints of Masada’s central office in Tel Aviv. Administratively, the official publisher of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit was the subsidiary Hevrah le-Hotzaat Entsiklopediot Baa“m [a Publishing Company of Encyclopedias Ltd.], which was based in Jerusalem, distant from Peli’s direct authority. To infuse the autonomy of the encyclopedia, Peli nominated her son Alexander Peli (1915 – 2007) as its publisher, giving him full responsibility for all issues concerning content despite his lack of experience in publishing. The decision to provide ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit with substantial autonomy was unusual considering the autocratic management style of Masada, which rarely created joint ventures with other publishers and was under the strict authority of its general manager. The distance from Masada’s main offices resulted in far-reaching changes to the encyclopedia’s preliminary plan and was a source of an ongoing conflict between the offices in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem over the content.

Light unto the Nations During the planning stage, the purpose and scope of the encyclopedia changed dramatically from a modest lexicon to a national project of monumental dimensions. In the first official proclamations of the project, the encyclopedia’s senior editors kus Reiner, a faculty member at the Technion; Georg Herlitz, head of the Zionist Archive; and the director of Mossad Bialik, Moshe Gardon.  Israel State Archive [hereafter, ISA] 42/2318-P, file 4, Kirshner and Peli to Zvi Nadav from the Transportation Department of the Jewish Agency, 7 May 1946.  Peli, Hayim Shel Bracha., 219 – 20.

Light unto the Nations

189

described it as a more ambitious intellectual project than Bracha Peli’s encyclopedic lexicon. In an inaugural press conference, Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903 – 1994)— who was then the editor of the section on natural sciences—announced that ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit would be the future model for all-inclusive encyclopedias and would be a worldwide source of knowledge.⁴¹ He argued that the Jerusalem-based encyclopedia would end more than two decades of a global shortage in updated encyclopedic knowledge.⁴² In the official documents, the editors substituted the prudent language of the planning stage with praises of the project as a national landmark. The introduction to the first volume described: “We are confident that ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit will serve not only every Jewish home in our land but also the homes of many Jews in the Diaspora. It will be a compass to our culture and a guide to our land and serve as a bridge between our culture and the nations of the world.”⁴³ To elevate the encyclopedia from a comprehensive work in Hebrew to a project of a global scale, Leibowitz and the other editors on the board replaced Prawer’s index with a more extended index of seventy thousand titles.⁴⁴ They also expanded the list of writers by recruiting notable scholars abroad. In 1946, prior to the publication of the prospectus, Joseph Klausner, editor of Hebrew literature and Jewish history, contacted 113 leading scholars and other notable people from around the world – from political leaders to scientists – urging them to take part in the encyclopedia.⁴⁵ A convoy of delegates toured important universities in Europe and met with potential contributors, and the editorial board appointed a special coordinator whose sole task was to maintain ties with writers abroad.⁴⁶ The result was better than Klausner expected. Within a couple of months, about twenty celebrity scholars were willing to contribute entries free of charge. The success encouraged the editors to contact other writers abroad, and by the end of the year, sixty-eight writers had agreed to pen articles for the encyclopedia.

 “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit, ha-Mashkif, 5 July 1948, 3.  Leibowitz mentioned the two major projects of the interwar period – Italian Encyclopedia and The Great Soviet Encyclopedia – that were indeed comprehensive and large but claimed that these publications became severely dated due to scientific advancement. Moreover, a recent edition of Britannica, according to Leibowitz, was in fact nearly identical to the 14th edition that dated back to 1929.  “A few things from the Publisher,” in vol. 1 of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit: Kllalit, Yehudit ve-Eretzisraelit, ed. Yehudah Even Shmuel, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Hevrah le-Hotsaat Entsiklopedyot, 1949). xi.  Arieh Avneri, “A Trickery Instead of an Encyclopedia,” Rimon, 4.11.  INLA, Klausner archive, file 74-B.  Zalman Yoeli, the coordinator of foreign contacts, had frequently argued with Alexander Peli over the publisher’s attempts to contact independent foreign writers. INLA, Klausner archive, file 74-B; Yoeli to all members of editorial board; file 613. 25 January 1951.

190

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

The new list of contributors included twenty-six Nobel laureates, such as Albert Einstein and Niles Bohr; scientists, such as Auguste Piccard; politicians, such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Herbert Lehman; the architects Le Corbusier and Erich Mendelssohn; and Hollywood moguls Walt Disney and Samuel Goldwin. Within a few months, Klausner managed to attract other renowned scholars, including the English novelist Aldous Huxley, the economist Harold Laski, the German classicist Werner Jaeger, the American anthropologist Margaret Mead, the German theologian Paul Tillich, the Italian educator Maria Montessori, and the German theater director Erwin Piscator. To the delight of the editors, many of these contributors sent their articles in time. The successful recruitment of writers abroad seemed to be a solution to a shortage of experts in several fields of knowledge, particularly the natural sciences and engineering. Therefore, Benzion Netanyahu (1910 – 2012), secretary of the editorial board, demanded that Masada rely mostly on “imported knowledge” because the encyclopedia “cannot trust local experts.”⁴⁷ Despite the apparent success in developing content, two technical obstacles cast a shadow on the future of the project. First, the 1948 war claimed the lives of editorial board members and disrupted the work at the Jerusalem office. On 13 April 1948, three editors – Joseph Enzo Bonaventura (editor of the psychology section; 1891– 1948), Benjamin Klar (an editor of the section on medieval literature; 1901– 1948), and Günter Wolfson (editor of the section of the natural sciences; 1901– 1948)—died in the Hadassah Medical Convoy.⁴⁸ During part of the war, the offices of the encyclopedia were lit with candles, and the publisher faced serious delays because of a disruption of postage services during the blockade on Jerusalem.⁴⁹ Second, the publisher, unfamiliar with projects of this magnitude, faced unexpected technical challenges. The main problem was producing quality prints in an industry that lacked the experience and necessary materials. Although Masada had its own printing facility, the publisher had to outsource most of the work to three other printing houses to meet demand.⁵⁰ After the publication of the first volume, Masada opened a large printing factory in Ramat Gan with top-of-the-line machines in hopes of resolving the disarray and cutting production time. The new factory enabled the publisher to consolidate production in one facility, but the distance from the offices in Jerusalem was a source of confusion and error. “These manuscripts,” a typesetter grumbled to a re-

 INLA, Klausner archive file 74-A, Protocol of editorial board meeting, 11 January 1951.  Another editor, Ernest Minz, had been kidnapped and held as a hostage for three days. The identity and goals of the kidnappers was unclear. Davar, 3 March; ha-Mashkif, 5 March 1948.  “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” ha-Mashkif, 5 July 1948, 3.  “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit Becomes a Reality,” Al ha-Mishmar, 23 May; “The Facts Will Prevail,” ha-Tsofeh, 28 May 1948, 2.

Light unto the Nations

191

porter from Davar, “cause serious headaches … the problem is that the editorial board is centered in Jerusalem, and every expert there has, of course, something to remark.”⁵¹ Moreover, to print a high-quality encyclopedia, the publisher imported large quantities of paper and printing equipment directly from vendors abroad, resulting in long delays. At first, Customs held many of the goods for several weeks at the port, and Masada had to pay high duties for their release. This problem was solved when the minister of education, who perceived the encyclopedia as a national project, agreed to provide Masada with significant relief in customs duties.⁵² Thereafter, the publisher used this privilege to file for tax exemption and request financial support, including an appeal to the Ministry of Education for “the allocation of building materials” for Masada’s new printing factory.⁵³ In addition to the technical difficulties, the encyclopedia suffered from a lack of clear editorial management. The first official editor-in-chief was the lexicographer Judah Even Shemuel (Kaufmann), who had not been involved in the encyclopedia’s preliminary planning and resigned before the first volume was completed.⁵⁴ His resignation left the editorial board in disarray, resulting in greater involvement of Masada’s central office. To expedite the work, Bracha Peli surpassed her son’s authority by assigning to the editorship Joseph Klausner, an editorial board member who had nearly fifty years of experience in editing encyclopedias.⁵⁵ However, Klausner, who moved earlier that year to Tel Aviv, did not participate in some of the editorial meetings, had a troubled relationship with Leibowitz, and was not involved in developing content. Throughout most of the 1950s, Leibowitz and Netanyahu acted as de facto editors. Only after Klausner died in 1957 did Peli officially appoint Netanyahu to head the editorial board. Yet, due to his frequent absences, editors of subsections oversaw issues typically under the chief editor’s jurisdiction, such as determining the space allocated to each section and making decisions about style and language. Only a decade later, when Leibowitz assumed the position of chief editor, did the encyclopedia have a clear editorial authority.

 Esther Alster, “The Difficult Birth of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Davar, 18 March 1954, 8.  ISA, Ministry of Education, 18-GL, 1655, Y. Avrekh, 20 August; G. Erlikh 12 June; A. Peli, 11 May 1950.  Ibid., A. Peli to Y. Avrekh, 14 November 1950.  Peli, Life of Bracha, 222.  Klausner came to the rescue of Masada a decade earlier when he managed to reorganize a similar chaos at Entsiklopedia Klalit. Beforehand, he was an editor in other encyclopedic projects, most notable: the second attempt to publish Ahad Haam’s Otzar ha-Yahadut (1904), the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, and the German Judaica. See Bracha Peli to Klausner. 23 October 1949, INLA, Klausner archive, file 613.

192

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

Curiously, the years of editorial disarray were also a period in which the encyclopedia enjoyed financial success and a reputation as an intellectual powerhouse. In the spring of 1949, when the first volume was ready to print, Bracha Peli ordered 5,000 copies – significantly more than the initial plan of 2,500 copies. She responded to an increase in demand after a successful promotion campaign that resulted in 4,500 subscribers.⁵⁶ In addition, shortly before the encyclopedia reached bookstores, the publisher received hundreds of additional subscription forms from individuals and trade unions. The Teachers Union added thousands of subscribers, who could apply for a special payment plan, as well as all eight hundred drivers of the Egged Bus Cooperative. But the biggest boost for sales came shortly after launching the first volume, when Yigael Yadin (1917– 1984), the army’s chief of staff, issued a special command recommending that all military personnel purchase the encyclopedia. Yadin offered to subsidize the cost for his staff, and the rest would be deducted directly from their salary.⁵⁷ A year later, when the second volume was ready for print, Peli ordered twelve thousand copies, of which subscribers preordered more than ten thousand.⁵⁸ In 1953, ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit already had forty thousand subscribers; by the end of the decade, that number increased to sixty thousand, reaching a peak of seventy-five thousand in the early 1960s.⁵⁹ As with previous Jewish encyclopedias, the publisher decided to adopt the old hybrid model of Ahad Haam, which included long articles on core issues alongside short articles on peripheral matters. Peli distributed among his many writers a detailed manual that divided the entries into three size categories according to their importance and demanded that “no entry would exceed 600 column lines.”⁶⁰ Decisions on the number of articles on each topic and their size will be determined by the editors of the sections and the editors’ committee, which will meet from time to time. In the early years of the encyclopedia, however, the editors were unable to impose their authority when most of the entries were of the largest category and exceeded the limit of 600 lines. To add to the editorial disorder, experts on matters related to Zionism and modern Jewish history proved to be more diligent as they sent more entries on time, creating thematic imbalance and indigna-

 “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit Becomes a Reality,” Al ha-Mishmar, 23 May 1948; “The Scientists Completed the First Volume of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Al ha-Mishmar, 5 July 1948.  Peli, Life of Bracha, 231– 2.  “A Correction,” Herut, 7 June 1950, 4.  Peli, Life of Bracha. 228, 231; “The Scientists Completed the First Volume of ha-Entsiklopedia haIvrit,” Al ha-Mishmar, 5 July 1948.  Alexander Peli, “Horaot ha-Vaada ha-Meyaetzet, ha-Mazkirut ve-ha-Mo”L le-Ovdey ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” (1946). 1.

