Australian Journal of Jewish Studies
ISSN: 1037-0838
The Australian Journal of Jewish Studies is devoted to the study of
Jewish culture in all aspects and all periods. One volume is published
annually by the Australian Association for Jewish Studies, established
in 1986 as the only academic association for Jewish Studies in Australia.
The views expressed in the articles are those of the authors, and do not
necessarily express those of the Editors. A newsletter is also published by
the Association.
The Australian Journal of Jewish Studies in an international peer
reviewed journal. All research articles and book reviews in this journal
have undergone rigorous peer review.
Manuscripts and books for review should be sent to Dr Myer Samra
(samra01@tpg.com.au) as an e-mail attachment. See style sheet on the
back inside cover.
The Australian Journal of Jewish Studies is available by membership in
the Australian Association for Jewish Studies or by subscription.
Membership in the AAJS is $50 (full-time Students and Pensioners $15).
Subscription is $60 for institutions (Overseas $60 Australian funds).
Send payment to: Dr Marianne Dacy (NDS), Archive of Australian Judaica,
c/- Rare Books, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
Back Copies of Journal: $12 (including postage and handling). Please
refer to the website http://www.aajs.org.au/ for details of contents.
QhÞegtu"qh"vjg"Cwuvtcnkcp"Cuuqekcvkqp"hqt"Lgykuj"Uvwfkgu"ctg<
President: Dr Michael Abrahams-Sprod, Department of Hebrew, Biblical
and Jewish Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, A18, The
University of Sydney NSW 2006
Vice-Presidents: NSW & ACT: Dr Anna Huenke, email: anna.hueneke@
bigpond.com
Victoria: Dr Miriam Munz Victoria, Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation
EcwnÞgnf."Dwknfkpi"J."Ngxgn":"Hcewnv{"qh"Ctvu."Oqpcuj"Wpkxgtukv{."RQ"Dqz"
3;9."EcwnÞgnf"Gcuv"XKE""5367
Secretary/Treasurer: Dr Marianne Dacy (NDS), Archive of Australian
Judaica, c/- Rare Books, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, NSW 2006
email: mdacy@library.usyd.edu.au
Editor Dr Myer Samra
Editorial Assistants: Dr Jennifer Dowling, Neta Steingrad, Lyvia Steingrad
THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL
OF
JEWISH STUDIES
Volume XXV: 2011
Editor Dr Myer Samra
Editorial Assistants
Dr Jennifer Dowling
Neta Steigrad
Livya Steigrad
Editorial Board
Dr Michael Abrahams-Sprod
University of Sydney
Dr Judy Berman
University of Western Australia
Professor Carole Fink
Ohio State University
Professor Sara Japhet
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr Rachael Kohn
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Assistant Professor Mark A. Leuchter
Temple University
Associate Professor Philip Mendes
Monash University
Professor Bill Rubinstein
Aberystwyth University, Wales
Dr Hilary Rubinstein
Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal, Victoria
Professor Suzanne Rutland
University of Sydney
Professor Christian Wiese
University of Frankfurt and the University of Sussex
Associate Professor Ian Young
University of Sydney
THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL
OF
JEWISH STUDIES
Vol XXV: 2011
Table of Contents
Editorial Introduction
MYER SAMRA
3
Political Uses of the Hebrew Bible in Current Israeli Discourse:
Transcending Right and Left
FANIA OZ-SALZBERGER
11
The Curious Case of Kafka, His Papers,
the Library and the Archive
HEATHER MERLE BENBOW
36
Beauty in the Eye of the Matchmaker:
How Religious Zionist Matchmakers in Israel Deal
with Their Clients’ Desire to Find Beautiful Partners
YA’ARIT BOKEK-COHEN AND NITZA DAVIDOVICH
56
“The New Jew” in the Zionist Movement:
Ideology and Historiography
YITZHAK CONFORTI
87
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
ISAIAH GRUBER
119
“All a Myth? Come and See for Yourself”:
Place as Holocaust Witness in Survivor and Second
Generation Memoirs of Return
ESTHER JILOVSKY
153
Louis Miller, the Warheit, and the Kehillah of New York,
1908–1909
EHUD MANOR
175
Israel Connectedness: Australian, United States and
English Survey Findings Compared
ANDREW MARKUS
201
In the Desert of the Other: Identity and Lucrimax in
Modern Hebrew Fiction
HELENA RIMON
222
Tgxkgyu"
Contributors
468
281
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The
Makings of Ambivalence
Isaiah Gruber
Zvi Gitelman entitled his popular and highly regarded text on
Russian Jewish history from 1881 to post-Soviet times, A Century of
Ambivalence. Why “ambivalence,” which the Oxford English Dictionary
fgÞpgu"cu."ÑVjg"eqgzkuvgpeg"kp"qpg"rgtuqp"qh"eqpvtcfkevqt{"goqvkqpu"
or attitudes (as love and hatred) towards a person or thing”? Gitelman
(2001:xi, xiii) explained that Russians and Jews have been “locked into
a tempestuous, intense relationship” producing “great enthusiasms
and profound disappointments” as well as “enormous Jewish
ambivalence toward their [Russian Empire] homeland.” According to
this perspective, even the excruciating suffering caused by virulent
antisemitism could not eliminate the natural affection simultaneously
felt by East European Jews for their Diaspora rodina (the land of
one’s birth) and for Russian high culture, in which they participated
gzvgpukxgn{0"Vq"vjku"fc{"vjg"fguegpfcpvu"qh"Twuukcp"Lgykuj"fiokitfiu"
around the world continue to cultivate a strong nostalgia for the “world
of the shtetl” and the “unique Russian-Jewish atmosphere” of the
past—despite the overwhelming pain and deep loss that inevitably
accompanied Yiddishkeit (Jewishness) during its “Russian” and Soviet
phases.
Vjg" qvjgt" ukfg" qh" vjg" gzvtcqtfkpct{." wpeqohqtvcdng." cpf"
inextricable association between Russians and Jews was no less
complex. Ambivalent Jewish sentiment about Russia in certain
respects mirrored pre-existing ambivalent Russian sentiment about
Lgyu0" Nqpi" dghqtg" ukipkÞecpv" pwodgtu" qh" Lgyu" nkxgf" kp" Twuukc." vjg"
Russian state and church cultivated a deep-seated “love-hate” attitude
vqyctf"vjg"Lgykuj"rgqrng0"Vjku"ctvkeng"yknn"dg"eqpegtpgf"urgekÞecnn{"
with one of the neglected aspects of that history: a form of Hebrew
study by mediaeval and early modern Russian Orthodox Christian
oqpmu0"Vjg"qhvgp"uvtcpig"yc{u"kp"yjkej"vjgug"uetkdgu"fgcnv"ykvj"vjg"
Australian Journal for Jewish Studies (2011) 25: 119–152
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
language of the Jews manifested traditional Christian ambivalence
toward the “people of the book”: outright hostility and rejection on the
one hand, mixed with imitation and even occasional veneration on the
other. At the same time, as with every facet of Christianity that reached
their lands, the Russian literati introduced many unique twists and
pwcpegu"kpvq"vjg"vtcfkvkqp0"Vjgkt"vtgcvogpv"qh"Jgdtgy"cffu"c"hwtvjgt"
dimension to our understanding of the formation of Russian attitudes
toward Jews in the era before the Partitions of Poland (1772–1795),
and may shed some light on outstanding questions and controversies
regarding Russian Jewry in the modern period.
Early Russian Attitudes toward Israel and the
Jewish People
Vjg"yqtf"ÑTwuukcÒ"*Tquukkc+"fgtkxgu"htqo"vjg"gctnkgt"hqto"Twu闇."vjg"
mediaeval name (of debated origin) for the lands and peoples of East
Slavdom (Ukraine, Belorussia, and Russia). Jews had settled along
the southern fringes of these territories in ancient times; for example,
in the Crimea. Jewish presence is also attested in the mediaeval states
of Khazaria (sixth to tenth century) and Kyivan Rus’ (ninth to thirteenth
century). Due partly to the fragmentary nature of extant documentation,
virtually nothing can be asserted about Khazaria without provoking
immediate and vigorous contention. However, it seems likely that this
mjcicpcvg" qt" uvgrrg" gorktg" cfqrvgf" Lwfckuo" cu" kvu" qhÞekcn" tgnkikqp"
at some point in history, while still encompassing a multi-ethnic and
multi-religious population. Subsequently, the East Slavic polity with
its capital at Kyiv (Kiev) chose Eastern Orthodox Christianity over
Khazarian Judaism and other religious options available at the time.
Yet its “grand prince” similarly employed the title khagan or kagan,
presided over a diverse citizenry, and may have seen himself as the
successor to the Khazar rulers. Some researchers even propose that
Kyiv had originally been founded by the Khazars.1
Real-life attitudes toward Jews in Kyivan Rus’ must have derived
from multiple sources, including interaction with Khazaria and
with domestic Jewish communities in the capital and other towns.
Nonetheless, the great majority of extant Kyivan sources concerning
Jews do not describe such contemporary realities but rather belong to
vjg"igpgtcn"cpvk/Lwfcke"*mcvc"Kqwfckxp"qt"cfxgtuwu"Lwfcgqu+"vtcfkvkqp"
120
Isaiah Gruber
of Christianity. Scholars disagree on whether such typical anti-Jewish
polemics can be linked to actual interaction with living Jews. For
example, the “Sermon on Law and Grace” attributed to Orthodox
Metropolitan Ilarion of Kyiv includes numerous anti-Judaic tropes; but
did these concern real, local Jews of his own day, or only a theological
abstraction also called “Jews”? A number of scholars contend that
the obvious presence and predominance of religious anti-Judaism in
fact tells us nothing at all about actual attitudes toward contemporary
Jews. But did East Slavs (or other peoples) really make such a sharp
distinction in their minds between the supposedly “theoretical” Jews
of theology and their real-life Jewish neighbours? Or were not all Jews
seen as part of a single nation extending from biblical times to the
present? (Klier 1986:21–32; Franklin 1991:3–29; Pereswetoff-Morath
4224<" xqn0" 3." rctvkewnctn{" rcigu" 5Ï:+" Vjgug" ctg" etkvkecn" swguvkqpu."
encountered when dealing with later periods as well.
Mongol invasions swept away the Kyivan Rus’ state in the midthirteenth century, and a large portion of the East Slavic population
thereby fell under the suzerainty of the Qipchaq khanate or “Golden
Horde.” By the fourteenth century, Moscow had emerged as a new
power centre. Located to the northeast of Kyiv and to the northwest
qh" vjg" Oqpiqn/Vcvct" cpf" gctnkgt" Mjc¦ct" ecrkvcnu." vjku" Owueqxkvg"
principality would grow over the course of subsequent centuries into
modern Russia, the largest country in the world.
Muscovite ideas and practices turned out to be eclectic,
ftcykpi" htqo" vjg" gctnkgt" vtcfkvkqpu" qh" Twu闇." vjg" kpàwgpeg" qh" Skrejcs"
overlords, and eventually an intensive but selective adaptation and
reinterpretation of Byzantine models (see for example Ostrowski 1998;
Wurgpumk "3;;:+0"Vjg"ugcv"qh"vjg"Qtvjqfqz"Ejtkuvkcp"ogvtqrqnkvcpcvg"
of Rus’, still formally subservient to Constantinople, moved to Moscow;
it unilaterally became autocephalous (self-ruling) in 1448 and a fully
independent patriarchate in 1589. Anti-Judaic themes continued to
form a major component of Russian Orthodox literature during this
period. In his classic study, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
from the Earliest Times until the Present Day, Simon Dubnow (1916:vol.
1,13–38) therefore regarded the Muscovite state as intractably hostile
to Jews virtually from its inception. By contrast, Alexander PereswetoffMorath (2002:vol. 2, and in particular pages 24–29) contended that
121
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
the Muscovite elite had little problem interacting with Jews until well
into the sixteenth century.
Kp"vjg"ncvg"Þhvggpvj"egpvwt{."c"itqwr"crrgctgf"kp"Pqxiqtqf"cpf"
Moscow whom opponents described as kfqxuvxw wž9kg, “Judaisers.”