Light unto the Nations

193

tion among the editors of the scientific sections.⁶¹ To fill the thematic gaps, the publisher contacted Hebrew University students and amateur writers to hastily write the missing short entries. On several occasions, Masada published ads calling for the recruitment of additional writers, but after the response was low, the publisher demanded that editors who were also senior university faculty would “hand over names of graduate students and young research assistants who are able to write entries.”⁶² To solve the imbalance between the different sections, Peli and his chief editors assembled most articles on Zionism in a single volume dedicated entirely to the entry “Eretz Israel” and made several calls to scientists from Israel and abroad to author entries in the natural sciences. Yet this issue was never resolved to the satisfaction of all editors when skirmishes over the division of knowledge accompanied most meetings of the editors’ committee. The first volumes received critical acclaim across the board. Reviewers of various political affiliations hailed the encyclopedia as valuable national literature and fine scholarship. Al ha-Mishmar, the Marxist-Zionist party’s (MAPAM) daily, described the first volume as “A project that deserves praise for its exquisite typology, commercial plan, and courageous attempt to cover all fields of knowledge.”⁶³ The Jerusalem-based Sephardic weekly, Hed ha-Mizrakh, compared the encyclopedia to the Bible and Talmud for “presenting the essence of the general and Jewish cultures of this generation” and urged its readers to subscribe.⁶⁴ Because of its diligent and severe editors, the religious-Zionist ha-Tzofeh predicted that ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit would have a better future than previous Hebrew encyclopedias.⁶⁵ The right-wing daily Herut went even further: among its many praises, it predicted that the encyclopedia would generate a spiritual resurrection after the material loss in WW II.⁶⁶ Although the encyclopedia’s senior editors were adamant critics of the ruling party Mapai, ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit remained a staple of political neutrality throughout its first decade.⁶⁷ This neutrality resulted from the editors’

 “Meeting protocol”, 1 November 1951. INLA, Klausner 74-A.  Ibid. 4.  Akhibavel, “To Call a Spade a Spade: With the Publication of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit’s First Volume,” Al ha-Mishmar, 5 August 1949, 5.  Haim Dromi, “Mizrahi Jews in ha-Entsiklopedia,” Hed ha-Mizrakh, 19 August 1949, 10 [Hebrew]. Shmuel Ben, another reviewer of the same edition, also praised the encyclopedia while criticizing the transliteration from Arabic.  G. Katzburg, “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” ha-Tzofeh, 3 September 1949, 8, 10.  S. Alidan, “ha-Entsiklopedizem ha-Hadash” Herut, 3 November 1950, 5.; Dan Pines, “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Davar, 2 December; Aharon Bar-Shmuel, “On the Paths of the Pantheon,” Al haMishmar, 2 October 1949, 4, 6.  Klausner and Netanyahu were affiliated with the political right, while Leibowitz was a member of The Volunteers’ Line, an organization critical of the ruling party and its leaders.

194

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

prudent handling of all contacts with the government, particularly with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Most entries regarding Labor Zionism were considered positive, and members of the ruling party, including Ben-Gurion, had contributed entries regularly.⁶⁸ Other ministers and governmental officials perceived the encyclopedia as a first-rate national project and even requested that Masada present it as a joint enterprise of the publisher and the state.⁶⁹ Alexander Peli, who was surprised by the success of Klausner’s initiative to recruit contributors abroad, contemplated making the encyclopedia a global commodity, with editions in English and possibly other European languages. In early 1947, a short time after Masada officially revealed the plans for the encyclopedia, Alexander Peli wrote to major book distributors and potential subscribers in North America and Europe, asking them to support the encyclopedia by joining a subscription plan.⁷⁰ Because the commercial prospects of a Hebrew encyclopedia in markets other than Palestine were small, he presented the subscription fees as a philanthropic donation that would support a project of “great cultural value”: The publication of such an encyclopedia, which requires a considerable outlay, is often financially supported by governments or other public bodies. Unfortunately, our enterprise cannot accept such support; its publication has been undertaken by a company formed specifically for this purpose and must depend mainly on subscriptions.⁷¹

The response was positive: Masada managed to sign more than a thousand subscribers abroad before the first volume was in print.⁷² At the same time, Alexander Peli planned an English edition of the encyclopedia. He asked local contributors to translate their articles into English and stored the files in the publisher’s archive. He sought to use the archive when Masada would be able to find the financial and technical means for executing such a project.⁷³ In 1951, Bracha Peli commissioned Masada’s first publications in the English language, followed by several other

 ISA, 30-G, 5363/30, Netanyahu even negotiated with Ben-Gurion to use the title of chief editor to disguise a secret mission in the US. After a few meetings, Ben-Gurion rejected Netanyahu’s request. See letters from Netanyahu to Ben-Gurion, 13 November 1956 and 16 January 1957,  The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for instance, asked to present the encyclopedia as a joint project of Masada and the State of Israel in its inaugural ceremony (but without sharing the costs). Y. Avrekh, “Inviting Guests from Abroad,” 1 June 1949. ISA, Ministry of Education, 18-GL, 1655.  INLA, Klausner archive file 74-B.  Ibid.  “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit Becomes a Reality,” Al ha-Mishmar, 23 May 1948.  “Spreading the Knowledge of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit: About the Scandal of the Encyclopedia,” Davar, 28 August 1963, 3.

Light unto the Nations

195

books. The books—mostly Haggadahs, Bar Mitzvah presents, and short compendia about the geography and history of Palestine—were successfully distributed in North America and the United Kingdom under the brand “Masada Press.” Bracha Peli sought to expand the portfolio of Masada Press by relying on Israeli scholarship to produce popular science books and on the anticipated encyclopedia. However, because of a lack of English-speaking editors at the offices in Israel, she shelved the plan to publish an all-inclusive encyclopedia. Instead, Masada Press published a single volume of The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, based chiefly on the work of Israeli historians and scholars of theology.⁷⁴ The book, edited by the British scholar Cecil Roth (1899 – 1970), enjoyed considerable success and ran to several editions. In hopes of repeating the success, Alexander Peli altered his plan for the English encyclopedia from an all-inclusive encyclopedia to a Jewish encyclopedia. In January 1961, Masada announced a collaboration with Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress and publisher of the interwar Encyclopaedia Judaica in German, to publish an English edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica in the United States. The editor of the new project would be Netanyahu, and most of the content would be based on ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit and the archives of the debunked German encyclopedia.⁷⁵ Although Masada left the project early on because of financial difficulties, the plan bore fruits a decade later in the acclaimed sixteen volumes of the Encyclopaedia Judaica. ⁷⁶ Meanwhile, Alexander Peli conducted administrative changes in ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit to increase the production pace and enhance the content’s quality. He expanded the staff and nominated Leibowitz to replace Netanyahu as chief editor. The publisher valued the diligent work of Leibowitz, who had been a senior editor for nearly two decades and already functioned as a de-facto chief editor due to the frequent absences of Netanyahu. As the chief editor, Leibowitz abandoned the hybrid model of Ahad Haam in favor of the epistemic model of Encyclopedia Britannica. ⁷⁷ That is, instead of short biographical entries, Leibowitz commissioned mostly long articles—usually of several columns—interconnected through a chain of references. This decision was significant in making the editors more involved in producing the content. Leibowitz required his editors to prevent discrepancies between entries and ensured that contributors, including notable scholars, would follow strict guidelines concerning style and length.

 Cecil Roth, The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, N.Y.: Masada Press, 1959). Masada also published an expanded Hebrew edition that did not enjoy the same success.  “A Jewish Encyclopedia will be Published Within Four to Five Years,” Davar, 15 January 1961, 3.  Encyclopaedia Judaica, (Jerusalem; New York: Keter; Macmillan, 1971– 2).  Leibowitz, The Path of ha-entsiklopedyah ha-Ivrit, 12.

196

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

Unlike previous chief editors, he commissioned all entries and edited the final drafts of the articles, even at the cost of considerable delays in work. He often returned articles for rewrites and sometimes even rejected the works of leading scholars. For example, Leibowitz refused to publish an article intended for the entry “Brain” that was written, as Leibowitz revealed later, by a prominent neurologist because “Although a renowned expert created this entry… it failed to bring the latest developments of the field.” Leibowitz, who eventually wrote the entry himself, claimed that his administrative role as chief editor obligated him to write it even though he did not have the proper professional background.⁷⁸ In another instance, Leibowitz, who was a member of the editorial committee, refused to approve the entry “Plato,” written by Klausner, and had publicly stated his animosity to the editor-in-chief through a disclaimer at the introduction to the fifth volume. Leibowitz noted to the readers that he was responsible for editing the Encyclopedia only “to page 223,” in which Klausner’s article appears.⁷⁹ Taking Encyclopedia Britannica as a model also meant that the editors made greater efforts to prevent major differences in language and style between entries in the sciences and the humanities. Leibowitz, whose fields of expertise crossed the boundaries between the natural sciences and the humanities, believed that the two fields of knowledge could use a similar language despite obvious differences in rhetoric, such as the use of numbers and graphs in the sciences. Through a web of cross-references, he linked purely scientific articles to entries about philosophical debates, social institutions, and historical events, creating a semblance of a tightly edited publication with no disciplinary boundaries to preserve the autonomy of each field of knowledge. In some instances, Leibowitz combined scientific and philosophical aspects in the same article in order to obscure the modern distinctions between the two realms. Thus, for example, in the entry “Life,” he emulated the structure of the article from Britannica by combining a philosopher’s essay, written by Leibowitz himself, that distinguished between the living object and the inanimate object and an essay written by the Swiss zoologist Adolf Portmann (1897– 1982) about the chemical and biological aspects of the living creature.⁸⁰ To explain the reason for a philosophical “intervention” in the entry, Leibowitz stressed the limitation of the biological definition: All these [biological] phenomena, and many other similar phenomena, are not sufficient enough to define life, although they are all impressive and common to organisms of both fauna and flora. In some cases, they cannot indicate a significant distinction between life

 Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Al Olam u-Meloo: Sikhot im Michael Sasar (Jerusalem: Keter) 137.  Volume 18.  “Life,” ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit XVII, 359 – 82.

Light unto the Nations

197

and the inanimate through a logical or formal explanation. This distinction remains fundamentally a matter of intuitive consciousness.⁸¹

A biological explanation based on metabolism would be inevitably weak in the face of its many exceptions and would certainly lead to a distortion in the representation of reality. Therefore, the philosophical explanation of “life” is essential because, without it, the truth is not complete. In other words, an accurate and “truthful” description of reality could be attained only when the scientist and the philosopher combine efforts and create a multi-layered representation of the object. The editor of the encyclopedia, therefore, set a particularly demanding task for his readers when guiding them through a bumpy path of learning that included intensive reading and an interdisciplinary outlook. Indeed, the Hebrew reader that the chief editor envisioned was different from the image of the sabra crystallized at that time—of a farmer or a soldier connected to its land. Leibowitz and his editorial staff identified a different Israeliness that was linked in some respects to the persona of the yeshiva student of the pre-modern rabbinical culture of scholarship, curiosity, and diligence. However, unlike the yeshiva students, the editors of the encyclopedia understood their readers’ curiosity as rooted in the world beyond their own social group and open to knowledge from various sources. Following Immanuel Kant, Leibowitz argued that in pursuit of truth, scholars must distinguish between objective and subjective representations of nature.⁸² The methods employed by the scientists are objective “because it is not dependent on the scientist’s persona but depends only on the ability to understand the method itself. In other words, there is no biased science.”⁸³ Leibowitz required writers of many of the comprehensive entries to present the backstage of scientific inquiries by illustrating a linear journey in pursuit of truth that begins with a chain of hypotheses and ends with a verdict regarding the correct path. This model, which was used to represent themes in both the sciences and the humanities, resulted in a considerable expansion of the encyclopedia.⁸⁴ Seldom, however, Leibowitz avoided

 Ibid. 362.  Ram Uri, “Yeda ve-Dea: Torat ha-Yedah shel Leibowitz ve-ha-Etgar ha-Post Moderni,” in Ysayahw Leibowitz: Beyn Shamranut ve-Radiykaliyut, ed. Aviezer Ravitzky (Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute and ha-Kibutz ha-Meukhad 2007).  Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Bein Madaa le-Filosofia (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1987). 277.  See for instance the entry “Genetics”, written by Greta Leibowitz (a mathematician and the editor’s wife; 1907– 2001) that presents the rising discipline as a field of knowledge that emerged out of numerous conflicts; from the epigenesis vs. preformation to debates between different developmental theories. The conflicts, according to the article. Were solved with the development of Gregor

198

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

drawing clear-cut conclusions when notable authors refused to follow his strict guidelines and editorial comments. For example, Jacob Fleischmann (1921– 1990), a senior faculty at the Hebrew University and an expert in 19th-century German philosophy, accepted Leibowitz’s call to author an entry about Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. When Leibowitz received the article, however, he was not pleased with the sympathetic tone toward Hegel and requested the author to make changes. When Fleischmann refused to follow the editor’s instructions, Leibowitz decided to ask two other scholars, Jacob Levinger (1928 – 1995) and Joseph Grünfeld, to write articles that would taint the image of the German philosopher.⁸⁵ Levinger wrote a section titled “Hegel, Jews and Judaism” that was attached to Fleischmann’s article and presented antisemitic tendencies, and Grünfeld authored a separate entry titled “Hegelianism” that presented the reception of Hegel’s philosophy while highlighting ad-hominem critic by his contemporaries, like Arthur Schopenhauer “who called Hegel a mere prattler and perceived his methods as evil tools.”⁸⁶ Nevertheless, Leibowitz did not aspire for relativism or any form of skepticism that would hamper his attempt to provide the reader with a clear and truthful verdict. In that sense, the role of the encyclopedist is similar to that of a judge who examines all evidence and objections before presenting his verdict.

The Demise of the Vision The last two decades of the encyclopedia were a pale shadow of its past. The vision of making a world-leading source of knowledge crumbled when the demand for ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit dramatically declined, and the project gradually lost its reputation as a national emblem. The decline resulted from three factors: mismanagement, deterioration of status as an objective authority, and changes in public taste. During the 1960s, the number of subscribers dropped sharply. The immediate reasons were a series of price hikes after the editor decided to expand the size of the encyclopedia and an extension of the timeline to completion by several years. Indeed, the notion that the encyclopedia would eventually exceed the original plan of sixteen volumes was common knowledge already in the early 1950s because the first seven volumes, nearly half of the initial plan of the entire encyclopedia, covered only the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The first signs of public disapMandel’s modern genetics that “is established on experimental foundations and is free from prejudices and superstitions.” Greta Leibowitz, “Genetics”, vol. 11. 74.  Jacob Fleischmann and Jacob Levinger, “Hegel”, ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit XIII, 380 – 390.  Joseph Grünfeld, “Hegelianism”, ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit XIII, 390.

The Demise of the Vision

199

proval appeared in 1958 when in a series of articles about the project in a weekly journal, the writer interviewed subscribers and scholars who accused Masada of poor management. Yet, only after the publication of the fourteenth volume in 1961, which reached only the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, did Netanyahu and Leibowitz officially announce that the complete encyclopedia would be twice as long as initially planned (thirty-two volumes).⁸⁷ That was double the size of important encyclopedias like Brockhaus Enzyklopädie (sixteen volumes) and Chambers’s Encyclopaedia (fifteen volumes) and larger than even Britannica (twenty-four volumes).⁸⁸ The announcement prompted public disapproval and an immediate loss of about fifteen thousand subscribers (out of about seventyfive thousand).⁸⁹ Hundreds of subscribers in Haifa and Tel-Aviv established a group called “Committee to Protect the Privileges of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit’s Subscribers” that filed a class action against the publisher’s intention to charge subscribers for future volumes.⁹⁰ Leibowitz had to appear in court frequently after being challenged by two other civil lawsuits with similar claims. To appease readers, the publisher distributed a booklet written by senior editors that guaranteed to improve the pace of production while maintaining high standards of content.⁹¹ Nevertheless, Leibowitz was unable to hasten production, and the number of subscribers continued to decline. Thus, Alexander Peli fired Leibowitz in 1971, stating, “We cannot accept the completion of each volume within four years”; he then appointed Prawer to the editorship.⁹² Prawer, who had finish-

 Benzion Netanyahu and Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “The Editors of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit write about the Pace of Publication,” Maariv, 26 April 1961, 4. The size of the encyclopedia became an object of mockery in the Israeli media. See for instance: in 1958, a subscriber, M. Ben Yossef, who complained about the slow work, sarcastically asked Alexander Peli about inheritance rights in case of a subscriber’s death. M. Ben Yossef, “What Would be the Inheritance Rights of the Encyclopedia’s Subscribers,” Maariv, 14 March 1958, 4.  There were indeed larger projects, like the 35-volume Italian Encyclopedia (Treccani) and the eighty-volume Great Soviet Encyclopedia; however, in most cases those projects were initiated and owned by the state and, therefore, the decision to expand did not normally put the projects at financial risk as in the privately-owned encyclopedias.  Masada offered a 20 % discount to subscribers, who paid in advance for remaining sixteen volumes. Shlomo Shva, “ha-Entsiklopedia, Sivuv Sheni ve-Yakar,” Davar, 12 August 1963, 4; David Zohar, “The Sales of the Encyclopedia?” Maariv, 26 November, 15; Yair Kotler, “The Rebels against the Encyclopedia,” Haaretz, 27 March 1964.  Yair Kotler, “The Rebels against the Encyclopedia,” Haaretz, 27 March; “Professor Leibowitz Meid: 16 Krakhim Lo Yaspiku,” Haaretz, 15 November; “Uvdot al Mifal ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Davar, 14 June 1964.  Leibowitz, Darka shel ha-Entsiklopedyah ha-Ivrit.  “Professor Leibowitz was Dismissed as Editor of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Davar, 7 July 1971.

200

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

ed a term as the dean of humanities at the Hebrew University, was a staff member and a regular contributor for 25 years. Before assuming the office of chief editor, he led a team of editors to work simultaneously with Leibowitz on two volumes and proved he could produce a complete volume within a year. Indeed, Prawer fulfilled the expectations as he managed to complete the remaining ten volumes of the encyclopedia in less than a decade.⁹³ During Prawer’s tenure, the publisher no longer aspired to produce a world-leading encyclopedia. Peli did not contact experts abroad and instead hired Israeli writers, many of whom were amateurs or students at the Hebrew University.⁹⁴ The decline in quality also marked a decline in prestige. The publisher, who previously marketed the encyclopedia as a comprehensive book of the highest quality, began to advertise the encyclopedia as suitable for junior high school students.⁹⁵ The slow work was primarily a result of mismanagement and miscommunication between Bracha Peli and her son. To induce productivity, Bracha and Alexander Peli separately made administrative changes. In the 1950s, Bracha Peli offered to reward senior editors with financial benefits if they could complete two volumes in a single year.⁹⁶ At the same time, her son presented an even more ambitious plan of completing the entire project within five to seven years, which he aimed to accomplish by dividing the staff into two groups of editors: one headed by Klausner and Netanyahu and the other led by Leibowitz. These two groups of editors were to work simultaneously on different volumes.⁹⁷ In the 1960s, Alexander Peli made two more attempts to construct parallel editorial boards for Leibowitz’s team of editors: one headed by Nathan Rotenstreich (1914– 1993), the dean of humanities at the Hebrew University, and another led by Prawer. However, Alexander Peli could not fully implement his plan because of disagreements with Masada’s central offices in Tel-Aviv over the structure and business plan of the encyclopedia. Bracha Peli argued that despite the acclaim and successful marketing campaigns, the expert encyclopedia would lead to financial

 Prawer had been the editor of volumes twenty-one (1969) and twenty-two (1970) while Leibowitz was editor-in-chief of the encyclopedia.  Arnon Magen, “To be Over but not Done,” Davar, 14 November 1980.  Ibid. In addition, compare an ad by the vendor “Sifrey Daat” [“Books of Wisdom”] from 1979, where two children of elementary school age held volumes of the encyclopedia and the text claimed that the encyclopedia was “The best referential book for your children, from elementary school, through high school, to university”; to an ad from 1968, where all published volumes were presented side-by-side next to national symbols like the menorah presented as an ancient royal seal. Maariv, 24 August 1979, 123; Maariv, 27 September 1968, 63.  Peli, Life of Bracha, 226.  “Three Volumes of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit will be Published Each Year,” ha-Tsofeh, 28 September 1953, 2.