Vjgkt"gzkuvgpeg"ecwugf"c"itgcv"fgcn"qh"eqpuvgtpcvkqp"cv"vjg"vkogÐcpf"
continues to produce no end of controversy in historiography to this
xgt{"fc{0"Vjg"eqpvgorqtct{"oqpcuvke"ngcfgt"Kxukh"Xqnqvumk "*Kxcp"Ucpkp+"
penned a scathing book, now known as The Enlightener, or Exposure
of the Heresy of the Judaisers, in which he called (successfully) for
vjgkt"cppkjkncvkqp0"Xqnqvumk 闇u"vgzv"ecog"vq"dg"tgictfgf"cu"qpg"qh"vjg"
oquv"ukipkÞecpv"eqorqukvkqpu"qh"vjg"Owueqxkvg"rgtkqf0"Vjku"defensor
Þfgk accused the so-called Judaisers of denying a whole range of
Qtvjqfqz" Ejtkuvkcp" vgcejkpiu." kpenwfkpi" vjg" Vtkpkv{." vjg" fkxkpkv{" qh"
Christ, the physical coming of Jesus, abrogation of the Mosaic Law,
the propriety of icons and other physical objects in worship, the
permissibility and desirability of monastic life, the authenticity of the
Pgy"Vguvcogpv"cpf"Ejwtej"hcvjgtu."cpf"vjg"rtqrgt"ocppgt"qh"fgcnkpi"
ykvj" jgtgu{" cpf" jgtgvkeu" *ugg<" Xqnqvumk " 3:;8=" Mc¦cmqxc" cpf" Nwt闇g"
1955; Luria 1960; Goldfrank 1988; Goldfrank 1992; Raba 2001).
It may be impossible now to determine how accurate these
cnngicvkqpu" ygtg="dwv"vjg{" ygtg" pqv"korncwukdng0"Vjtqwijqwv"jkuvqt{."
Christian theologians manifested a deep opposition to and concern
about “Judaisers.” Church hierarchs, conscious of Christianity’s
reliance on a fundamental reinterpretation and allegorization of
Hebrew Scripture, generally sought to prevent a “return” to earlier
ÑLgykujÒ"yc{u"qh"wpfgtuvcpfkpi"vjg"vgzv0"Vtcfkvkqpcnn{"uwej"rcuucigu"
as Acts 15—which stated that Gentiles did not have to become Jewish
proselytes in order to join the community of faith—were interpreted to
ogcp" vjcv" cnn" Lgykuj" rtcevkegu" ujqwnf" dg" hqtdkffgp0" Fwtkpi" vjg" Þtuv"
several centuries C.E., as Gentile Christianity gradually separated from
Judaism, the early Church fathers had encountered and condemned
various groups of Jewish talmidey Yeshu‘a (disciples of Jesus such
as Ebionites and Nazarenes) and of alleged Gentile Judaisers.
Several of their charges against these non-conformists were identical
vq"vjqug"ngxgngf"d{"Xqnqvumk "qxgt"c"oknngppkwo"ncvgt"*Fcpkfinqw"3;7:="
Murray 2004; Boyarin 2006; Skarsaune and Hvalvik 2007; Dacy 2010;
eqorctg"RctÞvv"cpf"Ugok"4224+0
122
Isaiah Gruber
One school of thought concerning the Russian “Judaisers”
insists that they were probably not Judaisers at all, that is they had
no connections whatsoever to Jews or Judaism. According to this
view, the term “Judaiser” was merely employed as a traditional,
delegitimizing slur (Luria 1960; Goldfrank 1988:22; Luria 1995;
Ostrowski 1998:6–7). Yet other scholars have argued for the opposite
possibility. Henrik Birnbaum (1973:246, n. 71) characterized the
cnngigf" jgtgvkeu" cu" Ñwpfqwdvgfn{" rtqhqwpfn{" kpàwgpegf" d{" igpwkpg"
Lwfckuo" dwv" tgockpkpi." kp" rctv" cv" ngcuv." ykvjkp" vjg" eqpÞpgu" qh" pqp/
Orthodox Christianity.” Following Moshe Altbauer (1992), Moshe
Vcwdg" *3;;7." 4227." 4232c." 4232d+" jcu" tgrgcvgfn{" ctiwgf" vjcv" vjg"
Lwfckugtu" ygtg" uvtqpin{" kpàwgpegf" d{" Þhvggpvj/egpvwt{" Lgykuj"
translations (from Hebrew to Slavonic) of such authors as Josippon,
cn/Ijc¦<n̲."Ockoqpkfgu."fg"Ucetqdqueq."cpf"rugwfq/Ctkuvqvng0"Vcwdg"
*4227<3:9=" eqorctg" Xgtpcfum{" 3;55<665+" gxgp" iqgu" eqpukfgtcdn{"
further, adding:
I also believe that the Muscovite Principality in the second
jcnh"qh"vjg"Þhvggpvj"egpvwt{"oc{"ygnn"jcxg"dggp"qp"vjg"dtkpm"
of succumbing to a Jewish conspiracy to proselytize Muscovy
from the top, a plan orchestrated by learned Jews from the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with mystic inclinations,
with the perhaps unsuspecting collaboration of highly placed
qhÞekcnu"kp"vjg"eqwtv"qh"Kxcp"KKK."cpf"ykvj"vjg"uqxgtgkip"jkougnh"
hesitant for a while and playing his cards both ways.
Vjqwij" ocp{" yqwnf" tglgev" vjku" pqvkqp" qwv" qh" jcpf." kv" ecppqv" dg"
koogfkcvgn{" fkueqwpvgf" cu" lwuv" cpqvjgt" cpvk/Ugokvke" o{vj" *Vcwdg" ku"
a respected senior professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
or as an entirely impossible fantasy. In mediaeval times, Judaism
fkf" eqorgvg" ykvj" c" ownvkrnkekv{" qh" qvjgt" tgnkikqpu" hqt" qhÞekcn" uvcvwu"
throughout the Eurasian steppe-lands. Documents from multiple
civilizations tell us that the Khazars, as noted above, chose Judaism
tcvjgt"vjcp"Kunco"qt"Ejtkuvkcpkv{0"Vjg"uvqt{"qh"vjg"vybor very or “faith
ejqkegÒ" qh" vjg" M{kxcp" rtkpeg" Xqnqfkogt" kp" vjg" ncvg" vgpvj" egpvwt{"
urgekÞecnn{"kpenwfgf"Lwfckuo"cu"qpg"qh"hqwt"eqpukfgtgf"qrvkqpu."cnqpi"
with Eastern Christianity, Western Christianity, and Islam. Further east,
other steppe peoples adopted Nestorian Christianity, Manichaeism, or
Buddhism; Jewish communities could also be found in Central Asia
along the Silk Road (Arkhipov 1995:17–54; Shapira 2005:504–505;
123
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Ujcrktc"4232<:5Ï:7+0"D{"vjg"Þhvggpvj"egpvwt{."Owueqxkvg"Twuukc"jcf"
hundreds of monasteries and a well-established Orthodox Christian
tradition, so any attempt to convert its prince and elite to a different
hckvj" yqwnf" jcxg" dggp" swkvg" eqornkecvgf0" [gv" kh" Vcwdg闇u" urgewncvkxg"
theory does contain a grain of truth, it may be that some Jews, JewishChristians, and/or Jewish-leaning Gentile Christians hoped to draw
Russian Orthodox Christianity closer to Jewish ways of thought.
However, even this more restricted hypothesis remains unproven and
highly controversial at the present time.
Vjg" Twuukcp" tgikog" oc{" jcxg" dggp" gurgekcnn{" ugpukvkxg" vq" cp{"
rgtegkxgf" vjtgcv" htqo" ÑLwfckuoÒ" fwg" vq" kvu" qyp" ugnh/kfgpvkÞecvkqp"
as “Israel.” In the sixteenth century, Muscovite literati developed
an extensive paradigm of translatio imperii whereby their state and
church laid exclusive claim to the sacred inheritances of biblical Israel,
ancient Rome, mediaeval Byzantium, and Kyivan Rus’. Occasionally
vjg" eqttgurqpfkpi" pqvkqp" qh" Twuukc" cu" vjg" ÑVjktf" TqogÒ" crrgctgf"
in ecclesiastic sources; this prompted some modern historians and
commentators to latch on to it as a key to the Muscovite (as well as
later Russian and Soviet) mindset. However, more recently a number of
uejqnctu"jcxg"pqvkegf"vjcv"vjg"ykfgurtgcf"ÑVjktf"TqogÒ"kpvgtrtgvcvkqp"
had actually distorted the primary source base as a whole. Muscovite
society much more commonly depicted itself as God’s chosen “New
Israel.” Muscovite political and religious literature continually imitated
biblical forms, drawing innumerable comparisons to Israel’s heroes of
old and constantly incorporating other biblical quotations and allusions
*Tqyncpf" 3;98<338Ï39=" Xkpqitcfqx" 3;:2<35." 3:=" Dwujmqxkvej" 3;:8="
Rowland 1996; Ostrowski 1998:219–243; Raba 2003:92–104; Levin
2010; Miller 1979:270, 364–365).
Twuukcp" kfgpvkÞecvkqp" ykvj" Kutcgn" ygpv" gxgp" hwtvjgt" vjcp" vjku0"
Owueqxkvg" rqnkvkecn" Þiwtgu" tgiwnctn{" urqmg" qh" ÑKutcgnÒ" *ykvjqwv" gxgp"
the “New”) and clearly meant “Russia.” Muscovite authors considered
curgevu" qh" VqtcjÐkpenwfkpi" pqv" qpn{" rtqokugf" dnguukpiu." dwv" cnuq"
the dire curses for disobedience—to be directly applicable to their
own society. Jewish historiography provided some of the models for
Muscovite chronicles and narratives; such events as the destruction
of Jerusalem by the Romans had great resonance during periods of
ecncokv{0"Vjg"Owueqxkvg"gnkvg"qdxkqwun{"tgictfgf"kvugnh"cu"Iqf闇u"pgy"
“chosen people,” and they apparently saw no fundamental distinction
124
Isaiah Gruber
between their status and that of the ancient Israelites (AI 1841:1.291–
292; Riha 1969:vol. 1, 87; Raba 1992; Rowland 1996; Ostrowski
1998:164–165, 204; Raba 2003; Gruber 2012:23–50).
Muscovite Russia, in other words, cultivated an unusually
strong ideological connection to biblical Israel. Of course, the “New
Israel” idea was not unique to the Russians, nor had they invented
it. Roman Christianity had already posited a “replacement” of Israel
by the Church. Subsequently, virtually all Christian branches built on
this understanding. Yet the peculiarities of history led Russia down
c" rcvj" qh" eqorctcvkxgn{" gxgp" itgcvgt" tgnkcpeg" qp" cpf" chÞnkcvkqp" ykvj"
the “New Israel” concept. In Western Europe, the Church became
distinct from a plurality of states, thus altering the original imperial
notion of a unitary politico-religious entity. In the east, Byzantium fell
vq" vjg" Qvvqocp" Vwtmu" kp" 3675." eqorngvkpi" vjg" Owunko" eqpswguv" qh"
Orthodox Christendom with the exception of Russia. Regarding all
qvjgt" Ejtkuvkcpu" cu" jgtgvkeu." uejkuocvkeu." qt" uwdlwicvgf" vq" ÑkpÞfgnÒ"
powers, Orthodox Russia came to view itself as the single remaining
holy tsarstvo (empire or khanate) on earth. Put differently, Muscovite
Russia was God’s only “Israel” (Crummey 1987:116, 137; Halperin
1985:175; Dagron 1996; Majeska 2004; Flusin 2004).
Jews and Judaism posed a “threat” to this Muscovite ideology
by their very existence. Common Christian theology, including
within Russian Orthodoxy, posited that the Jews had been rejected
by God and scattered from their homeland for the crime of “killing
Christ.” According to this conception, the original Israel had lost its
special status as the people of God and been reduced to a position of
perpetual inferiority to true Christians, the “New Israel.” Now Russia,
as the only Orthodox state, claimed to be “Israel.” Yet the argument
was at least mildly abstruse and it is highly doubtful whether ordinary,
illiterate Muscovites understood the reasoning at all (Fletcher
1964:260; Massa 1982:70–71; Margeret 1983:21–22, 29; Crummey
1987:138). Meanwhile, “real” Jews could advance a much simpler
claim to the succession of biblical Israel, one more easily graspable
(because essentially tautological). Muscovite emphasis on a posited
“New Israel” status thus competed with contemporary Jewish claims
to continuity as the chosen people.