The Demise of the Vision

201

losses. In late 1958, only three months after Alexander Peli introduced his employment-intensive plan, his mother laid off editors and jeopardized his plan.⁹⁸ The layoffs were part of Bracha Peli’s unilateral action designed to return the structure to that of a smaller encyclopedic lexicon. But Alexander Peli adhered to the idea of an expert encyclopedia and, for another decade, continued to support the structure laid by his editors. The limited staff of expert editors caused severe delays, and the pace of publication deteriorated throughout the 1960s.⁹⁹ This pace declined to a record low during Leibowitz’s tenure when the average publishing rate dropped to a single volume every three years. At the same time, the status of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit as an objective source of knowledge was gradually deteriorating. Beginning in the mid-1950s, reviewers from the political left increasingly attacked the encyclopedia for being politically biased and promoting right-wing agendas. The uproar began after the publication of the sixth volume, which was dedicated entirely to the entry “The Land of Israel.” According to critics, the editors of the encyclopedia ignored Labor Zionism while praising Revisionist Zionism and distorted the overall view of the encyclopedia as an objective work.¹⁰⁰ Critics had ample evidence to demonstrate their claims, especially after Leibowitz requested that contributors not refrain from stating their own political views.¹⁰¹ Leibowitz himself expressed his resounding disapproval of the ruling party and its leaders in the entry “David Ben-Gurion,” where he described the former prime minister as a “master of parliamentary and intra-party deceptions.”¹⁰² In other cases, writers used the encyclopedia to display views on issues unrelated to Israeli politics; for example, in the entry “Adolf Hitler,” Abba Ahimeir (1897– 1962), a founding member of Revisionist Zionism and an editor at the daily newspaper of the Herut Party, described postcolonial claims of his time as driven by hate similar to that of the Nazi leader:

 Alexander Peli, “The Management of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit Explains,” Davar, 18 August 1958. And compare it to “Masada Publishing House will Revise the Volume about the Land of Israel,” Herut, 7 November 1958, 8.  Yaakov Rabi, “The Tenth Volume of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit: A Review,” Al ha-Mishmar, 24 June 1955, 5; Peli, Life of Bracha, 226.  Shlomo Avineri, “Truth and Propaganda,” Davar, August 7, 1953; Moshe Braslevski, “The Histadrut Trade Union as it Appears in ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Davar, October 1957; Moshe Braslevski, “About Israeli Zhdanovshchina and the Authority of the Party: The Truth about ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Davar, 7 February 1958, 7; Shlomo Shva, “The Histadrut Trade Union in haEntsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Davar, 6 April 1962.  Magen, “To be Over but not Done”.  Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “David Ben-Gurion,” ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit, Addendum 1, 674.

202

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

[O]ne of the consequences of WWII was the total or partial elimination of colonial empires in Asia and Africa (of Holland, Britain, France, and Belgium.) This [political] void in Asia is now being filled with anti-western nationalism or Marxist totalitarianism, which by itself is fundamentally anti-western. The racial hate against “white” man that had already captured the hearts of the “colored” people in Asia and Africa may be disastrous to humankind, no less than the hate of “non-Aryan” that Hitler and his allies had promoted.¹⁰³

Accusations of the encyclopedia being politically right-leaning reached the podium of the Knesset when Ruth Haktin (1901– 1991), an MK of Ahdut ha-Avoda [Labor Union], demanded that the minister of education, Zalman Aran (1899 – 1970), supervise the content. Aran suggested that he could not interfere in the work of a private institution but added that “The management of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit should pay attention to the critics if it seeks to reach all sectors of the nation.”¹⁰⁴ A few years later, the opposition MK, Uri Avnery (1923 – 2018), accused the government of using the military to prevent the publication of knowledge that it found subversive. He argued that the Military Censor ordered the editors to erase politically charged sections from articles such as “Suez Crisis,” “Lavon Affair,” and “IsraeliGerman Foreign Relations.”¹⁰⁵ Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) also sought to smear the encyclopedia’s credibility by publishing five consecutive articles about the editor’s objectives in its short-lived tabloid Rimon (Fig. 14). The articles— which claimed that the encyclopedia had been controlled and directed by the right-wing party Herut—included information about the content of the ninth volume before it was published and about discussions held in closed editorial meetings.¹⁰⁶ Alexander Peli rejected the accusations and argued, “The encyclopedia’s management did not ask its staff to present a party’s membership card, and all workers had been hired only due to their scholarly qualifications.”¹⁰⁷ However, the ongoing criticism induced the publisher to announce revisions in future copies

 Aba Ahimeir, “Adolf Hitler,” in vol. 14 of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit (Jerusalem, 1967).  “R. Haktin Defamed the Encyclopedia at the Knesset,” Herut, 20 February 1958, 2.  The Military Censor rejected part of the claims. “Dinshtein: There was no Pressure by the Military Censorship on ha-Entsiklopedia,” Davar, 28 December 1966.  Arieh Avneri, “A Trickery Instead of an Encyclopedia,” Rimon, 4.11, 11 March, 4– 5, 14; Hezi Lufban, “Rimon Writes to its Readers,” Rimon, 4.11, 18 March; Hezi Fufban, “It is not a Wonder,” Rimon, 13.4, 25 March, 3; “The Subscribers against the Encyclopedia,” Rimon 4.13, 25 March, 4– 5; “The Editorial Board Needs to Go,” Rimon, 4.14, 1 April 5; Hezi Lufban, “Rimon el Korav,” Rimon, 4.15, 8 April. See also “There is a Chapter of Herut Party within the Editorial Board of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit,” Herut, 12 March, 6; Shlomo Nakdimon, “An Open Secret,” Herut, 1 April 1958, 2.  Alexander Peli, “The Management of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit Explains,” Davar, 18 August 1958 [Hebrew].

The Demise of the Vision

203

of the sixth volume.¹⁰⁸ Despite the publisher’s attempt to appease critics, they continued to view the encyclopedia as a product of the political right with a resounding “ideological and spiritual problem.”¹⁰⁹ During the 1960s and 1970s, the daily newspapers of the Labor Movement—Al ha-Mishmar, Davar, and la-Merhav— turned increasingly hostile to ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit as they served as a platform for occasional acrimonious criticism over issues concerning form and content. In retrospect, the publicist who in 1950 predicted the beginning of the Hebrew “encyclopedic era” was right. In the following decade, encyclopedias have acquired the status of exemplary literature that reflects the nation’s spirit. They succeeded in bringing about the multi-faceted story of an ethnic-stratified national group and attained the status of national assets. They gained this status for their twofold public image of objective and popular. Although these two attributes were considered to be contradictory, in the case of Entsiklopedia Mikrait and ha-Entsiklopedia haIvrit, they were mutually dependent on each other, as their popularity rested on their reputation as a hallmark of objectivity and the editors’ efforts in preserving the image of their publications was fueled by the public demand to literature that was “speaking truth.” By the end of the decade, however, the public image and the encyclopedias’ popularity were gradually declining.

 A week later, the publisher rejected these claims and “Masada Publishing House will Revise the Volume about the Land of Israel,” Herut, 7 November, 8; “ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit will not Revise,” Herut, 14 November 1958, 8.  Yaacov Rabi, “Ma Gonezet Uma Mavlita ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit”, Al ha-Mishmar, 13 April 1962. 5.

204

Chapter Five: Omnipotence

Figure 14: “Who is Behind the Encyclopedia? A Cultural Scandal that Affects Tens of Thousands of Citizens in Israel.” Rimon accused ha-Entsiklopoedia ha-Ivrit of ignoring Israel Galili, one of the leaders of the Labor Movement. 11 March 1958.

Aftermath Zionist Historiography from a Bird’s Eye View In January 1960, the literary critic and publisher Israel Zmora (1899 – 1983) wrote an article condemning “the encyclopedic frenzy that attacked our book industry.”¹ He claimed that despite the great public interest, publishers have created bad products “whose shortcomings outweigh their advantages.” The problem, according to Zmora, was not only the publishers’ poor management and the mediocre content but also the genre itself that cannibalized the authority of other important sources of knowledge such as “research, detailed evaluations, criticisms, and professional essays.” In other words, the idea of assembling all knowledge into a single publication has no value other than serving as a referential compendium for purely educational purposes. He objected to the editors’ national pathos and demanded that the encyclopedias be adapted to the needs of schools and universities. In his article, Zmora expressed what was already evident from the decline in sales: the public interest in the encyclopedias had decreased, and so did the genre’s status as a national emblem. During the 1960s and even more so after the 1967 War, Hebrew readers no longer hoped for the establishment of a textual homeland. The country’s expanding borders and the general sense of security anchored the image of the homeland in the concrete landscape of the country. In this state of affairs, the public perception of encyclopedias returned to its maskilic starting point— with the printing of the first Hebrew encyclopedias ha-Eshkol—of a referential tool in aid of Hebrew-speaking students. As a result, from that moment on, publishers did not initiate monumental projects designed to formulate national subjectivity and, instead, issued smaller publications intended to satisfy the individual’s thirst for knowledge. In turn, the readers of the encyclopedias had changed as the publishers ceased to seek a general and ageless Israeli reader who was keen on introspective explorations of their own self. Instead, editors intended their encyclopedias solely for a curious young readership who wanted to know more about the world outside the boundaries of the national community. Alongside the abandonment of the ideals of the textual homeland, the material difficulty also contributed to the decline of the genre. Although from its start, the Hebrew book market relied heavily on translations from other languages, the encyclopedias remained largely immune to competition from translated publications. Their public image as national databases could not tolerate tainting the sacred books with content from foreign sources. However, the decline in status paved

 Israel Zmora, “Zo Entsiklopedia Hinukhit?”, Maariv, 29 January 1960. 14. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-008

206

Aftermath: Zionist Historiography from a Bird’s Eye View

the way for translated encyclopedias along with a considerable drop in costs. If up to the mid-twentieth century, multivolume encyclopedias like ha-Entsiklopedia haIvrit enjoyed a de facto monopoly in markets of an endemic language like Israel, a drop in production costs enabled other publishers to produce multivolume publications at a quicker pace and a smaller financial investment. In the late 1950s, haEntsiklopedia ha-Ivrit lost most of its young readers to lexicon encyclopedias that presented concise entries in an easy-to-read language. Multivolume publications, such as Entsiklopedia Maayan and Mikhlal, were considerably cheaper to produce than the expert-based encyclopedia because they employed fewer writers and did not require significant investments in the design and production of the book.² Other publishers produced translations of leading encyclopedias—like the youth editions of Britannica and Larousse—at a fraction of the cost and within a short period.³ Masada was, in fact, pioneering the trend when, in 1962, it began to publish with much success Entsiklopediat Tarbut, which was based on the Italian illustrated encyclopedia Conoscere. ⁴ Curiously, haEntsiklopedia ha-Ivrit itself —a project intended to be “a light unto the nations” and a staple of Hebrew scholarship—turned from an exporter of knowledge to a major importer. In its last volumes, many of the entries in Judaism were uncredited translations from the American Encyclopaedia Judaica. ⁵ The growing popularity of translated encyclopedias marked the end of the “encyclopedic era.” Beginning in the late 1960s, Israeli customers of Hebrew encyclopedias had little interest in the expensive and scholarly project of Masada Publishing House. In the early 1990s, Sifriyat Poalim Publishing House printed a lightly revised ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit. Its publication marked the last comprehensive all-inclusive encyclopedia in Hebrew until the Hebrew version of Wikipedia online encyclopedia emerged a decade later. Ahad Haam’s idea of a knowledge-based nation lost its luster and, with it, the concept of a book that holds the essence of the nation. Similarly, the perception of scholars and scientists as national heroes became an image of the past. The editors of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit—who used  S. Z. Ariel, Entsiklopedyah Maayan (Tel-Aviv: Y. Sreberk, 1950); Yitshak Avnon, Mikhlal : Entsiklopedyah le-Noar be-Seder Alfabeti: ha-Tsomeah ve-ha-Hai (Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1966).  Rene G’u, Entsiklopedyah Larus li-Veney ha-Neurim (Yerushalayim: Kiryat-sefer, 1964); David Shaham, Britanikah la-Noar : Entsiklopedyah Benleumit le-Israel (Tel Aviv: Entsiklopedyah la-no‘ar ba‘am, 1977).  In addition to two of its own encyclopedias: Youth Encyclopedia from the early 1930s and Encyclopedia Aviv (1975), which was partly based upon ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit.  For example, Aaron Rothkoff ’s entry “Moses Shatzky” (in vol. 18 of Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 420) compared to the uncredited entry in vol. 32 of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit, 320; compare Mordechai ha-Cohen’s “Meir Shapira” (vol. 18 of Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 401– 2) to the uncredited entry in vol. 32 of ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit, 299.

Aftermath: Zionist Historiography from a Bird’s Eye View

207

their enthusiasm and political vision to produce a reference book of the highest quality—could no longer challenge the premises of the national movement. In this reality, the lofty encyclopedic project that observed the boundaries of national subjectivity gave way to more pressing matters of security and economy.

Bibliography Archives CZA – Central Zionist Archive INLA – Israel National Library Archive ISA – Israel State Archive NYPL – New York Public Library, Doroth Archive

Published Documents Aberbach, David. Jewish Cultural Nationalism: Origins and Influences. London; New York: Routledge, 2008. Ahad, Haam. Igrot Ahad Haam. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1958. Aharoni, Yohanan. Atlas Karta li-Tkufat ha-Mikra. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Karta, 1964. Almoli, Solomon. Measef le-Kol ha-Mahanot. [in Hebrew] Constantinople: [publisher not identified], 1530. Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London; New York: Verso, 1991. Anish Stiftel, Shoshana. ha-Megasher: Manhiguto shel Naḥum Sok ̣olov bein ha-Masoret le-Tsiyonut. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: ha-Sifriya ha-Tsiyonit, 2012. Ariel, S. Z. Entsiklopedyah MaaYan. [in Hebrew] Tel-Aviv: Y. Sreberk, 1950. Arnar, Anna Sigrídur. Encyclopedism from Pliny to Borges. University of Chicago Library, 1990. Assmann, Aleida. “Arbeit am nationalen Gedächtnis.” Eine kurze Geschichte der deutschen Bildungsidee 14 (1993). Avineri, Shlomo. ha-Raayon ha-Tziyoni li-Gvanav [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1980. Avi-Yonah, Michael, ed. Atlas Geografi-Histori shel Erets-Yisrael: Anaf Haskalah ba-Matkal, 1955. Avnon, Yitshak. Mikhlal: Entsiklopedyah le-Noar be-Seder Alfabeti: ha-Tsomeah ve-ha-Hai. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1966. Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination : Four Essays. [in Translation of Voprosy literatury i estetiki.] Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. Bartal, Yisrael. me-Umah le-Leom: Yehude Mizrah-Eropah, 1772 – 1881. [in Hebrew] [Israel]: Misrad haBitahon, ha-Hotsaah la-Or, 2002. Barton, Ruth. “Just before Nature: The Purposes of Science and the Purposes of Popularization in Some English Popular Science Journals of the 1860s.”. Annals of science: a quarterly review of the history of science since the Renaissance 55, no. 1 (1998): 1 – 33. Berlin, Naftali Zvi Yehuda Shu“T: Meshiv Davar. [in Hebrew] Warsaw M.Y. Halter, M. Eisenshtadt, 1894. Bialik, Hayyim Nahman Divrey Sifrut. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1957. Bialik, Hayyim Nahman Kol Kitve H.N. Bialik. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1938. Bialik, Hayyim Nahman, Lachower Yeruham Fishel. Igrot Hayim Nahman Bialik. [in Hebrew] Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1937. Boyles, Denis. Everything Explained That Is Explainable: On the Creation of the Encyclopædia Britannica’s Celebrated Eleventh Edition, 1910 – 1911. 2016. Brainin, Reuven. Kol Kitve Reuven Ben Mordekhai Brainin. [in Hebrew] New-York: Vaad ha-Yovel, 1922. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-009

Published Documents

209

Brandes, Joseph, and Martin Douglas. Immigrants to Freedom: Jews as Yankee Farmers! (1880s to 1960s). 2013. Brenner, Michael. The Renaissance of Jewish Culture in Weimar Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Pr., 2013. Brenner, Yosef Hain Breakdown and Bereavement: A Novel. 1920. Translated by Halkin Hillel. Ithaca London Cornell University Press, 1971. Brisman, Shimeon. A History and Guide to Judaic Encyclopedias and Lexicons. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1987. Buber, Martin, ed. Entsiklopedia Hinukhit. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1961. Cassel, David Steinschneider Moritz. Plan Der Real-Encyclopädie Des Judenthums: Zunächst Für Die Mitarbeiter. Krotoschin: Monasch, 1844. Cassuto, Umberto, ed. Entsiklopedia Mikrait: Otsar ha-Yediot al ha-Mikra u-Tekufato. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1950. Cnaani, David, ed. Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevrah. Merhavia: Sifriyat Poalim, 1962 – 1970. Cornis-Pope, Marcel Neubauer John. History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Vol. 2 Vol. 2. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2006. Darnton, Robert. The Business of Enlightenment: A Publishing History of the Encyclopédie, 1775 – 1800. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1979. Dubnow, Shimon. Naḥpesah ve-Naḥkorah: Kol Kore el ha-Nevonim b-Aam ha-Mitnadvim le-Esof Homer le-Binyan Toldot Benei Israel be-Polin u-be-Rusyah [in Hebrew] Odessa, 1892. Dubnow, Simon. Nationalism and History: Essays on Old and New. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1958. Eco, Umberto. “Metaphor, dictionary, and encyclopedia.” New Literary History 15, no. 2 (1984): 255 – 271. Eisenstadt, S.N. and Lissak, Moshe (ed.), Zionism and the Return to History: A Reappraisal. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1999. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem; New York: Keter; Macmillan, 1971. Eisenberg, Ellen. Jewish Agricultural Colonies in New Jersey: 1882 – 1920 Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995. Engelhardt, Arndt. “Palimpsests and Questions of Canonisation the German Jewish Encyclopedias in the Weimar Era.” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 5, no. 3 (2006): 301 – 21. Engelhardt, Arndt, and Ines Prodöhl. “Kaleidoscopic Knowledge: On Jewish and Other Encyclopedia.” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 9 (2010): 230 – 472. Entsiklopedia Klalit. [in Hebrew] Vol. 1, Tel Aviv: Masada, 1937. Entsiklopedyah ha-Eshkol: Hoveret 1 – 6. [Added cover title in Hebrew and Russian; text in Hebrew.] Warsaw: Goldman, 1888. Entsiklopedyah Klalit Masada. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Hotsaat Alumot, 1958. Feiner, Shmuel. Haskalah and History: The Emergence of a Modern Jewish Historical Consciousness. Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2002. Fränkel, Faiwel. Ketavim Nivharim. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Agudat ha-Sofrim ha-Ivrim and Hotsaat Mahbarot le-Sifrut, 1964. Frenkel, Yonah. Midrash ve-Aggada. [In Hebrew] Tel Aviv: ha-Oniversita ha-Ptukha, 1996. Friedberg, Bernhard. Toldot ha-Dfus ha-Ivri be-Polanyah: me-Reshit Hivasdo Bi-Shenat 1534 ve-Hitpathuto ad Zemanenu. [in Hebrew] Tel-Aviv: Friedberg, 1950.

210

Bibliography

Funkenstein, Amos. “Toldot Israel bein ha-Khokhim” [in Hebrew]. Zion 60 (1995), 335 – 347. G’u, Rene. Entsiklopedyah Larus li-Veney ha-Neurim. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Kiryat-sefer, 1964. Ginsburg, Shai. Rhetoric and Nation: The Formation of Hebrew National Culture, 1880 – 1990. 2014. Goldshtain, Yosi. Ahad Haam: Biyografyah. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Keter : 1992. Goldshtain, Yosi. Ahad Haam ve-Hertsel: ha-Maavak al Ofiyah ha-Politi ve-Tarbuti shel ha-Tsiyonut be-Tsel Parashat Altneuland. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2011. Greenbaum, Alfred Abraham, Bartal Yisrael, Haruv Dan. Safra ve-Sayafa: Shimon Dubnov, Historyon veIsh Tsibur. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim; ha-Merkaz le-Heker Toldot Yehudey Polin ve-Tarbutam: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2010. Gris, Zeev. “Abraham Leib Shalkovich (Ben Avigdor) ve-ha-Mahapekha be-Olam ha-Sfarim ha-Ivriyim be-Reshit ha-Mea ha-Esrim” in Goldshtain, Yosi Salmon Yosef (editors). Yosef Daat: Mehkarim BeHistoryah Yehudit Modernit Mugashim Li-Prof. Yosef Salmon Le-Hag Yovlo [in Hebrew]. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Guryon University, 2010. 305 – 328. Gutin, Yisrael. Kur Oni: Reshimot, Demuyot, Zikhronot. [in Hebrew] [Tel Aviv] Eked, 1979. Haefrati, Yosef (ed.). Shaul Tshernihovski: Mivhar Maamre Bikoret al Yetsirato [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: AmOved, 1976. ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit: Kllalit, Yehudit ve-Eretzisraelit. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Hevrah LeHotsaat Entsiklopedyot Hotsaat Masada, 1949. Hahn, Roger. “Science and the arts in France: the limitations of an encyclopedic ideology.” Studies in eighteenth-century culture 10, no. 1 (1981): 77 – 93. Hertzberg, Arthur. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader. New York: Atheneum, 1969. Hever, Hannan. “’Guru Lakhem min ha-Galitsaim’: Sifrut galitsia ve-ha-Maavak al ha-Kanon baSiporet ha-Ivrit” Teoria u-Bikoret 5 (1994) 55 – 77. Hevlin, Rina. Mehuyavut Kefulah: Zehut Yehudit Ben Masoret le-Hilun be-Haguto shel Ahad Haam. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Hotsaat ha-Kibuts ha-Meuhad, 2001. Hoffman, Stefani Mendelsohn Ezra. The Revolution of 1905 and Russia’s Jews. Philadelphia, Penn.: the University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Idel, Moshe Dimant Devorah Rosenberg Shalom. Minhah le-Sarah: Mehkarim be-Filosofyah Yehudit uva-Kabalah: Mugashim li-Profesor Sarah A. Heler Vilenski. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Magnes, haOniversita ha-Ivrit, 1994. Jabotinsky, Vladimir. Avtobiyografyah. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Eri Jabotinsky, 1946. Jabotinsky, Vladimir, and Shmuel Perlman. Atlas. [in Hebrew] London: Hevrat ha-Sefer, 1925. Katz, Jacob. Out of the Ghetto: The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation, 1770 – 1870. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. Katzenelson, Judah Leib Benjamin. Mah she-Rau Eynai ve-Shamu Oznai: Zikhronot mi-Yemey Hayai. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Mossad Bialik, 1947. Klatzkin, Jacob. Encyclopaedia Judaica: Das Judentum in Geschichte Und Gegenwart. Vol. 3, Berlin: Eschkol, 1929. Klatzkin, Jakob. Enzyklopaedie Des Judentums: Probeheft. [In German and Hebrew.] Berlin: Eschkol, 1926. Klatzkin, Jakob. Eshkol: Entsiklopedyah Yisreelit. [in Hebrew] Berlin: Eschkol, 1929. Klausner, Joseph. Darki Likerat ha-Tehiyah ve-ha-Geulah: Autobiyografyah (1874 – 1944). [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Masada, 1955. Klausner, Joseph. Ob Entsiklopedii Iudaizma Na Evreiskom Iazykie. [in Russian] Bielostok: Parovaia Tipolit. SH. M. Volobrinskago, 1903.