125
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Vjku"rgturgevkxg"jgnru"vq"gzrnckp"Owueqx{闇u"fgekukqp"vq"gzenwfg"
Jews from living within its borders whenever possible—a ban that
would persist into the eighteenth century. Dubnow (1916:242–261)
actually believed that the experience of the Judaisers had “struck
terror to the hearts of the pious Muscovites,” traumatising them to
the extent that they could not tolerate the presence of actual Jews.
Most scholars today would consider that an exaggeration. Yet the
evidence Dubnow compiled from Russian sources, while it may not
rtqxg"jku"eqpenwukqp."ku"swkvg"vgnnkpi"kp"qvjgt"tgurgevu<"ÑVjg"Owueqxkvg"
people dread no one more than the Jews” (by an ambassador of
Xcuknkk" KKK+=" ÑLgyu000" ngcf" cuvtc{" vjg" Twuukcpu" htqo" Ejtkuvkcpkv{Ò" *htqo"
vjg"fkrnqocvke"eqttgurqpfgpeg"qh"Kxcp"KX+="ÑLgyu"ujcnn"pqv"dg"cnnqygf"
to enter the Muscovite Empire” (a clause from a 1610 proposed treaty
with Poland-Lithuania); “the time has not yet come to unite the two
nationalities [Russians and Jews]” (attributed to Peter I the Great). Even
in the second half of the eighteenth century, Russian governments
continued to express their anxiety that Jews, if allowed to dwell in the
empire, would “seduce” Russians away from Orthodox Christianity.
Although these statements may not tell us anything about the actual
activity of Jews or Judaisers, they do reveal Russian perceptions of a
threat from the Jewish direction.
Vjwu." gxgp" cu" vjg" Owueqxkvg" rqnkvkeq/tgnkikqwu" tgikog" kfgpvkÞgf"
itself as the “New Israel,” it appears to have been quite conscious of
a need to defend this claim against the “Old” Israel. Since the mere
gzkuvgpeg"qh"cevwcn"Lgyu"ycu"uwhÞekgpv"vq"ecnn"kpvq"swguvkqp"vjg"gpvktg"
scheme, Jews (with rare exceptions) had to be kept out of the state
altogether. Strikingly, the issue was often phrased as a question
of Russian national identity2: the presence of Jews was said to be
dangerous for the Russian Orthodox essence of the state, the church,
the people, and the land. Russia had inherited Christianity’s generic
love-hate perspective on Jews and Judaism (see Raba 2003:13–19);
dwv"kv"cffgf"cp"gzvtc"vykuv0"Dqvj"cp"kpvgitcn"kfgpvkÞecvkqp"ykvj"Kutcgn"
and a deep repugnance of things Jewish had already been built
into Russian national identity, long before the Partitions of Poland
transferred about one million Jews into the Russian Empire.
126
Isaiah Gruber
The Curious Case of the Hebrew-Russian
Glossaries
Muscovy was notoriously bad at learning foreign languages (see
Ryan 1999:10; Pereswetoff-Morath 2002:vol. 2, 66). One of its words
for “foreigner” or “European” (later restricted to “German”) was pJo闇vu闇,
literally meaning “mute” or “one who speaks indistinctly”—similar
to the Greek word barbaros" *Utg¦pgxumk " 3:;5<xqn0" 4." 6:8=" Hcuogt"
1986: vol. 3, 62). A sense of religious superiority seems to have bred
relative, although perhaps not absolute, insularity and xenophobia.
Yet all throughout the Muscovite period from the fourteenth to the
seventeenth century, the Russians developed and promoted a kind
qh" Jgdtgy" uvwf{0" Qpg" okijv" gxgp" ctiwg" vjcv" Jgdtgy" ycu" vjg" Þtuv"
foreign language to be taken semi-seriously in Muscovy, although
Greek would soon eclipse it.
Numerous copies of Hebrew-Russian glossaries circulated in
Muscovy, bearing titles such as TJ9闇" kfqx闇umciq" c¦{mc"rtgnq gpc"pc"
twuumw w (“Speech of the Jewish language translated into Russian”)
or C" ug" kogpc" kfqx闇umc c" twu闇um{" vÒnmqxcpc (“And these are Jewish
pcogu" kp" Twuukcp" kpvgtrtgvcvkqpÒ+0" Vjg" gctnkguv" gzvcpv" xgtukqpu" fcvg"
from the late thirteenth century. In contrast to the Hebrew interest of the
Judaisers, condemned as heretical, these glossaries represented the
work of scribes in Russia’s most prestigious Orthodox monasteries.
Moreover, such Hebrew study clearly predated the Judaisers and
continued long after their demise. After incorporating word entries
*ngoocvc+" kp" Itggm." Ctcdke." Vcvct." cpf" ugxgtcn" qvjgt" ncpiwcigu."
the glossaries came to form the foundation for more developed,
oqfgtp" Twuukcp" fkevkqpctkgu" *Vug vnkp" 3;7:=" Mqxvwp" 3;85=" Cngmuggx"
1968; Kovtun 1975; Kovtun 1977; Kovtun 1989, Pereswetoff-Morath
2002:vol. 2, 66–67; Raba 2003:173).
Vjg" tqqvu" qh" vjgug" Jgdtgy/Twuukcp" inquuctkgu" nkg" kp" vjg" eqtrwu"
of early Slavonic translations of biblical and related texts. Most
vtcpuncvkqpu"rtkqt"vq"vjg"Þhvggpvj"egpvwt{"jcf"dggp"ocfg"htqo"eqrkgu"
of Jewish-Greek texts, including the Septuagint (LXX) version of
Scripture. However, several scholars have suggested that certain
books were translated directly from Hebrew by Jews living in Slavic
areas. Spirited debate over that hypothesis continues to this day
127
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
*Ogž9gtumk " 3;86=" Cngmuggx" 3;:9=" Nwpv" cpf" Vcwdg" 3;;:=" Cngmuggx"
3;;;<3:2Ï3:3=" N{ufip" 4223=" Rgtguygvqhh/Oqtcvj" 4224<" xqn0" 4." 92Ï
82; Kulik 2008). Regardless of their true Vorlage (antecedents),
East Slavonic biblical translations clearly featured some unusual
cpf" octmgfn{" ÑLgykujÒ" ejctcevgtkuvkeu0" Vjg" Þtuv" dqqmu" qh" vjg" Dkdng"
crrgctgf" kp" vjg" hqto" qh" cp" Qevcvgwej" *Vqtcj" rnwu" Lqujwc." Lwfigu."
and Ruth); most manuscripts included glosses on Hebrew words and
eqttgevkqpu"kp"ceeqtfcpeg"ykvj"vjg"Jgdtgy"Ocuqtgvke"vgzv"*OV+0"Vjg"
texts designated reading divisions according to synagogal parashiyot.
Such features strongly suggest that these translations were made
by Jews and for Jews. Subsequently they passed into the libraries
qh" Qtvjqfqz" Ejtkuvkcp" eqoowpkvkgu" *Rk9mjcf¦g" 3;;8=" Cngmuggx"
1999:182–184; Kulik 2008:58, 61–64; Alekseev 2010:353–355).
Other biblical books were rendered into Slavonic accompanied
d{"Ejtkuvkcp"gzrncpcvqt{"inquugu"cpf"eqoogpvct{0"Vjg"hqwtvj/egpvwt{"
notes of Athanasius of Alexandria on the ever-popular Psalms furnished
a direct source for many entries in the Hebrew-Russian glossaries.
Athanasius had interpreted biblical Hebrew words in a metaphorical
ugpug" cpf" ykvj" c" uvtqpin{" cpvk/Lgykuj" uncpv0" Vjg" eqorkngtu" qh" vjg"
Russian glossaries drew also from mediaeval Greek onomastica,
which were themselves based on classical Jewish and Christian word
studies by Philo, Josephus, Origen, Jerome and others (Hieronymus
1845; Lagarde 1870; Gottheil and Ginzberg 1901:281–282; Kovtun
3;85="Itcddg"3;::+0"Vjwu."nkmg"vjg"uqekgv{"vjg{"ugtxkegf."vjg"Jgdtgy/
Russian glossaries were highly eclectic and paradoxical. Most notably
for our purposes, they built on both Jewish and anti-Jewish traditions
of interpretation—a good recipe for ambivalence.
One result of utilizing such disparate sources was unpredictability
and inconsistency in the glossary translations, most of which were
to some degree linguistically incorrect. Consider the example of 》)
闇cfco. Classical and mediaeval sources interpreted this word literally
cu"Ñjwocp."rgtuqp."ocp0Ò"Vjg{"cnuq"tgeqtfgf"vjg"eqppgevkqp"vq"〔「)
闇cfcocj (“earth”) implied by Genesis 2:7:
3
וייצר ]ה’ אלוקים[ את האדם עפר מן האדמה
And YHWH God formed the human, dust from the earth
128
Isaiah Gruber
Philo of Alexandria actually translated 闇cfco"fktgevn{"cu"чы"iH, “earth.”
Other sources based their interpretations on another related Hebrew
word, ’ אדוםadom (“red”).
However, the Russian glossaries ignored all of these and opted
instead for two more unusual renditions, both translated from mediaeval
Greek sources: ¦gon c"xqrnqž9gppc, “incarnated earth,” and tqfkvgn闇,
“begetter” (Umc¦cpkg 149; Hieronymus 1845:773, 775, 798, 801, 843,
851–852, 855, 858; Kovtun 1963:401, 409; Kovtun 1975:273; Grabbe
3;::<34;+0" Vjg" ugeqpf" qh" vjgug" inquuct{" fgÞpkvkqpu" tgrtgugpvgf" cp"
gzvtcrqncvkqp" htqo" vjg" tqng" qh" Cfco." vjg" Þtuv" ocp." kp" vjg" Igpguku"
pcttcvkxg0" Vjg" Þtuv" fgÞpkvkqp" qdxkqwun{" ftgy" qp" vjg" 闇cfco-闇cfcocj
parallel, but with the additional infusion of a theological principle. 1
Corinthians 15:47 had stated:
阿" 哀悪姶阿愛"х唖ь哀悪 阿愛"щю"чы愛"茜阿эю阿愛"阿"шщ逢姶щ哀阿愛"х唖ь哀悪 阿愛"
щ娃"阿逢哀х唖阿逢
Vjg"Þtuv"jwocp"]ycu̲"qh"enc{"htqo"gctvj="vjg"ugeqpf"jwocp"
]ycu̲"htqo"jgcxgp0
In the context of this passage, “second human” (or “second
CfcoÒ+" tghgttgf" vq" vjg" oguukcj" *茜哀э挨姶阿愛 christos+0" Vjg" urgekÞe"
theological notion of “incarnation” was then projected back onto the
ÑÞtuv"jwocp.Ò"gpjcpekpi"vjg"fkfcevke"eqorctkuqp"cpf"eqpvtcuv0"Uwej"
strategies often produced interpretations of words that strayed rather
far from their literal meanings.
Ocp{" fgÞpkvkqpu" kp" vjg" Jgdtgy/Twuukcp" inquuctkgu" ecppqv"
legitimately be termed “translations” at all. Rather, the scribes
etgcvkxgn{"nkuvgf"ogcpkpiu"vjcv"hwnÞnngf"c"xctkgv{"qh"fguktgf"hwpevkqpu"kp"
their worldview. Some entries did give literal renditions of the Hebrew.
Others manifested extrapolation from biblical narratives. A third
category consisted of theological inferences. A fourth had no readily
apparent connection to the words in question. It may be useful to look
at these four categories of meaning as a kind of Russian Christian
variation on the rabbinic and kabbalistic PaRDeS model of exegesis:
peshat, tgog¦, derush, sod. In both systems, the intended purpose
was not always to disclose actual linguistic meaning, but to convey a
129
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
range of religious doctrines. A few examples of each type of glossary
entry follow below.
Literal or near-literal entries (compare peshat, “simplicity”)
included אבא闇cddc闇 and אמא闇kooc闇. translated as “father” and
“mother,” as well as several Hebrew names. אבשלום闇Cxujcnqo was
rendered as “father of peace,” and אלעזר闇Gn案c¦ct as “God’s help.”
אדני闇Cfqpc{ was given as “Lord,” while אמן闇cogp had two correct
fgÞpkvkqpu<"Ñvtwn{Ò"cpf"Ñuq"dg"kv0Ò" הר–אלHar-El and בית לחםBeyt-lehem
received direct translation as “God’s mountain” and “House of bread.”
Vjg"Jgdtgy"yqtf" צבאותtseba‘ot, used in the divine title “Lord of hosts,”
was given realistically as “force(s).” Yet despite a number of accurate
translations, it seems clear that the compilers of the glossaries did not
mpqy"Jgdtgy"cpf"fkf"pqv"wuwcnn{"eqpuwnv"ykvj"Lgyu0"Vjg{"htgswgpvn{"
failed to recognise theophoric morphemes such as יהוyahu and אל闇gn.
Vjgkt"vtcpunkvgtcvkqpu."jcxkpi"cttkxgf"xkc"Itggm"kpvq"Uncxqpke."ygtg"pqv"
always very accurate (much like Anglicized versions of biblical names).
Vjwu"kv"yqwnf"crrgct"vjcv"vjg"Twuukcp"uetkdgu"ygtg"oquvn{"tguvtkevgf"
to copying the transmissions of earlier authors about Hebrew—notes
which they sometimes misunderstood (Umc¦cpkg 148–148v., 149v.,
152v.–153; Kovtun 1963:398, 406–407, 409, 411–412, 419–420, 433;
Kovtun 1975:264, 266, 269–270, 273, 275–276).4
A large number of entries in the glossaries shied away from
linguistic exactness but had been extrapolated out of biblical
narratives (compare tgog¦, “hint”). An alternative meaning ascribed to
Beyt-lehem was “woodland meadows,” a type of natural environment
believed by some commentators to characterize that geographical
area. In addition to the literal “beloved,” the name דודDavid gained
hwtvjgt" fgÞpkvkqpu" qp" vjg" dcuku" qh" uvqtkgu" cdqwv" vjg" hcoqwu" mkpi" qh"
Israel: “meekness” and “valiant of hand.” Similarly, יעקבYa‘aqob
became “God’s lad,” rather than “heel-grabber” as in Genesis 25:26.
Sometimes this name was rendered instead as “last” or “latter,” a
reference to Jacob’s birth as the second twin and related to the root
‘ עקבqb through the meaning of “following”. Rather than “God heard” or
“asked of God” (1 Samuel 1:20), שמואלUjgow闇gn was characterised as
“God’s servant.” ירושליםYerushalayim came to mean “promised land.”
Following a tradition traceable to Philo, [ ישראלk・tc闇gn was rendered
as “seeing God”—in apparent contradiction of Genesis 32:28/29.
130
Isaiah Gruber
Rgtjcru"vjg"rtqvqv{rkecn"gzcorng"qh"vjku"v{rg"qh"gzgigvkecn"fgÞpkvkqp"
was the equating of פסחPesah with not only “passing over” but also
“freedom” (Umc¦cpkg 148v.–149v., 152v., 153v.; Kovtun 1963:20, 401–
404, 406, 408–410, 414, 416, 418–420, 434; Kovtun 1975:266, 275;
Grabbe 1988:172–173).
Qvjgt" fgÞpkvkqpu" eqwnf" jcxg" dggp" tgcejgf" qpn{" d{" ogcpu" qh"
theological reasoning (compare derush, “exposition”). Some texts
rendered שאולUjc闇wn"cu"ÑvwtoqknÒÐlwzvcrqukpi"kv"ykvj"Itggm"кх逢я阿愛"
Paulos."yjkej"ycu"ikxgp"cu"Ñecno0Ò"Vjku"uggou"c"engct"tghgtgpeg"vq"
the common if anachronistic tradition that Saul, the Jew, had converted
and changed his name to Paul, the Christian. Acts 13:9 would seem to
imply instead that like many Jews of his day, this individual used both
a Hebrew and a Greek name concurrently. Samaritans, perceived as
antagonistic to God’s people, had their name rendered as “devils.” Yet
this was a double-edged sword so far as the Jews were concerned:
another enemy of Israel, Gath, was said to mean “the falling away of
the Jews,” while the sons of Qorah"tgegkxgf"vjg"nqpi"fgÞpkvkqp"ÑLgyu"
who were stripped of grace” (Umc¦cpkg 148; Kovtun 1963:27, 398, 400,
406–407, 414, 418–419).
C"Þpcn"ecvgiqt{"qh"inquuct{"gpvtkgu"dgnqpigf"vq"vjg"tgcno"qh"vjg"
mysterious (compare sod, “secret”). Sometime between the thirteenth
and the sixteenth century, ירמיהוYirmeyahu lost the plausible meaning
qh"Ñgzcnvgf"NqtfÒ"cpf"dgecog"kpuvgcf"Ñfkucrrgctkpi0Ò"Vjku"oc{"jcxg"
been the result of a new interpretation falling into the hands of a
redactor. However, unclear renderings could also result from scribal
errors. Sixteenth-century glossaries gave the Arabic word for God as
"Ama."qdxkqwun{"c"eqr{kpi"okuvcmg"hqt"vjg"itcrjkecnn{"ukoknct" ёё "
Alla(h) (Umc¦cpkg 148v., 150v.; Kovtun 1963:415; Kovtun 1975:265).
Cu"uggp"htqo"vjg"ugngevgf"gpvtkgu"rtgugpvgf"cdqxg."c"ukipkÞecpv"
number of purported translations dealt explicitly with Israel and Jews.
Many theological renderings expressed an anti-Judaic bias. At the
same time, however, positive connotations also accrued to such words
as Jerusalem, Israel, and Zion0"Vjg"ncuv"qh"vjgug"kpvtkiwkpin{"knnwuvtcvgf"
the ambivalence of Christianity in general, and Russian Orthodoxy in
particular, toward the Jewish people. In antiquity Jerome had given
the meaning of Sion as specula, “a look-out” (compare הר הצופיםMt.
131
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Ueqrwu+0"Vjku"ucog"kpvgtrtgvkxg"uncpv"crrctgpvn{"tgcejgf"Uncxfqo"cu"
rq¦tc9kž9g, an uncommon word connected to the act of “looking down
qp.Ò"kp"dqvj"vjg"rj{ukecn"cpf"vjg"ogvcrjqtkecn"ugpugu0"Vjg"inquuctkgu"
updated this to rq¦qtkž9g, meaning “spectacle”—once again a word
that could convey either positive or very negative connotations.
Vjg" ogcpkpi" qh" Ñujcog." fkujqpqwtÒ" gxgpvwcnn{" fkurncegf" cnn" qvjgtu"
in modern Russian. Some bookmen may thus have understood the
meaning of “Zion” to be “shame.” However, “Zion” was also regarded
as a name for the Church, creating complications. Perhaps this is why
one version of the TJ9闇" kfqx闇umciq" c¦{mc has an altered entry reading
" Sidon" kpuvgcf" qh"
" Sion (Umc¦cpkg 154; Hieronymus
3:67<:3;=" Utg¦pgxumk " 3:;5<4032;2Ï32;4=" Mqxvwp" 3;85<3:." 42." 8;."
398, 403, 419, 432; AN 1975:vol. 16, 122–126; Ephrem 2011).
What better expression of the Russian mind’s two opposing views
of Israel? On the one hand, biblical Jews were the source of all that
pious Orthodox Muscovites claimed to hold dear. On the other hand,
contemporary Jews were seen as rejecting and endangering the “true
faith,” and deserving of ignominy. In such a case, there could not but
be an ambivalent view toward this unique nation. So how did Muscovy
negotiate the tension inherent in its notion of “good” and “bad” Israels,
when both went by identical names? How did this affect Russia’s own
ugnh/kfgpvkÞecvkqp" cu" ÑKutcgnÒA" C" hwtvjgt." fgdcvgf" swguvkqp" wpfgtnkgu"
these two: what did the Muscovite literati even mean when they said
“Jewish”?
Did “Jewish” Really Mean “Jewish”?
Vjg"inquuct{"cwvjqtu"vgtogf"vjgkt"vgzvu"vtcpuncvkqpu"qh" kfqx闇um{ "
c¦{mÒ, “the Jewish language.” Sometimes they also referred to words
as coming from gxtJ um{ " c¦{mÒ, another way of saying “Jewish
language” or “Hebrew language.” But did this really mean “Hebrew”?
Did the authors truly associate these words with the national language
of the Jews? Some analysts think not. In his study of TJ9闇" kfqx闇umciq"
c¦{mc." H qfqt" Dwuncgx" *3:72<4:Ï53+" pqvgf" vjcv" c" uocvvgtkpi" qh"
Greek and South Slavic words accompanied Hebrew ones even in
the oldest extant glossaries. He was intrigued by the fact that early
Russians distinguished between their language and Church Slavonic,
while his own contemporaries often argued against such a distinction
132
Isaiah Gruber
(compare Halperin 2007). Some later analysts understood Buslaev to
be inferring that the word kfqx闇um{ in the title could not have meant
“Jewish” or “Hebrew,” but rather referred generally to all foreign and
incomprehensible words—what Buslaev called “barbarisms” and
“archaisms” (Kovtun 1963:13).
Vjku"rgturgevkxg"dgiigf"vjg"swguvkqp"qh"yj{"vjg"inquuctkgu"jcf"
not then simply been termed “foreign”—or, for that matter, “Greek” or
“Latin” or “German” or “Mongol.” Why ostensibly “Jewish”? Some later
multilingual glossaries were in fact entitled “Interpretation of unfamiliar
words”: so this was certainly an option. And why did these texts include
oquvn{"Jgdtgy"yqtfu."kh"vjcv"ycu"pqv"vjg"kpvgpfgf"ogcpkpiA"N wfoknc"
Kovtun, who studied the glossaries lexicographically more thoroughly
than anyone else, raised another point. She felt that the included
Slavic words would never have been mistaken for Hebrew; but neither
would they (as against Buslaev) have seemed “incomprehensible”
or “foreign” to Muscovites. Accordingly, she proposed that kfqx闇um{ "
c¦{mÒ in this case actually meant “the language of Holy Scripture
[or, Writings].” Kovtun stated that the glossary title TJ9闇" kfqx闇umciq"
c¦{mc should therefore be translated as “Words from the language
of Holy Scripture,” rather than “Speech of the Jewish"Ncpiwcig0Ò"Vjku"
revision could explain the presence of Greek and Slavonic terms as
well as Hebrew (Kovtun 1963:13–14, 391–392).
Pereswetoff-Morath, the foremost specialist on anti-Judaic
literature in mediaeval Russia, endorsed Kovtun’s interpretation,
remarking:
the ’dictionaries’, which very probably have roots going back
some way before the 13c, are in no way Hebrew lexica, but
dictionaries of, or onomastica with, biblical words and names...
Obviously, the attribute kfqx闇um{ " fkf" pqv" Þtuv" cpf" hqtgoquv"
evoke a picture of an original versio hebraica. Rather, it
suggested the unintelligible ’terminology’ of the Bible—the
Qnf"Vguvcogpv"kp"rctvkewnctÐtgncvkpi"res iudaica, the Jewish
matter (2002:vol. 2, 66).
In a footnote on the same page, Pereswetoff-Morath added
ambiguously: “It is uncertain if the Rus’ bookman would have been
able fully to appreciate a Hebrew origin for his Bible; even though
133
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
the versio hebraica was known, for example, from discussions in
Vjgqfqtgv闇u"Commentary on Psalms.”
Here we have a surprising conundrum. Certain experts insist
that the Russian word meaning “Jewish” or “Hebrew” could not
possibly have carried that meaning in this particular instance. Such
c"rtqpqwpegogpv"ku"qh"oclqt"ukipkÞecpeg."hqt"kv"okijv"tgoqxg"yjcv"cv"
Þtuv"incpeg"uggogf"nkmg"cp"qdxkqwu"rqvgpvkcn"eqppgevkqp"dgvyggp"vjg"
Hebrew-Russian glossaries and Russian views of Jews and Hebrew.
[gv" vjg" uvcvgf" ctiwogpvu" cnuq" uwhhgt" htqo" ukipkÞecpv" ygcmpguugu."
including the following:
1. Kovtun (1963) provided ample evidence, accepted by
Pereswetoff-Morath, that the extant glossaries derived from
earlier sources and quite possibly textual prototypes. It may
well be that these earlier texts had included only Hebrew
words, but maintained their original titles (referring to “Jewish”
or “Hebrew”) as they expanded to include other languages.