Published Documents

211

Kohn, Hans The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2005. Kressel, Getzel Krupnik Baruch. Genazim: Kovets le-Toldot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ba-Dorot ha-Aharonim. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Agudat ha-Sofrim ha-Ivriyim be-Yisrael, 1961. Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Vol. 111. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1970. Laskov, Shulamit. Hayey Ahad Haam: Pesefas mi-Tokh KetavavuU-Ktavim Aherim. [in Hebrew] [Tel Aviv]; Yerushalayim: ha-Makhon le-Heker ha-Tsiyonut ve-Yisrael al Ahem Hayim Vaitsman, Universitat Tel-Aviv ve-ha-Sifriyah ha-Tsiyonit, 2006. Leibowitz, Yeshayahu. Al Olam u-Meloo: Sikhot im Michael Sasar [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Keter, 1987. Leibowitz, Yeshayahu. Bein Mada le-filosofia. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Akademon, 1987. Luria, Ben-Zion, and David Benvenisti, eds. Atlas Tanakhi ve-Arim ba-Mikra. Tel Aviv: Ahiasaf, 1966. Malkiel, David. The Jewish Law Annual. Volume Sixteen Volume Sixteen. London: Routledge, 2006. de Man, Paul. Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism. Minneapolis: the University of Minnesota Press, 1983. Mazar, Benjamin, and Josef Szapiro, eds. Atlas li-Tkufat ha-Tanakh: mi-Yemey ha-Avot vead Ezra uNehemyah. Tel Aviv: Grafit, 1957. Mee, Arthur, ed. The Children’s Encyclopedia. London: Amalgamated Press, 1922. Mendes-Flohr, Paul R. German Jews: A dual identity. Yale University Press, 1999. Milosz, Czeslaw. The History of Polish Literature. [New York: Macmillan, 1969. Miron, Dan. Bodedim be-Moadam: li-Dyoknah shel ha-Republikah ha-Sifrutit ha-Ivrit bi-Tehilat ha-Meah ha-Esrim. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1987. Miron, Dan. From Continuity to Contiguity: Toward a New Jewish Literary Thinking. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2010. Miron, Dan. “Safruyot Yehudiyot Moderniyot: Mavo.” In Zman Yehudi Hadash, edited by Yuval Yirmiyahu. Jerusalem: Keter, 2007. Neumark, David. Toldot ha-Ikarim be-Yisrael. [in Hebrew] Odessa: Moriyah, 1912. Nissenbaum, Yitzchak. Ale Heldi: 1868 – 1929. [in Hebrew] Warsaw: Dfus Grafiya, 1929. Norich Anita and Yaron Z Eliav. Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Context and Intertext. Providence R.I: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008. Oser, Asher C. “When an American Jew Produced: Judah David Eisenstein and the First Hebrew Encyclopedia.” Ph.D. diss., New York, NY: Bernard Revel Graduate School. Yeshiva University, 2020. Oren, Yosef. Ahad Haam, M.Y. Berditsevski va-Havurat ha-Tseirim”. [in Hebrew] Rishon le-Tsiyon: Yahad, 1985. Peli, Alexander. Horaot ha-Vaada ha-Meyaetzet, ha-Mazkirut ve-ha-Mol le-Ovdey ha-Entsiklopedia haIvrit.” [In Hebrew]. Yerushalaim: Masada, 1946. Peli, Bracha. Hayim shel Bracha. [in Hebrew] Givatayim: Masada, 1984. Rabbinowitz, Saul Phinehas. “Petakh Davar.” [In Hebrew]. Keneset Yisrael: Sefer Shenati le-Torah ve-leTeudah (1886). Rabinovits, Tsevi Hirsh Ben Meir ha-Kohen. Otsar Hokhma ve-ha-Madda: Kolel Yesod Hokhmat ha-Teva ha-Kelalit ve-Gam Yediot Haroshet ha-Maase ve-yediot Maddaim Shonim. [in Hebrew] Vilna: Rom, 1876. Rappel, Dov. Sheva ha-Hokhmot: ha-Vikuah al Limudey Hol be-Sifrut ha-Hinukh Ha-Yehudit ad Reshit haHaskalah. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Misrad ha-Hinukh ve-ha-Tarbut, Minhal ha-Tarbut, ha-Agaf le-Tarbut Toranit, 1989.

212

Bibliography

Rawidowicz, Simon Dubnow Simon. Sefer Shimon Dubnov: Maamarim, Igrot. [in Hebrew] London; Waltham, Mass.: Hotsaat Erret, 1954. Refaeli (Zanziper), Arieh. “ha-Veidah ha-Shniyah Beminsk.” In Katsir: Kovets le-Korot ha-Tenuah haTsiyonit be-Rusyah. Tel-Aviv: Masada 1964. Reuveny, Jacob. Memshal ha-Mandat be-Eretz Israel 1848 – 1920. [in Hebrew]: Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1993. Roth, Cecil. The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. Garden City, N.Y.: Masada Press, 1959. Rubin Schwartz, Shuly. The emergence of Jewish scholarship in America: the publication of the Jewish encyclopedia. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1991. S., B. “Kol Korim: Entsiklopedia Klalit be-Ivrit.” Moznaim: Shvuon le-Sifrot, le-Bikoret u-le-Divrey Omanut 40, no. 240 (3 March, 1932). Sabella, Maurizio, ’Mazzini’s Internationalism in Context: From the Cosmopolitan Patriotism of the Italian Carbonari to Mazzini’s Europe of the Nations’, in C. A. Bayly, and E. F. Biagini (eds), Giuseppe Mazzini and the Globalization of Democratic Nationalism, 1830 – 1920 (London, 2008; online edition, British Academy Scholarship Online, 31 Jan. 2012) 11 – 35. Sebba Elran, Tsafi. Zichronot Hadashim: Asufot ha-Aggadah ve-Itsuvo shel Kanon Ivri Moderni. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2017. Saposnik, Arieh Bruce. Becoming Hebrew: The Creation of a Jewish National Culture in Ottoman Palestine. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Schönhak, Joseph. Sefer Toldot ha-Arets. [in Hebrew] Warsaw: bi-Dfus Tsevi Yaakov Bomberg, 1841. Schulman, Kalman. Sefer Divre Yeme Olam: Yekhalkel Toldot Bene ha-Adam ve-ha-Itim Asher Avru al Kol Mamlekhot Tevel mi-Yemot Olam. [in Hebrew] Vilna: Ahim Rom, 1868. Seltzer, Robert M. “Coming home: The personal basis of Simon Dubnow’s ideology.” AJS Review 1 (1976): 283 – 301. Shaham, David. Britanikah la-Noar: Entsiklopedyah Beinleumit le-Yisrael. [in Hebrew] Tel Aviv: Entsiklopedyah la-noar Baam, 1977. Shatzky, Jacob. Di Geshikhte Fun Yidn in Varshe. [in Yiddish] New York: Yiddish Scientific Institute YIVO, 1948. Shavit, Yaakov. “Ahad Haam and Hebrew National Culture: Realist or Utopianist?” Jew History Jewish History 4, no. 2 (1990): 71 – 87. Shavit, Yaakov, and Jehuda Reinharz. ha-El ha-Madai: Mada Populari be-Ivrit be-Mizrakh Eropa baMahatsit ha-Sheniyah shel ha-Mea ha-19 [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: ha-Kibuts ha-Meuhad, 2011. Shemesh, David. ha-Rav Itzhak Yaakov Raines: Mekholel ha-Tsionut. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Misrad haHhinukh, 1977. Slutsky, Yehuda. Ha-Itonut be-Yahadut Russiayh ba-Meah ha-Teshaesre. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1970. Slutsky, Yehuda. Tenuaat ha-Haskalah be-Yahadut Rusyah. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, ha-Hevrah ha-Historit ha-Yisreelit, 1977. Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. London: Routledge, 1998. Soffer, Oren. Eyn le-Falpel!: Iton ha-Tsefirah ve-ha-Modernizatsyah shel ha-Siah ha-Hevrati Ha-Politi. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Mossad Bialik : ha-Merkaz le-Heker Toldot Yehudey Polin ve-Tarbutam, ha-Oniversita ha-Ivrit bi-Yerushalayim, 2007. Solomon ben Melek, Abendana Jacob. Sefer Mikhlal Yofi : Hofi‘a or Ha-Torah Le-Havanat Ha-Mikra. [in Hebrew] Amsterdam: Dfus David Tartas, 1684. Steinsaltz, Adin. The Essential Talmud. New York: Basic Books, 1976.