20" Vjg" pqvkqp" qh" kfqx闇um{ " c¦{mÒ as a “technical term” for
biblicisms (of all languages) seems to rely on the assumption
that Russian scribes did not “fully appreciate” that Hebrew
was the original biblical language. However, PereswetoffMorath himself admitted that at least some of them did know
this. Moreover, just after advancing her thesis, Kovtun quoted
extensively from a mediaeval Russian text explicitly explaining
vjcv"Jgdtgy"ytkvkpi"ecog"Þtuv"kp"vjg"jkuvqt{"qh"vjg"Dkdng."vjgp"
Greek, then the other languages. In fact, she even stressed
that mediaeval bookmen viewed Hebrew as the “chosen”
language. Moreover, the lexicon compiled by Maksim Grek in
vjg"Þtuv"jcnh"qh"vjg"ukzvggpvj"egpvwt{"engctn{"kpfkecvgf"egtvckp"
words as originating in Hebrew and having been translated
into Greek before reaching Slavonic and Russian (Kovtun
1963:13–14; Kovtun 1975:313–349).
3. It is therefore not “obvious” at all that Russian literati failed
to associate their term “Jewish language” with the original
Hebrew language of the Bible; one actually tends to think the
opposite.
134
Isaiah Gruber
40" Vjg" vkvng" qh" c" nkvgtct{" yqtm." gurgekcnn{" kp" rtg/oqfgtp"
times but also today, cannot be taken as a comprehensive
uwoocvkqp"qh"kvu"eqpvgpvu0"Vjg"vtcfkvkqpcn"Lgykuj"pcog"hqt"vjg"
ugeqpf"dqqm"qh"Vqtcj"ku" שמותShemot, “Names.” However, it
would be a considerable error to claim that early Jews thought
vjku"dqqm"eqpvckpgf"qpn{"pcoguÐqt."cnvgtpcvkxgn{."vq"tgfgÞpg"
vjg"yqtf"ÑpcoguÒ"vq"ogcp"uqogvjkpi"gnug"qpn{"kp"vjku"urgekÞe"
instance.5 Similarly, “Speech of the Jewish language” may
well have been a general characterisation of the bulk of the
text, rather than an all-inclusive description of its contents.
After all, most of the early glossary entries did in fact come
from Hebrew—this is evident from extant texts, without even
speculating about lost prototypes.
5. Muscovy, obsessed as it was with its claimed “New
Israel” status, considered ancient Israel to have been
Iqf闇u" kpuvtwogpv" hqt" tgxgcnkpi" vjg" Vcpcmj" qt" ÑQnf" Ncy.Ò"
ÑQnf" Eqxgpcpv0Ò" Owueqxkvg" nkvgtcvwtg" tghgttgf" vq" vjku" urgekÞe"
biblical people hundreds of times as kfqx闇um{ , “Jewish.” In
fact, the accompanying noun c¦{mÒ meant not only “tongue”
and “language” but also “people” or “nation.” In biblical texts,
kv"ycu"tgiwnctn{"wugf"vq"vtcpuncvg"Itggm"щь唖阿愛"ethnos0"Vjwu"
it would have been odd for Russian scribes to conceive of
kfqx闇um{ " c¦{mÒ, the “Jewish language,” as unconnected to
the language of kfqx闇um{ " c¦{mÒ, the “Jewish nation.”
60" Vjg" xgt{" ucog" vgto" kfqx闇um{ was used continuously in
reference to contemporary, living Jews as well (SGGD 1813:vol.
1, 605; AAE"3:58<xqn0"4."9:Ï9;="Utg¦pgxumk "3:;5<xqn0"3.":93Ï
872; Kovtun 1963:37; AN 1975:vol. 5, 107–108; Klier 1986:27).
70"Vjg"hwtvjgt"fgxgnqrogpv"qh"vjg"inquuctkgu"ocfg"kv"engct"vjcv."
whatever the meaning of the original title might have been,
Muscovites understood kfqx闇um{ to mean precisely “Jewish.”
If a “technical meaning” had existed originally, they forgot it.
As more languages were added, marginalia and headings
htgswgpvn{" fkuvkpiwkujgf" coqpi" vjgo0" Vjg" ncpiwcig" ecnngf"
kfqx闇um{ (or gxtJ um{ ) became just one among many so
fgnkpgcvgf0" Vjg" ÑLgykuj" ncpiwcigÒ" crrgctgf" ykvjkp" nkuvu" qh"
many languages from which source material had allegedly
dggp" ftcyp<" Itggm." Ncvkp." Ctcdke." Rgtokcp." Vcvct." U{tkcp."
135
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Serbian, Egyptian, Persian, Canaanite, etc. At least in these
instances, kfqx闇um{ " c¦{mÒ"owuv"jcxg"fgukipcvgf"c"urgekÞe"
language, and not “foreign words” or “biblical language”
igpgtcnn{0" ÑLgykujÒ" ycu" pqv" gxgp" nkuvgf" Þtuv" coqpi" vjgug"
different languages (Umc¦cpkg 147–147v.; Kovtun 1975:268–
269). At least from the fourteenth century on, then, Hebrew
must have been seen in Muscovy as a distinct, Jewish
language.
80"Vjg"inquuctkgu"kpenwfgf"pqv"qpn{"dkdnkekuou."dwv"cnuq"gzvtc/
biblical ecclesiastic terminology. It would not make sense to
consider these Church terms as associated with “the Jewish
matter,” even vaguely, in the minds of Muscovite scholars. One
would have to resort to Buslaev’s proposal, that is grouping
any and all unknown words together under the category
“Jewish”; but this has already been judged unsatisfactory by
Kovtun and Pereswetoff-Morath.
Vjg"ukornguv"uqnwvkqp"vjgtghqtg"cnuq"uggou"vjg"dguv"hqt"gzrnckpkpi"
the evidence: “Jewish” in the glossaries did in fact mean (primarily)
“Jewish.” One possible objection might be raised to this conclusion:
fwg" vq" vjg" kpàwgpeg" qh" cpvk/Lwfcke" vjgqnqi{." ÑLgyÒ" ycu" rgtegkxgf"
as an insult that might sometimes be applied to non-Jews for effect
*Utg¦pgxumk " 3:;5<xqn03." :93Ï:94=" Ocipwu" 3;43<62." 423." p068="
Pereswetoff-Morath 2002:vol. 1, 1hh0). Could not the adjective “Jewish”
then also refer to non-Jewish languages in the glossaries? Yet in
such cases of applying the label “Jew” to non-Jews (or to “obscene
speech”; see Kulik 2012:11), the epithet clearly stood for “evildoer,”
“pagan,” “enemy,” or some other suitably repulsive meaning. It would
not make sense for Russian bookmen to use what they perceived
as an insulting slur to describe what they revered as holy language
(biblical names, ecclesiastic titles and the like).
Perhaps this seems a considerable effort expended in attempting
to prove something quite simple; and yet it is not without purpose.
Regarding kfqx闇um{ " c¦{mÒ as actually meaning “Jewish language”
permits us to raise the question of the relation between the glossaries
and Muscovite conceptions of real Jews, past and present. As we
jcxg"uggp."vjg"inquuctkgu"nctign{"tgàgevgf"cpvk/Lgykuj"ugpvkogpv"vjcv"
had been transmitted in Orthodox Christian tradition, and that was
136
Isaiah Gruber
cnuq"ocpkhguv"kp"pwogtqwu"qvjgt"Twuukcp"vgzvu"qh"vjg"rgtkqf0"Vjqwij"
religiously based, this sentiment cannot be disconnected from Russian
attitudes toward contemporary Jews. In contrast to some analysts,
the present author does not believe that literate or illiterate Russians
distinguished clearly (or perhaps at all) between real-life Jews and the
“Jews” of sermons, glossaries, and other religious writings. “Jewish”
really did mean “Jewish” in the glossaries and in common parlance.
At the same time, the Muscovite presentation of Jews could
not be entirely negative. Even as the Jewish nation as a whole was
denigrated, individual biblical heroes such as Moses and David had
to be held up as exalted examples. Moreover, the “Jewish tongue”
(Hebrew) remained the original biblical language and thus contained
keys to understanding the divine will and plan. Contrary to a common,
perhaps even unconscious, assumption among scholars, Russian
Orthodox believers of the late mediaeval and early modern period
were not uninterested in Hebrew and Jewish matters—despite their
strong anti-Jewish sentiments. At least according to one interpretation,
the Novgorod and Moscow “heretics” had allegedly found Jewish
texts or notions attractive; what is to say that in the absence of their
suppression other Russians would not have responded similarly?
Kpfggf."ycu"vjcv"pqv"vjg"xgt{"rqkpv"qh"oqwpvkpi"cp"kpswkukvkqpA"Xqnqvumk "
called for the annihilation of heretics because (inter alia) he believed
vjg{" okijv" ÑugfwegÒ" vjg" Qtvjqfqz" àqem" *Xqnqvumk " 3:;8=" eqorctg"
Goldfrank 1992).
Vjg"wptgokvvkpi"Twuukcp"eqpegtp"cdqwv"c"rgtegkxgf"Lgykuj"cdknkv{"
to attract Christians to Jewish learning and thereby draw them away
from the Greek Orthodox faith may reveal an important reality almost
completely overlooked in historiography: that Muscovites secretly
found Jews, Hebrew, and Judaism enticing in some respects. A
ukipkÞecpv"rqtvkqp"qh"Twuukc闇u"qyp"pcvkqpcn/tgnkikqwu"kfgpvkv{"ecog"htqo"
reinterpreting Jewish Hebrew writings. Russian sources demonstrate
a near-obsession with Jews even when none or few were present.
Furthermore, the abundant glossaries illustrate that an acceptably
Orthodox (that is, non-heretical) form of interest in Hebrew matters
appealed to the mainstream of Muscovite literate culture.
137
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
The Roots of Modern Ambivalence
Vjg" Rctvkvkqpu" qh" Rqncpf" cv" vjg" gpf" qh" vjg" gkijvggpvj" egpvwt{"
dramatically altered the interrelationships of the Russian regime and
the Jewish nation. Having attempted to exclude Jews from its borders
for centuries, the Russian Empire now became home to the world’s
nctiguv" Lgykuj" eqoowpkv{0" Vjg" Lgyu" vjgougnxgu" jcf" pqv" oqxgfÐ
they continued to reside, together with local populations, in areas that
are today primarily Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania. In fact, the tsarist
government soon restricted Jews to this area, delineating a “Pale
of Settlement” outside which Jews could live only illegally or under
special circumstances.
Vjg"jkuvqt{"qh"Twuukcp"cpf"Uqxkgv"cpvkugokvkuo"kp"vjg"pkpgvggpvj"
and twentieth centuries is well documented, and there is no need to
reconsider that enormous subject here. In any case, it would not be
feasible in this space. As attested by the (incomplete) Felix Posen
Dkdnkqitcrjke" Rtqlgev" qp" Cpvkugokvkuo." jquvgf" d{" vjg" Xkfcn" Ucuuqqp"
International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, thousands upon thousands of books and
articles have already been written on antisemitism in Russia, Ukraine,
Poland, Lithuania, and other territories subject to Russian and Soviet
eqpvtqn" *UKEUC" 4233+0" Vjg" oqfgtp" Twuukcp" Lgykuj" gzrgtkgpeg"
deservedly occupies a central place in the worldwide history of the
Jewish people. Antisemitism in the Russian Empire—especially
the pogroms of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—
provided the main impetus for mass Jewish emigration to Israel, North
Cogtkec." Cwuvtcnkc." cpf" gnugyjgtg0" Vjg" kpvgtcevkqpu" dgvyggp" Lgyu"
and the Russian Empire (including its many nationalities) thus helped
vq"tgeqpÞiwtg"pqv"qpn{"Gcuv"Gwtqrgcp"cpf"Lgykuj"tgcnkvkgu."dwv"cnuq"
American popular culture, the map of the Middle East, and many other
central aspects of modern world history.
For our purposes, it is worth noting that most historians now
focus on the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as the
period when modern Russian attitudes toward Jews coalesced. Older
religious Judaeophobia is said to have morphed into supposedly
“more sophisticated” antisemitism at about this time. John Doyle
Klier additionally argued that religious prejudice “never served as
either the starting point or the foundation of state policy” after the
138
Isaiah Gruber
Partitions (Klier 1986:xviii–xix, 53–115, 182–184; Aronson 1990:29–
33; Klier 1992:13–18; Gitelman 2001:xiii). Scholars who come from
this perspective usually do refer to the earlier history of Russian antiJudaism, but they consider it of limited or negligible explanatory value
when dealing with modern realities, which are often seen as more
complex or “ambivalent”.
Yet is this the right approach? Russian national attitudes toward
Jews and Israel had a long history prior to the Partitions of Poland.
Over the course of centuries, they had arguably even crystallized
kpvq"c"mg{"eqorqpgpv"qh"Twuukcp"pcvkqpcn"kfgpvkv{0"Vjg"gzrcpukqp"qh"
the empire into territories where Jews were present in great numbers
unquestionably introduced some changes into the relationship. But did
that automatically imply a radically different mindset in St. Petersburg?
It stands to reason that the accumulated attitudes of centuries
continued to exert a powerful effect. Moreover, as we have seen, premodern Russian attitudes toward Jews were no less ambivalent than
modern ones. Neither the predominance of anti-Jewish sentiment nor
the (sometimes secret or heretical) interest in Jewish matters should
be discounted.
Vjg"wpfgtn{kpi"tgcuqpu"hqt"jgukvcpe{"cdqwv"uggkpi"vjg"gctnkgt"rgtkqf"
cu"rtgÞiwtkpi"oqfgtp"tgcnkvkgu"uvgo"htqo"ujkhvu"kp"dqvj"jkuvqtkqitcrj{"
and popular culture with regard to perceptions of Russian Jewish
history. In the early twentieth century, when Dubnow wrote his History
of the Jews in Russia and Poland, hatred of Jews was more than
wuwcnn{" tcorcpv." wpeqpegcngf." cpf" xkqngpv0" Vjg" Gpinkuj" vtcpuncvqt"
of his work, Rabbi Dr. Israel Friedlaender, was killed by bandits in
Ukraine in 1920. Dubnow himself was murdered by the Nazis in 1941.
Some later authors therefore believed Dubnow to have been overly if
wpfgtuvcpfcdn{"kpàwgpegf"d{"jku"qyp"eqpvgzv"yjgp"jg"fguetkdgf"vjg"
Russian state and elite as invariably hostile to Jews throughout history.
Dubnow also considered modern antisemitism to be the natural and
direct continuation of anti-Judaic odium theologicum. However, this
view has now largely passed out of fashion, as academics generally
prefer to differentiate between “anti-Judaism” and “antisemitism.”
Beginning in the late twentieth century, several historians
explicitly moved away from Dubnow’s view of Jews as primarily the
victims of a hostile state (see Aronson 1990:3–17; Orbach 1990:326;
139
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Stanislawski 2010). In a landmark study, Klier (1986, particularly at
21–24, 183–184) emphasized socioeconomic tensions more than
religious anti-Judaism as the main cause of anti-Jewish attitudes in
the modern Russian Empire. He argued for a more nuanced view of
relations between East Slavs and Jews, noting that “ambivalence” and
“ambiguity” had characterized their interaction from early mediaeval
times to the modern age. Rather than consistent and unmitigated
hatred of Jews, Klier believed that Russians and Ukrainians “were not
necessarily ill disposed to them,” or at least not always. In the modern
age, he claimed controversially, religion did not govern attitudes
toward Russian Jews.
Kp" vjg" vygpv{/Þtuv" egpvwt{." c" itgcv" fgcn" oqtg" rcuukqpcvg" cpf"
contentious explication of Russian-Jewish history has already been
rtqfwegf0" Vjg" hcoqwu" fkuukfgpv" cpf" Pqdgn" ncwtgcvg" Cngmucpft"
Solzhenitsyn (2001) rekindled sharp debate in the public sphere
with the publication of his Two Hundred Years Together, which
(somewhat disingenuously) purported to give “both sides” of the
fkhÞewnv" tgncvkqpujkr0" Vjg" dqqm" koogfkcvgn{" dgecog" c" Twuukcp"
bestseller and quite predictably attracted both glowing praise and
outright condemnation. Meanwhile, other publications focused on
unique achievements that emerged out of the tempestuous history,
such as the “special Russian-Jewish literary atmosphere” (Khazan
2001). In 2006, Anna Shternshis published Soviet and Kosher, a
work she described as departing from the once-standard “Oy, we
suffered!” school of historiography to give a fuller picture of past reality
(Shternshis 2006; Fishman 2006).
Given this “softened” view of the Russian Jewish experience—
which does not deny past suffering but attempts to balance it with
more positive or neutral phenomena—the earlier view epitomized
by Dubnow appears to have lost all relevance. Moreover, the notion
of continuity from mediaeval to modern times no longer sounds
convincing. In the mediaeval period, the Muscovite state had a clear
and consistent policy toward Jews: one of exclusion. Yet the modern
Russian Empire, by contrast, never seemed to develop anything like
c"engct."kfgpvkÞcdng"ÑLgykuj"rqnke{Ò0"Hqt"qxgt"vyq"egpvwtkgu."kvu"qhÞekcn"
approaches were haphazard, self-contradictory, and ad hoc (Löwe
1993; Klier 1986, particularly at 38, 53–60; Blank 1995; Stanislawski
2010).
140
Isaiah Gruber
Nonetheless, the earlier period does in fact shed light on modern
times. Much current historiography and related portrayals represent a
kind of “antithesis” to Dubnow’s classic “thesis.” Perhaps a “synthesis”
is now necessary. Dubnow may have emphasized anti-Judaism and
antisemitism at the expense of some other realities, but he was
pqv" ytqpi" cdqwv" vjgkt" rgtukuvgpv" rtgugpeg." rqygthwn" kpàwgpeg." qt"
owvwcn" kpvgteqppgevgfpguu0" Vjg" oqtg" tgegpv" eqpvtkdwvkqpu" qh" Mnkgt"
and others illuminate many other factors of modern Russian Jewish
history but sometimes minimize the connections to earlier times and
to religious anti-Judaism. A balance should be struck between these
two viewpoints.
Vjg"eqorngz"pcvwtg"qh"Owueqxkvg"uqwtegu"qp"Lgyu"cpf"Lwfckuo."
including the Hebrew-Russian glossaries, suggests a strong
connection to later attitudes in modern times. Neither the Muscovite nor
the Russian imperial mindset were univocal or unambiguous. In each
case, contradictions and paradoxes characterized prevailing attitudes
toward Israel and the Jewish people. Rather than being forged afresh
in the wake of the Partitions of Poland, modern Russian perspectives
on Jews had deep roots in pre-modern history. Religiously induced
Judaeophobia certainly predominated during the earlier period, yet at
the same time, religion also provided the chief stimulus for Christian
kpvgtguv"kp"Lgykuj"cpf"Jgdtgy"ocvvgtu0"Hwtvjgtoqtg."ugnh/kfgpvkÞecvkqp"
as “Israel” formed an essential part of Muscovy’s national identity and
sense of historical importance.
Vjg"inquuctkgu"knnwuvtcvg"uvtkmkpin{"vjg"fkhÞewnvkgu"qh"ukownvcpgqwun{"
directing adulation and contempt, admiration and loathing, at the same
object. Muscovite literati were bombarded with both extremely positive
and extremely negative depictions of kfqxg, “Jews.” Moreover, neither
aspect of the early modern “Jewish question” could be separated from
how these bookmen had been taught to think of and portray their own
society: as both heir to biblical Israel on the one hand, and defender of
vjg"Ñvtwg"hckvjÒ"cickpuv"Lgyu."Lwfckugtu"cpf"qvjgt"jgtgvkeu"cpf"kpÞfgnu"
qp" vjg" qvjgt0" Vjcv" codkiwqwu" ngice{." K" rtqrqug." eqpvkpwgf" vq" gzgtv"
kvu" kpàwgpeg" yjgp" Twuukcp" iqxgtpogpvu" gzrnkekvn{" eqpukfgtgf" vjg"
“Jewish question” in subsequent centuries.
Modern Russian antisemitism drew from a variety of sources.
It may well be that ideas imported from Western Europe and new
141
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
socioeconomic concerns changed the discourse to some extent (Klier
1986:182–184). Yet a careful examination across periods indicates
more continuity than disruption in the longue durée. Gitelman’s
perspective additionally shows that the condition was one of mutual
or dual ambivalence: Russian ambivalence toward Jews was matched
by Jewish ambivalence toward Russia—arising out of causes that
were sometimes similar and sometimes quite different. When Jews
lived on “Russian” territory, they simultaneously experienced a great
attraction to Russian culture and a deep wound born of rejection and
persecution. When Russians explored Jewish “territory”—the Hebrew
language and Bible—they simultaneously experienced a great
attraction to Jewish matters and a loathing of God’s “former people.”
With regard to late mediaeval and early modern Western and Central
Gwtqrg."Tqdgtv"DqpÞn"*3;;6="cnuq"ugg"[wxcn"4228+"jcu"tgoctmgf"vjcv"
Jews and Christians tended to evince mirror images of each other.
Vjg"ukvwcvkqp"kp"Twuukc."qpeg"Lgyu"cpf"Qtvjqfqz"Ejtkuvkcpu"dgecog"
Ñnqemgf" vqigvjgtÒ" vjgtg." vqq." ycu" crrctgpvn{" pq" fkhhgtgpv0" Vtwn{." cp"
uncomfortable embrace.
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the 2011
Conference of the Australian Association of Jewish Studies in Canberra.
Vjg"cwvjqt"yqwnf"nkmg"vq"gzrtguu"jku"itcvkvwfg"vq"vjg"Fgrctvogpvu"qh"
History and of Hebrew, Biblical, and Jewish Studies at the University
of Sydney; to David Goldfrank for supplying the archival Umc¦cpkg"
tJ9goÒ"pgfqxJfqo{o and for his comments; to Shmuel Rausnitz for
helping to compile a database of glossary entries; to George Majeska,
Donald Ostrowski, and the anonymous reviewers of the journal for
their comments; to Suzanne Rutland for making the research visit to
Australia possible and for many other kindnesses; and to Lucy Davey
for her excellent work procuring interlibrary loans as well as her wit,
imagination, and conversation.
142
Isaiah Gruber
Endnotes
1
Among a vast literature on this topic, see especially: Golb and Pritsak
1982; Franklin 1991:3, 18; Noonan 2001; Petrukhin, Moskovich,
Fedorchuk, Kulik, and Shapira 2005; Brook 2006; Golden, BenUjcoock."cpf"T„pc/Vcu"4229="Mwnkm"4232<35Ï65."347Ï4620
2
A considerable controversy exists over the question of when in history
it is appropriate to speak of socio-political formations as “nations.”
When referring to Russian “national identity,” I do not mean to imply
anachronistically the existence of a modern nation-state or modern
nationalism. Rather, I use this term in a broader and earlier sense,
fgukipcvkpi"c"oqtg"qt"nguu"fgÞpcdng"Ñrgqrng"itqwr.Ò"kp"vjku"ecug"cnuq"
associated with a particular land and state. Other examples from
classical languages include Hebrew goy, Greek ethnos, Latin gens.
3
In keeping with the practice of the journal, the Hebrew name of God
(tetragrammaton) and word for “God” have been replaced by traditional
substitutes.
4
"Pgy"tgugctej"*Vgo9kpcu"4233+"uwiiguvu"vjcv"qeecukqpcn"eqpuwnvcvkqp"
with Jews may have taken place in the sixteenth century. [Note that the
letter “v.” in references stands for the word “verso”—that is, the other
ukfg"qh"vjg"ujggv"*ngch+0"Vjg"ctejkxg"pwodgtgf"vjg"rcigu"kp"Umc¦cpkg
as 1, 1v., 2, 2v. (or in Russian: 1, 1ob., 2, 2ob).]
5
" Vjg" Jgdtgy" pcog" hqt" vjku" dqqm." cu" hqt" ocp{" qvjgt" vgzvu." fgtkxgf"
htqo" vjg" Þtuv" ÑukipkÞecpvÒ" qt" wpkswg" yqtf" kv" eqpvckpgf0" D{" eqpvtcuv."
the Jewish-Greek LXX translators preferred content-based titles; for
them, Shemot"qt"ÑPcoguÒ"dgecog"kpuvgcf"а娃阿ш阿愛."ÑGzqfwu0Ò"Vkvngu"
can arise from numerous and varied considerations.
References
AAE [=Cmv{." uqdtcpp{g" x" dkdnkqvgmcmj" k" ctmjkxcmj" Tquuk umq " korgtkk"
CtmjgqitcÞ9gumq w" Lmurgfkvukg w]. 1836(–1838). 4 vols. St.