Published Documents

213

Tchernichovsky, Shaul. Sefer ha-Munakhim le-Refuah u-Madaey ha-Tevah. [in Hebrew] Jerusalem: Margalit, 1934. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. The Seven-Branched Light; a Reading Guide and Index to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isaac Landman. New York: Ktav Pub. House, 1969. Tsahor, Dan. “‘A Compass to Our Cultureʼ: A History of Haentsiklopedia Haivrit, 1944 – 1980.” Israel Studies 23, no. 1 (2018): 106 – 128. Tsahor, Dan. “Knowledge and the Making of a Jewish Nation: Encyclopedia, Historical Narrative, and the Epistemic Origins of Zionism.” In Textual Transmission in Contemporary Jewish Cultures, pp. 210 – 222. Oxford University Press. Uri, Ram. “Yeda Vedea: Torat Hayedah Shel Leibowitz Vehaetgar Hapost Moderni.” In Ysayahw Leibowitz: Beyn Shamranut Veradiykaliyut, edited by Aviezer Ravitzky, 238 – 54. Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute and ha-Kibutz ha-Meukhad, 2007. Veidlinger, Jeffrey. “”Emancipation: See Anti-Semitism:” The Evreiskaia Entsiklopediia and Jewish Public Culture.” Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts 9 (2010): 405 – 26. Veidlinger, Jeffrey. Jewish Public Culture in the Late Russian Empire. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2009. Weinstein, Roni. Shavru et ha-Keylim: ha-Kabalah ve-ha-Moderniyut ha-Yehudit. [in Hebrew] Tel-Aviv: Oniversitat Tel-Aviv, 2011. Wiernikowski, Isaak. Das Buch Hiob nach der Auffassung der rabbinischen Litteratur in den ersten fü nf nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten Berlin: Poppelauer, 1902. Wolff, Larry. The Idea of Galicia: History and Fantasy in Habsburg Political Culture. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2010. Yassif, Eli. “The Study of Folklore and the Process of Secularization of Modern Jewish Culture,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 28, (2013): 501 –485 . Yeo, Richard. “Reading encyclopedias: science and the organization of knowledge in British dictionaries of arts and sciences, 1730 – 1850.” Isis 82, no. 1 (1991): 24 – 49. Yeo, Robert, and Richard Yeo. Encyclopaedic visions: Scientific dictionaries and enlightenment culture. Cambridge University Press, 2001. Yitshak Dober Markon, Yehudah Leib Katsenelson. Reshimat ha-Arakhin shel ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit “Otsar Hayahadut”, ha-Yotset la-Or al yedey Yitshak Dober Markon ve-Neerkhet al yedey Dr. Yehudah Leib Katsenelson Yitshak Dober Markon. [in Hebrew] Petersburg: Markon, 1914. Yovel, Yirmiyahu Shaham David. Zeman Yehudi Hadash: Tarbut Yehudit beIdan Hiloni: Mabat Entsiklopedi. [in Hebrew] Yerushalayim: Keter : Lamda, Amutah le-Tarbut Yehudit Modernit, Mekhon Shpinozah bi-Yerushalayim, 2007. Zionisten, Kongress. “Stenographisches Protokoll Der Verhandlungen Des V. Zionisten-Congresses in Basel: 26., 27., 28., 29. U. 30. Dec. 1901.” Wien, 1901. Zipperstein, Steven J. Elusive Prophet: Ahad Ha’am and the Origins of Zionism. Berkeley: the University of California Press, 1993.

Index Abramovich, Sholem Yankev (Mendele Mokher Sforim) 26, 33, 35, 39, 67, 159 Acatriel, Moshe Yakob 23 Agnon, Shmuel Yosef 154 d’Aguilar, Diego Pereira 40 Aguilar, Grace 115 Ahad Haam (Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg) 7, 30, 48, 52 f., 58 f., 62 – 77, 79 – 88, 93 – 96, 98, 100 f., 103, 106, 108 – 110, 117 f., 120, 122 f., 126 – 131, 135 – 141, 143, 146, 149, 151, 154, 157, 159, 165, 170, 175, 191 f., 195, 206 Ahad Haam’s encyclopedic model (Hybrid Model) 75 f., 78, 82, 146, 151, 159, 175, 192 Ahdut ha-Avoda 202 Ahiasaf Publishing House 62, 77, 80 – 83, 85, 88, 95, 103, 115, 135 Ahimeir, Abba 201 f. Akrent, H. 19 – 22, 32, 36 f. Albo, Yosef 22 Albright, William F. 176 d’Alembert, Jean le Rond 3, 54 Algemeyne Entsiklopedye 151 f. Anderson, Benedict 26, 51 Aran, Zalman 202 Arbaa Turim 69 Asad, Talal 90 Assmann, Aleida 13 Assmann, Jana 13 Avnery, Uri 202 Bacher, Wilhelm 92, 119 Baconian method 87 Bakhtin, Mikhail 67 Baron, Salo Wittmayer 152 Basel Program 154 Ben Avigdor (Abraham Leib Shalkovich) 10, 61 f., 80, 120, 130 f. Ben-Gurion, David 10, 185, 194, 201 Berdyczewski, Micha Josef 56 f., 62, 66, 84, 89 f., 119 Bergmann, Hugo 161, 184 Berlin, Naftali Zvi Yehuda (Netzi“v) 16 f https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111062464-010

Bernfeld, Simon 102, 131, 133 Bernstein, Zev Hirsch 106 f., 115 Bialik, Hayim Nahman 26 f., 56 – 59, 82, 85, 89, 92, 129, 131, 133, 140, 142 f., 155 – 157, 165, 170, 174, 186 Bible 4, 7 f., 16, 23, 25 f., 33, 45, 50 f., 64, 84, 88 f., 91, 108, 111 f., 117, 119, 123 f., 128, 132, 137, 145, 166, 168, 174 – 180, 182 f., 193 Bildung 12 Blau, Lajos 119 Bnei Moshe 62 f., 71 f., 163 Bohr, Niles 190 Bonaventura, Joseph Enzo 190 Brainin, Reuben 33, 83, 150 Braslavski, Joseph 161 Brenner, Yosef Haim 58 f., 93, 145, 154 Brisman, Shimeon 10, 101 f., 106, 115, 119, 126, 128 f., 146, 150 f., 174 Brockhaus Enzyklopädie 3, 31, 35, 42 – 44, 60, 75 f., 80, 151, 159, 199 Brutzkus, Julius 151 Buber, Martin 59, 134, 156, 184 Büchner, Ludwig 33 Bund 117, 127, 135 al-Bustani, Butrus 21 Canaani, David 185 Cassel, David 60, 111 Cassuto, Umberto (Moshe David) 119, 156, 175 – 181 Chajes, Zvi Perez 85 f. Chambers’s Encyclopedia 119 Children’s Encyclopædia 167 f. Cultural Zionism 30, 59, 96 – 98, 120 Darnton, Robert 11, 20, 114 Darwin, Charles 33, 111 Daston, Lorraine 11 David, Ismar 162 Dembitz, Lewis N. 105 The Democratic Fraction 24 f., 99, 101 Deutsch, Gotthard 107 f. Diderot, Denis 3, 20, 54, 68, 109

Index

Dilthey, Wilhelm 92 Diringer, David 176 Disney, Walt 190 Druyanov, Alter 147 Dubnow, Simon 10, 51 – 55, 72 – 76, 84, 89 f., 122, 125 – 129, 131, 135 f., 138, 147, 149, 151 Efron, Ilia 126, 128 Einstein, Albert 190 Eisenstein, Julius ( Judah David) 85, 103 – 112, 114 – 124, 140, 170 Elbogen, Ismar 85 Eldad, Israel 179 f. Encyclopaedia Biblica (Entsiklopedia Mikrait) 156, 173 – 184, 186, 203 Encyclopaedia Hebraica (ha-Entsiklopedia ha-Ivrit) 1, 15, 131, 133, 136 f., 149, 173, 187 – 196, 198 – 203, 206 Encyclopaedia Judaica (Germany) 1, 10, 144 – 147, 149, 154, 156, 161 f., 183, 187, 195, 206 Encyclopaedia Judaica (US) 195, 206 Encyclopedia Britannica 3, 75 f., 110, 146, 164, 195 f. Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers 11, 20, 114 Encyclopédie Méthodique 3, 20 Encyklopedyja Powszechna 19 f. Enlightenment 3 f., 10 f., 16, 20, 24, 31, 54 f., 59, 68, 109, 114 Entsiklopedia Hinukhit 59, 156, 173, 184, 186, 205 Entsiklopedia Klalit 157 – 167, 169, 171, 182, 191 Entsiklopedia le-Madaey ha-Hevra 173, 184 – 186 Eshkol (The Hebrew edition of Encyclopaedia Judaica) 146 – 150, 160 f., 205 Euchel, Isaac Abraham 24 Even Shemuel (Kaufmann), Judah 191 Evreiskaia entsiklopedia 10, 97, 125, 129 – 131, 133, 139 Federalism 14, 94, 95, 141 Fichman, Yakov 161 Fleischmann, Jacob 198 Frederic II 24 Freemasonry 110 Freidus, Abraham Solomon 107 Friedberg, Abraham Shalom 22, 28 – 30, 36

215

Friedmann, Meir 119 Frischmann, David 129 Frug, Simon 35 Galison, Peter 11 Gardon, Moshe 175, 188 Geist 73 Geography of Palestine 6, 30, 43, 45, 60, 112, 129, 161, 163, 180, 182 f, 195 General Jewish Encyclopedia 72, 79 Ginsburg, Saul 56, 58, 125, 150 Ginzberg, Louis 56, 119, 152 Goldblatt, David 150 Goldman, Bernard 27 Goldman, Jerzy (Yurek) 27, 32, 36, 45 Isaac Goldman (Goldmanen) 7, 13, 18 f., 21–23, 27–39, 45 f., 49 f., 60, 62, 67 f., 70, 87, 101, 108, 110, 117, 123, 135, 147 f., 158, 171 Goldmann, Nahum 145 f., 148, 195 Goldwin, Samuel 190 Gordon, Judah Leib 91 Graetz, Heinrich 45, 50 – 53, 73, 89, 111, 149 Grimm Brothers 3, 143 Gris, Zeev 10, 62 Grünfeld, Joseph 198 Günzburg, David 127 – 129 Günzburg, Horace 127 Günzburg, Joseph 127 Gutman, Joshua 132, 175, 187 ha-Eshkol Allgemeine Encyclopedia 13, 16 – 19, 21 f., 28, 30 f., 33 – 47, 50, 59 – 61, 64, 67, 77, 102, 115, 118, 135, 139, 158, 205 ha-Meassef 24 ha-Megid 38, 104 ha-Melitz 22 f., 29, 32, 34, 36, 38, 45, 60 – 63, 66, 72 f., 77, 79 f., 91, 100, 104 ha-Mitzpeh 120 f., 136 ha-Olam 82, 98, 136 ha-Schiloah 62, 81, 88 ha-Shomer ha-Tsair 185 f. ha-Tseirim 62, 83 ha-Tsfira 16, 22 f., 25, 27, 29, 32 – 34, 37 – 40, 48, 60, 72, 79, 96, 98, 100 – 102, 104, 116, 121 – 123, 131 f., 135 – 139 ha-Tsofeh 64, 177, 190, 200