Rgvgtudwti<"Kor0"Xgn0"Mcpvugn ctk c0
AI [=Cmv{" kuvqtkejgumkg." uqdtcpp{g" k" k¦fcpp{g" CtmjgqitcÞ9gumq w"
mqookuukg w̲0"3:63*Ï3:64+0"7"xqnu0"Uv0"Rgvgtudwti<"Vkr0"Kmurgfkvukk"
1"Kor0"Xgn0"Mcpvugn ctk c0
143
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Cngmuggx."Cpcvqnk 0"42320"ÑRgtgxqf{"Dkdnkk.Ò"kp"Mwnkm"4232<"567Ï5770
–––– 1999. Vgmuvqnqik c" uncx cpumq " Dkdnkk0" Uv0" Rgvgtudwti<" Fokvtk "
Bulanin.
ÏÏÏÏ"3;:90"ÑRgtgxqf{"u"gxtg umkmj"qtkikpcnqx"x"Ftgxpg "Twuk0Ò"Russian
Linguistics 11: 1–20.
Alekseev, Mikhail. 1968. Unqxctk" kpquvtcpp{mj" c¦{mqx" x" twuumqo"
c¦dwmqxpkmg"ZXKK"xgmc. Leningrad: Nauka.
Cnvdcwgt." Oqujfi0" 3;;40" The Five Biblical Scrolls in a SixteenthCentury Jewish Translation into Belorussian (Vilnius Codex 262).
Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
CP"]?Cmcfgok c"Pcwm̲0"3;97*Ï422:+0"Unqxct闇"twuumqiq" c¦{mc"ZKÏZXKK"
vv. 28 vols. Moscow: Nauka.
Ctmjkrqx."Cpftg 0"3;;70"Rq"vw"uvqtqpw"Ucodcvkqpc<"Kv wf{"q"twuumq/
gxtg umkmj"mwn闇vwtp{mj." c¦{mqx{mj"k"nkvgtcvwtp{mj"mqpvcmvcmj"x"ZÏ
ZXK"xgmcmj. Oakland: Berkeley Slavic Specialties.
Aronson, I. Michael. 1990. Troubled Waters: The Origins of the
1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Birnbaum, Henrik. 1973. “On Some Evidence of Jewish Life and AntiJewish Sentiments in Mediaeval Russia.” Viator 4: 225–256.
Dncpm."Pcqok0"3;;70"ÑTgfgÞpkpi"vjg"Lgykuj"Swguvkqp"htqo"Ngpkp"vq"
Iqtdcejgx<"Vgtokpqnqi{"qt"Kfgqnqi{AÒ"kp"[cceqx"Tq闇k"*gf0+."Jews
and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union. Ilford, Essex:
Cass: 51–66.
DqpÞn." Tqdgtv0" 3;;60" ÑCnkgpu" Ykvjkp<" Vjg" Lgyu" cpf" Cpvklwfckuo.Ò"
kp" Vjqocu" Dtcf{." Jgkmq" Qdgtocp." cpf" Lcogu" Vtce{" *gfu0+."
Jcpfdqqm" qh" Gwtqrgcp" Jkuvqt{." 3622Ï3822<" Ncvg" Okffng" Cigu."
Renaissance and Reformation. Leiden: Brill, vol. 1: 263–302.
Boyarin, Daniel. 2006. Border Lines: The Partition of JudaeoChristianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
144
Isaiah Gruber
Brook, Kevin. 2006. Vjg"Lgyu"qh"Mjc¦ctkc. 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman
cpf"NkvvngÞgnf0
Dwujmqxkvej."Rcwn0"3;:80"ÑVjg"Hqtocvkqp"qh"c"Pcvkqpcn"Eqpuekqwupguu"
in Early Modern Russia.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10.3–4: 355–
376.
Dwuncgx."H0"K0"3:720"ÑFqrqnpgpk c"k"rtkdcxngpk c"mq"4/ow"vqow"闇Umc¦cpk "
Russkago naroda, sobrannykh I. Sakharovym.’” Arkhiv istorikowtkfkejgumkmj" uxJfJpk ." qvpqu cž9kmju c" fq" Tquukk." k¦fcxcgo{ "
Pkmqncgo"Mcnc9qx{o, 1.4: 1–48.
Crummey, Robert. 1987. Vjg"Hqtocvkqp"qh"Owueqx{."3526Ï3835. New
York: Longman.
Dacy, Marianne. 2010. The Separation of Early Christianity from
Judaism. Amherst, New York: Cambria.
Dagron, Gilbert. 1996. Gorgtgwt"gv"rt‒vtg<"¡vwfg"uwt"ng"ÑefiuctqrcrkuogÒ"
d{¦cpvkp. Paris: Gallimard.
Fcpkfinqw." Lgcp0" 3;7:0" Théologie du judéo-christianisme. Paris:
Fguenfig0
Dubnow, S. M. 1916(–1920). History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
from the Earliest Times until the Present Day0" 5" xqnu0" Vtcpu0." K0"
Friedlaender. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.
Ephrem (Archimandrite), trans. 2011. “[Commentary of Athanasios on]
Psalm 86.” http://www.anastasis.org.uk/psalm_86.htm. Accessed
24.05.2011.
Hcuogt" ]?Xcuogt̲." Ocz0" 3;:8*Ï3;:9+0" Kvkoqnqikejgumk " unqxct闇"
twuumqiq" c¦{mc. 4 vols. Moscow: Progress.
Fishman, Boris. 2006. “Mixed Messages.” Nextbook 27.09.2006.
http://www.nextbook.org, accessed 27 October 2006.
145
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Fletcher, Giles. 1964. The English Works of Giles Fletcher, the Elder.
Ed. Lloyd Berry. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Hnwukp."Dgtpctf0"42260"ÑNgu"uvtwevwtgu"fg"n闇¡inkug"korfitkcng.Ò"kp"Efiekng"
Morrisson (ed.), Ng"oqpfg"d{¦cpvkp. Paris: Presses universitaires
de France, vol. 1: 111–141.
Franklin, Simon. 1991. Ugtoqpu" cpf" Tjgvqtke" qh" Mkgxcp" Twu闇.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Gitelman, Zvi. 2001. A Century of Ambivalence: The Jews of Russia
and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the Present. 2nd ed. Bloomington,
Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Golb, Norman, and Omeljan Pritsak. 1982. Mjc¦ctkcp" Jgdtgy"
Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Iqnfgp." Rgvgt." Jciick" Dgp/Ujcoock." cpf" Cpftƒu" T„pc/Vcu" *gfu0+0"
2007. Vjg"Yqtnf"qh"vjg"Mjc¦ctu<"Pgy"Rgturgevkxgu. Leiden: Brill.
Iqnfhtcpm." Fcxkf0" 3;;40" ÑVjgqetcvke" Korgtcvkxgu." vjg" Vtcpuegpfgpv."
the Wordly, and Political Justice in Russia’s Early Inquisitions,” in
Ejctngu"G0"Vkodgtncmg"*gf0+."Religious and Secular Forces in Late
Vuctkuv"Twuukc<"Guuc{u"kp"Jqpqt"qh"Fqpcnf"Y0"Vtgcfiqnf. Seattle:
University of Washington Press: 30–47, 287–297.
–––– 1988. “Burn, Baby, Burn: Popular Culture and Heresy in Late
Mediaeval Russia.” Journal of Popular Culture 31.4: 17–32.
Gottheil, Richard, and Louis Ginzberg. 1901(–1906). “Athanasius,” in
The Jewish Encyclopedia. 12 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls,
vol. 2: 281–282.
Grabbe, Lester. 1988. Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The
Hebrew Names in Philo. Atlanta: Scholars.
Gruber, Isaiah. 2012. Orthodox Russia in Crisis: Church and Nation in
the Time of Troubles. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University
Press, 2012.
146
Isaiah Gruber
Jcnrgtkp." Ejctngu0" 42290" ÑVjg" Twuukcp" cpf" Uncxqpke" Ncpiwcigu" kp"
Sixteenth-Century Muscovy.” The Slavonic and East European
Review 85.1: 1–24.
–––– 1985. The Tatar Yoke. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.
Hieronymus [=Jerome of Stridon]. 1845 [series 1844–1864]. Liber
de nominibus hebraicis, in Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), Patrologia
latina [=Rcvtqnqikcg" ewtuwu" eqorngvwu0" Ugtkgu" Ncvkpc]. 221 vols.
Paris: Apud Garniere Fratres, vol. 23: 771–858.
Mc¦cmqxc."Pcvcnk c."cpf" cmqx"Nwt闇g0"3;770"Cpvkhgqfcn闇p{g"gtgvk9gumkg"
fxk gpk c" pc" Twuk" ZKXÐpc9cnc" ZXK" xgmc0" Oqueqy<" Cmcfgok c"
nauk.
Mjc¦cp." Xncfkokt0" 42230" Quqdgpp{ " gxtg umq/twuumk " xq¦fwmj<" m"
rtqdngocvkmg" k" rqLvkmg" twuumq/gxtg umqiq" nkvgtcvwtpqiq" fkcnqic" x"
ZZ"xgmg. Moscow: Mosty kul’tury.
Mnkgt." Lqjp" F0" 3;;40" ÑVjg" Rqitqo" Rctcfkio" kp" Twuukcp" Jkuvqt{.Ò" kp"
John D. Klier and Shlomo Lambroza (eds.), Pogroms: Anti-Jewish
Xkqngpeg" kp" Oqfgtp" Twuukcp" Jkuvqt{. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press: 13–38.
–––– 1986. Russia Gathers Her Jews: The Origins of the “Jewish
SwguvkqpÒ"kp"Twuukc."3994Ï3:47. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois
University Press.
Mqxvwp." N wfoknc0" 3;:;0" C¦dwmqxpkmk" ZXKÏZXKK" xx0<" uvctžc c"
tc¦pqxkfpquv闇. Leningrad: Nauka.
–––– 1977. Ftgxpkg"unqxctk"mcm"kuvq9pkm"twuumqk"kuvqtk9gumq "ngmukmqitcÞk.
Leningrad: Nauka.
–––– 1975. NgmukmqitcÞ c" x" Oqumqxumq " Twuk" ZXKÐpc9cnc" ZXKK" xx.
Leningrad: Nauka.
–––– 1963. Twuumc c"ngmukmqitcÞ c"Lrqmjk"Utgfpgxgmqx闇 c. Leningrad:
Cmcfgok c"pcwm0
Kulik, Alexander. 2012. “Jews from Rus’ in Mediaeval England.” Jewish
Quarterly Review. [Forthcoming; n.b., the cited page number
refers to the manuscript copy only.]
–––– (ed.). 2010. Kuvqtk c"gxtg umqiq"pctqfc"x"Tquukk0"Xqn0"30"Lgtwucngo<"
Gesharim.
147
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
–––– 2008. “Judeo-Greek Legacy in Mediaeval Rus’.” Viator 39.1:
51–64.
Lagarde, Paul de. 1870. Onomastica sacra. Gottingae: Rente.
Ngxkp." Gxigpk 0" 42320" ÑUrqt" q" uwf闇dg" Pqxqiq" K¦tckn c0Ò" Dqqmpkm0
tw<" Gxtg umkg" vgmuv{" k" vgo{. http://booknik.ru/reviews/nonÞevkqp1Akf?52363"42028042320
Löwe, Heinz-Dietrich. 1993. The Tsars and the Jews: Reform,
Tgcevkqp."cpf"Cpvk/Ugokvkuo"kp"Korgtkcn"Twuukc."3994Ï3;39. Chur,
Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Nwpv."Jqtceg."cpf"Oqujg"Vcwdg0"3;;:0"The Slavonic Book of Esther:
Text, Lexicon, Linguistic Analysis, Problems of Translation.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Nwtkc."Lcmqx"]?Nwt闇g."%cmqx̲0"3;;70"ÑKuvq9pkmk"rq"kuvqtkk"闇pqxq cxkxžg u c"
pqxiqtqfumq "gtguk闇"*闇 kfqxuvxw wž9kmj闇+0Ò"Jews and Slavs 3:199–
223.
–––– 1960. Kfgqnqik9gumc c"dqt闇dc"x"twuumq "rwdnkvukuvkmg"mqpvuc"ZXÐ
pc9cnc"ZXK"xgmc0"Oqueqy<"Cmcfgok c"pcwm0
N{ufip." Ktkpc0" 42230" Mpkic" GuÞt闇<" m" kuvqtkk" rgtxqiq" uncx cpumqiq"
perevoda. Uppsala: Acta University.
Magnus, Leonard. 1921. The Heroic Ballads of Russia. New York:
Dutton.