216

Index

ha-Tzvi 40, 72 ha-Zman 80, 83, 85, 101 f., 112, 120 – 122, 132 – 137 Hadassah Medical Convoy 190 Haefrati, Yossef 22, 165 Haktin, Ruth 202 Halevi, Yehuda 22 Harkavy, Albert 119, 125 Haskalah 16, 23 f., 26 f., 30 f., 33, 39, 63 f., 66 f., 72, 84, 90 f., 93, 100, 108, 117, 120 f., 183 Hazan, Yaakov 185 Hebrew Encyclopedia Publishing Company 106, 115, 118 Hebrew University 154 f., 161, 174 f., 180, 187 f., 193, 198, 200 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 74, 198 Helsingfors Resolution 134 f. Herder, Johann Gottfried 54 Herut Party 201 f. Herzdanski, Shmuel Zvi 37 Herzl, Theodor 48 f., 92, 94, 98 f., 104, 117, 129, 134, 139 Hevrah le-Hotzaat Entsiklopediot 188 Hevrat Dorshey Leshon Avar 24 Hibbat Zion 27 – 30, 52, 62, 64, 98, 101, 104, 134 Higher Criticism 111 f., 177 f. Hilukim 24 Hirsch, Maurice 103 Histadrut 185, 201 History of the Jews (book) 45, 50 f., 111, 137 Hitler, Adolf 201 f. Hobbes, Thomas 99 Hoffman, Nechemya Dov 22 Holocaust 7, 151, 172 Horowitz, David 184 Huxley, Aldous 190 ibn Salam, Abdullah 1 Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) Jaeger, Werner 190 Jarmulowsky, Alexander 114 The Jewish Agency 156, 185

202

The Jewish Encyclopedia 10, 14, 61, 80, 86, 92, 97, 100, 103, 105 – 108, 110, 118, 124, 128 f., 131, 139, 150, 152, 162, 178 Jüdisches Lexikon 144 f., 148, 152 Kalei, David 161 – 163, 167 f. Kant, Immanuel 181, 197 Karo, Yosef 2, 68 f., 116 Kattowitz Conference 30 Katz, Ben-Zion 83, 122, 131 – 133, 135 f., 139 Katz, Jacob 7, 90 Katzenelson, Yehudah Leib (Buki ben Yogli) 119, 128, 130 – 132, 136, 138 Kaznelson, Siegmund 163 Kelter, Hayim ben Elkana 22, 28 Kishinev Pogrom 85, 98, 141 Klar, Benjamin 190 Klatzkin, Jacob 1, 145 – 148 Klausner, Joseph 81 – 86, 88 – 90, 127 f., 135, 140, 154 f., 161 – 166, 180, 182, 189 – 191, 193 f., 196, 200 Knesset Israel 30 f. Kohler, Kaufmann 86 Kook, Abraham Isaac 119 Krupnik (Karu), Baruch 32, 104, 161 Krylov, Ivan 23 Kuhn, Thomas 6 Kulisher, Mikhail 128 Kuttner, Bernhard 56 Kuzari 22 Lachover, Fischel 175 Lampronti, Yitzhak 69, 92 Landman, Isaac 152 – 154 The Language War 155 Laski, Harold 190 Lauterbach, Jacob Zallel 92, 119 Lavon Affair 202 Le Corbusier 190 Lehman, Herbert 190 Leibowitz, Yeshayahu 33, 189, 191, 193, 195 – 201 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim 23 Lestschinsky, Jacob 151 Levin, Shmaryahu 29, 83, 126 Levin, Yehudah Leib Levin (Yahalal) 29 Levinger, Jacob 198

Index

Levner, Benjamin 56 Livschitz, David 185 Löwe, Joel 24 Luakh Ahiasaf 81, 83 Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon) 19, 42, 68 – 70, 82, 86 Mahler, Raphael 132, 185 f. Maisler (Masar), Benjamin 175, 179 Malter, Henry 62, 119 MAPAM 185, 193 Mapu, Avraham 22, 25 f., 29 Marek, Pesach 56, 58 Margolis, Isaac 56 Margolis, Max Leopold 107 Markon, Isaac 119, 128, 131 – 140, 143, 150 Masada 33, 157, 159, 161 – 163, 165 – 167, 171, 174, 187 f., 190 f., 193 – 195, 199 – 201, 203, 206 May Laws 28 Mayer, Leo Aryeh 175 Mazzini, Giuseppe 181 Mead, Margaret 190 Meisel, Nachman 151 Mendelsohn, Samuel 105 Mendelssohn, Erich 190 Mendelssohn, Moses 23, 89 Meshorer, Joseph 102 Miron, Dan 22, 24, 158 Mishnah 2, 8, 63, 68 f., 74, 84, 86, 108, 183 Mishneh Torah 19, 69 f., 107 Mizrachi 48 f., 132 Montessori, Maria 190 Mossad Bialik 15, 22, 58, 128, 156 f., 174 f., 177, 184 – 188 Al-Nahda 21 Nazism 142, 151 Nehru, Jawaharlal 190 Netanyahu, Benzion 190 f., 193 – 195, 199 f. Neumark, David 62, 83 – 88, 93 f., 136, 140 Neurim 167 – 169, 171, 206 The New American Cyclopædia 3 Nordau, Max 92, 139 Objectivity 5, 15, 21, 44, 82, 114 f., 174, 203 Obst, Georg 164

217

Ohron, Anton 164 Oliphant, Laurence 182 Orgelbrand, Samuel 20, 28 Ormian, Haim 161 Otzar ha-Yahadut 49, 58, 62 – 67, 70 – 77, 79 – 85, 94 f., 100 f., 103, 106, 108, 110, 118, 122, 131, 135 – 139, 143, 149, 151, 191 Otzar Israel 88, 97, 103, 107 – 118, 120 – 124, 139, 149, 152, 178 Pahad Yitzhak 45, 69, 92, 108, 112 Peli, Alexander 188 f., 191 – 195, 199, 200 – 203 Peli, Bracha 157 – 164, 166 f., 171, 187 f., 191 f., 194 f., 200 f. Perlman, Shmuel 160 f. Piccard, Auguste 190 Pikovski, Michael 163 pilpul 23 – 25, 31, 43, 140 Piscator, Erwin 190 Plato 87, 116, 196 Polak, Yaakov 24 Portmann, Adolf 196 Poznański, Samuel Abraham 119 Prawer, Joshua 187, 189, 199 f. Rabinowitz (Shefe“r), Shaul Pinchas 30 – 32, 36, 38 f., 45, 77, 83 ,102, 140 Rathmell, Shlomo 28 Rawnitzki, Yehoshua Ḥana 56 – 58, 63, 143, 157 Revel, Bernard 115, 119 Revisionist Zionism 9, 163, 186, 201 1905 Revolution 98, 125, 127, 141, 144 Rimon 187, 189, 202, 204 Robert, David 129 f. Roby, Naphtali E. 119 Rosenstein, Avraham 102 Rotenstreich, Nathan 200 Roth, Cecil 195 Rubin Schwartz, Shuly 10, 61, 105 Russo-Japanese War 83, 125 Salanter, Yisroel 30 Schlegel, Friedrich 54 f. Scholem, Gershom 161 Schopenhauer, Arthur 198 Schwabe, Moshe 185

218

Index

Schwadron (Sharon), Avraham 163 Sefer ha-Aggadah 56, 58, 142 f., 149, 160 Sefer ha-Ikkarim 22 Sefer Toldot ha-Teva 26, 33 Segal, Moshe Zvi 175 Seligmann, Raphael 161 Shefer 30 – 32, 36, 38 f., 45, 77, 83, 102, 140 Sholem Aleichem 35 Shulchan Aruch 2 Silman, Kadish 151, 155 Simhoni, Yaakov Naftali 147 Simon, Akiba Ernst 156, 184 Singer, Isidore 10, 59 – 61, 70 f., 80, 86, 100, 106, 108 – 110 Slonimski, Hayyim Selig 25 Slouschz, Nahum 35 f., 119 The Society for the Promotion of Culture among the Jews 125, 127 Sokolow, Nahum 22 f., 37, 39 f., 66, 68, 72 – 74, 76, 80, 87, 96 – 102, 110, 117, 126, 135, 140, 142, 156 Soliali, Maksas 175, 183 Soloveichik, Moshe 147 Sossnitz, Joseph Judah Lö b 32 f. The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia 195 Steinschneider, Moritz 55, 60, 71, 111, 119 Suez Crisis 202 Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa 174 f., 177 Suskin, Avraham 162 Tadmor, Haim 179 Talmud 4, 8, 22, 24 – 26, 28, 54, 63, 66 f., 70 f., 84, 93, 108, 112, 115, 124, 128, 132, 137, 149, 176, 193 Tawiow, Israel Chaim 112, 122 f. Taylor, Charles 90 Tcherikover, Victor A. 151 Tchernichovsky, Shaul 128, 131, 135, 140, 159 f., 165 Tchernowitz, Chaim (Rav Tsair) 88 Technion 155, 161, 188 Teitelbaum, Yekusiel Yehuda 116 Territorialism 129, 154 Thon, Abraham Ozjasz 62 Tillich, Paul 190

Tsinberg, Yisroel 128 Tur-Sinai (Torczyncer), Naftali Herz 179 f. Tushiya Publishers 120 Tworok 101 Uganda Plan 102 The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Uprising of 1863 27 f.

161, 175,

152 – 154

Veidlinger, Jeffrey 10, 126 f. Volozhin Yeshiva 16, 38 Voskhod 35, 51 – 53, 66, 72, 75, 94, 125 Waldstein, Abraham Solomon 122 f. Weinberg, Isaac 102 Weitzman, Haim 150 Wessely, Naphtali-Herz 23 f. Wiernikowski, Isaak 111 Wikipedia 1, 206 Wissenschaft des Judentums 55, 59, 70, 137, 146 Wissotzky, Kalonymos 63, 71, 77, 79 Wolfson, Günter 190 World Association for Hebrew Language and Culture 142 World Zionist Organization 11, 15, 48 – 50, 56, 96 – 98, 100, 102, 132, 135, 156, 174 Worship the Present (Avodat ha-Oveh) 97 Yadin, Yigael 192 Yalkut Shimoni 22 Yavetz, Zeev 31 Yehudah Hanasi 68 f. Yeo, Richard 11 Yevin, Shmuel 175, 178, 180 f., 187 Yiddishism 159 Yidn 27, 151 – 153 YIVO 27, 151, 170 Zangwill, Israel 129, 150 Zederbaum, Aleksander 60 – 62, 70 Zhitlowsky, Chaim 151 Zipprin, Haim 157 Zmora, Israel 184, 205