Oclgumc." Igqtig0" 42260" ÑD{¦cpvkpg" Rqnkvkecn" Vjgqt{.Ò" kp" Dtweg" H0"
Adams (volume ed.), Vjg"Uwrrngogpv"vq"Vjg"Oqfgtp"Gpe{enqrgfkc"
of Russian, Soviet, and Eurasian History. Gulf Breeze, Fla.:
Academic International Press, vol. 5: 66–68.
Margeret, Jacques. 1983. The Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of
Owueqx{<" C" 39vj/Egpvwt{" Htgpej" Ceeqwpv0" Vtcpu0" Ejguvgt" U0" N0"
Dunning. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
148
Isaiah Gruber
Massa, Isaac. 1982. A Short History of the Beginnings and Origins
qh" Vjgug" Rtgugpv" Yctu" kp" Oqueqy" wpfgt" vjg" Tgkip" qh" Xctkqwu"
Sovereigns down to the Year 16100" Vtcpu0." I0" Gfyctf" Qtejctf0"
Vqtqpvq<"Wpkxgtukv{"qh"Vqtqpvq"Rtguu0"
Ogž9gtumk ." Pkmkvc0" 3;860" ÑRtqdngo{" k¦w9gpk c" uncx cpq/twuumq "
rgtgxqfpq " nkvgtcvwt{" ZKÏZX" xx0Ò" Vtwf{" Qvfgnc" ftgxpgtwuumq "
literatury 20: 180–231.
Oknngt." Fcxkf0" 3;9;0" ÑVjg" Xgnkmkg" Okpgk" Ejgvkk" cpf" vjg" Uvgrgppckc"
Kniga of Metropolitan Makarii and the Origins of Russian National
Consciousness.” Hqtuejwpigp" ¦wt" quvgwtqr“kuejgp" Iguejkejvg
26: 263–382.
Murray, Michele. 2004. Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian
Lwfck¦kpi"kp"vjg"Hktuv"cpf"Ugeqpf"Egpvwtkgu"EG. Waterloo, Ontario:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Pqqpcp."Vjqocu0"42230"ÑVjg"Mjc¦ct"scijcpcvg"cpf"kvu"korcev"qp"vjg"
gctn{"Twu闇"uvcvg<"Vjg"translatio imperii from Itil to Kiev,” in Anatoly
Mjc¦cpqx" cpf" Cpftfi" Ykpm" *gfu0+." Nomads in the Sedentary
World. Richmond: Curzon: 76–102.
Orbach, Alexander. 1990. “Russian Jewish History.” Oqfgtp"Lwfckuo
10.3: 325–342.
Ostrowski, Donald. 1998. Owueqx{"cpf"vjg"Oqpiqnu<"Etquu/Ewnvwtcn"
Kpàwgpegu" qp" vjg" Uvgrrg" Htqpvkgt." 3526Ï37:;. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
RctÞvv." Vwfqt." cpf" Gocpwgnc" Ugok0" 42240" Lwfckukpi" Oqxgogpvu<"
Uvwfkgu" kp" vjg" Octikpu" qh" Lwfckuo" kp" Oqfgtp" Vkogu. London:
Routledge.
Pereswetoff-Morath, Alexander. 2002. A Grin Without a Cat. 2 vols.
Lund: Lund University.
Rgvtwmjkp."X0."Y0"Oqumqxkej."C0"Hgfqtejwm."C0"Mwnkm."cpf"F0"Ujcrktc"
(eds.). 2005. Mjc¦ct{. Jerusalem: Gesharim.
149
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Rk9mjcf¦g." Cppc0" 3;;80" ÑM" kuvqtkk" 9gv闇giq" vgmuvc" uncx cpumqiq"
Xqu闇okmpk k c0Ò"Vtwf{"Qvfgnc"ftgxpgtwuumq "nkvgtcvwt{ 49: 10–21.
Tcdc." Lqgn" ]?Tcdc闇." [q闇gn" 1" %qLn闇̲0" 42250" Ha-terumah veha-temurah:
Gtgvu"[k・tc闇gn"xg/案co"[k・tc闇gn"dc/案qncocj"jc/twhaniy shel Rusiyah
be-yamey ha-beynayim0"Vgn"Cxkx<"Vgn"Cxkx"Wpkxgtukv{0
ÏÏÏÏ" 42230" Ñ闇 kfqxuvxw wž9kg闇" nkA" Kuvqtk c" ¦cfwžgxpq " o{unk0Ò" Russia
mediaevalis 10.1: 126–149.
ÏÏÏÏ" 3;;40" ÑVjg" Dkdnkecn" Vtcfkvkqp" kp" Qnf" Twuukcp" Ejtqpkengu0Ò"
Hqtuejwpigp"¦wt"quvgwtqr“kuejgp"Iguejkejvg 46: 9–20.
Tkjc."Vjqocu"*gf0+0"3;8;0"Tgcfkpiu"kp"Twuukcp"Ekxknk¦cvkqp. 2nd ed. 3
vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tqyncpf." Fcpkgn" D0" 3;;80" ÑOqueqy<" Vjg" Vjktf" Tqog" qt" vjg" Pgy"
Israel?” Russian Review 55.4: 591–614.
ÏÏÏÏ" 3;980" ÑOwueqxkvg" Rqnkvkecn" Cvvkvwfgu" cu" Tgàgevgf" kp" Gctn{"
Ugxgpvggpvj" Egpvwt{" Vcngu" cdqwv" vjg" Vkog" qh" Vtqwdngu0Ò" Rj0F0"
dissertation. New Haven: Yale University.
Ryan, William. 1999. Vjg" Dcvjjqwug" cv" Okfpkijv<" Ocike" kp" Twuukc.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
SGGD [=Sobranie gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov,
mjtcp cž9kmju c" x" Iquwfctuvxgppq " mqnngikk" kpquvtcpp{mj" fJn].
3:35*Ï3:;6+0" 7" xqnu0" Oqueqy<" Xugxqnq umk " 1" Ugnkxcpqxumk " 1"
Lissner and Roman.
Ujcrktc" ]?™crktc̲." Fcp0" 42320" ÑQdž9kp{" gxtggx" Xquvqmc" pc" vgttkvqtkk"
Tquuk umq "korgtkk"k"UUUT.Ò"kp"Mwnkm"4232<"99Ï;20
ÏÏÏÏ" 42270" ÑLwfck¦cvkqp" qh" Egpvtcn" Cukcp" Vtcfkvkqpu" cu" Tgàgevgf" kp"
the So-Called Lgykuj/Mjc¦ct"Eqttgurqpfgpeg."ykvj"Vyq"Gzewtugu<"C0"
Lwfcj"Jcngx{闇u"Swqvcvkqpu="D0"Gnf¤f"jc/F¤p "*Lwfcgq/Vwtmkec"XK+"ykvj"
an Addendum,” in Petrukhin et al. 2005: 503–521.
Shternshis, Anna. 2006. Soviet and Kosher: Jewish Popular Culture
kp" vjg" Uqxkgv" Wpkqp." 3;45Ï3;5;. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana
University Press.
150
Isaiah Gruber
UKEUC" ]?Vjg" Xkfcn" Ucuuqqp" Kpvgtpcvkqpcn" Egpvgt" hqt" vjg" Uvwf{" qh"
Antisemitism]. 2011. The Felix Posen Bibliographic Project on
Cpvkugokvkuo<" C" Eqorwvgtk¦gf" Dkdnkqitcrj{" qp" Cpvkugokvkuo"
and the Holocaust. http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/bib.html. Accessed
26.05.2011.
Skarsaune, Oskar, and Reidar Hvalvik (eds.). 2007. Jewish Believers
in Jesus: The Early Centuries. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.
Umc¦cpkg" tJ9goÒ" pgfqxJfqo{o." g g" xdtJvcgo" xÒ" u]x c̲v{mjÒ"
mpkicmjÒ."xv"itg9gumciq" c¦{mc."k"xv"gxtg umciq."k"xv"ukt闇umci]q̲."k"
xv"ncv{pumci]q̲."k"xv"unqxgpumci]q̲."k"xv"kp{mj0"16th-century archival
manuscript. Russian National Library (St. Petersburg). KirilloDgnq¦gtumk "oqpcuv{t闇"pq0"47Ï3324<"ngcxgu"369Ï37:0
Uqn¦jgpkvu{p" ]?Uqn gpkvu{p̲." Cngmucpft0" 4223*Ï4224+0" Dvesti let
vmeste0"4"xqnu0"Oqueqy="Twuumk "rwv闇0
Utg¦pgxumk ."K0"K0"3:;5*Ï3;34+0"Ocvgtkcn{"fn c"unqxct c"ftgxpg/twuumciq"
c¦{mc" rq" rku闇ogpp{o" rco cvpkmco0" 5" xqnu0" Uv0" Rgvgtudwti<" Vkr0"
Korgtcvqtumq "Cmcfgokk"pcwm0
Stanislawski, Michael. 2010. “Russia: Russian Empire,” in Gershon
Hundert (ed.), YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe.
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Russia/Russian_
Empire Accessed 24.05.2011.
Vcwdg."Oqujg0"4232c0"ÑGtgu闇"闇 kfqxuvxw wž9kmj闇"k"rgtgxqf{"u"gxtg umqiq"
v srednevekovoi Rusi,” in Kulik 2010: 367–397.
ÏÏÏÏ" 4232d0" ÑVtcpuokuukqp" qh" UekgpvkÞe" Vgzvu" kp" 37vjÏEgpvwt{"
Eastern Knaan.” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism
10.3: 315–353.
ÏÏÏÏ" 42270" ÑVjg" Hkhvggpvj/Egpvwt{" Twvjgpkcp" Vtcpuncvkqpu" htqo"
Jgdtgy"cpf"vjg"Jgtgu{"qh"vjg"Lwfck¦gtu<"Ku"Vjgtg"c"EqppgevkqpAÒ"
kp" X{cejguncx" Kxcpqx" cpf" Lwnkc" Xgtmjqncpvugx" *gfu0+." Speculum
Uncxkcg"Qtkgpvcnku<"Owueqx{."Twvjgpkc."cpf"Nkvjwcpkc"kp"vjg"Ncvg"
Okffng"Cigu. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo: 185–208.
ÏÏÏÏ"3;;70"ÑVjg"Mkgxcp"Lgy"¥cejctkc"cpf"vjg"Cuvtqpqokecn"Yqtmu"qh"
the Judaizers.” Jews and Slavs 3: 168–198.
151
Russians, Jews, and Hebrew: The Makings of Ambivalence
Vgo9kpcu." Ugtiglwu0" 42330" ÑC" 38vj/egpvwt{" Gcuv" Uncxke" Ocpwuetkrv"
Manual of Hebrew and its Sources.” Seminar presentation to
the research group “Cultural Archaeology of Jews and Slavs:
Mediaeval and Early Modern Judeo-Slavic Interaction and CrossFertilization”, Institute of Advanced Studies, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, 26 June 2011.
Vug vnkp." Tcnkc0" 3;7:0" Mtcvmk " q9gtm" kuvqtkk" twuumq " ngmukmqitcÞk" *unqxctk"
twuumqiq" c¦{mc+. Moscow: GUPIMP.
Wurgpumk ." Dqtku0" 3;;:0" Vuct闇" k" rcvtkctmj<" mjctk¦oc" xncuvk" x" Tquukk0"
Xk¦cpvk umckc"oqfgn闇"k"gg"twuumqg"rgtgquo{ungpkg0"Oqueqy<"%c¦{mk"
twuumq "mwn闇vwt{0"
Xgtpcfum{." Igqtig0" 3;550" ÑVjg" Jgtgu{" qh" vjg" Lwfck¦gtu" cpf" vjg"
Policies of Ivan III of Moscow.” Speculum 8.4: 436–454.
Xkpqitcfqx." X0" X0" 3;:20" Q" c¦{mg" mjwfq guvxgppq " rtq¦{<" k¦dtcpp{g"
trudy. Moscow: Nauka.
Xqnqvumk ."Kxukh"]?Xqnqvum{."Lqugrj̲0"3:;80"RtquxJvkvgn闇."knk"xdnk9gpkg"gtguk"
kfqxuvxw wž9kmjÒ0"5tf"gf0"Mc¦cp<"Vkr0"Kor0"Wpkxgtukvgvc0
Yuval, Israel. 2006. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews
cpf" Ejtkuvkcpu" kp" Ncvg" Cpvkswkv{" cpf" vjg" Okffng" Cigu. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
152