Глава 2 - При Александре I

Chapter 2: Under Alexander I

By the end of 1804, the "Committee for the Betterment of the Jews" had completed its work with the development of the "Statute on Jews" (known as the "Statute of 1804") — the first legislative code on Jews in Russia. The Committee explained that its goal was to transition Jews to a better condition and towards paths of useful activity, "merely opening the way to their own benefit… and removing everything that could divert them from this path, without, however, exerting any force"¹. The Statute established the principle of civil equality for Jews (Article 42): "All Jews residing in Russia, newly settling, or arriving for commercial affairs from other countries, are free and under the exact protection of the laws equally with other Russian subjects." (According to Professor Gradovsky's commentary, in this article "one cannot help but see the aspiration… to assimilate this nation with the entire population of Russia.")²

The "Statute" opened up more opportunities for Jews than the initial proposals by Derzhavin; for instance, in the establishment of textile and leather factories, and in transitioning to agriculture on undeveloped lands, direct state assistance was offered. Jews were also granted the right to purchase land — without serf peasants on it, but with the right to employ hired Christian workers. Jewish manufacturers, merchants, and artisans were given the right to travel beyond the settlement line "temporarily on business," which eased the recently established "Pale of Settlement." The abolition of the double tax that year was only promised, and it was soon dropped altogether. All rights of Jews to the inviolability of their property, personal freedom, their distinct faith, and the freedom of communal organization were affirmed — meaning the kahal (community) organization was left without significant changes (although this already undermined the plan to integrate Jewry into all-Russian citizenship), with the previous right to collect taxes, which gave the kahals such unrestricted power, — but without the right to increase their levies; and with the prohibition of religious punishments and cursing (herem), — thereby granting freedom to the Hasidim. In accordance with the persistent desire of the kahals, the plan to establish general education Jewish schools was not adopted, but "all Jewish children could be admitted and taught, without any distinction from other children, in all Russian schools, gymnasia, and universities," and none of the children in those schools would be "in any way diverted from their religion, nor compelled to learn something contrary to it, and even not in agreement with it." And Jews, "who by their abilities attain certain degrees of distinction in universities in medicine, surgery, physics, mathematics, and other fields of knowledge, will be recognized and granted university degrees in them." It was considered necessary for Jews to adopt the language of the surrounding area, change their outward appearance, and assume family names. — The committee concluded that in other countries, "no more moderate, more indulgent means have been used, more closely connected with their [Jews'] benefits." And Yu.I. Gessen agrees that the Russian Statute of 1804 imposed fewer restrictions on Jews than, for example, the Prussian Regulation of 1797. And especially since the Jews had and retained personal freedom, which the multi-million mass of serf peasantry in Russia did not have³. — "The Statute of 1804 is among the acts penetrated by tolerance"⁴.

The then-popular magazine "Vestnik Evropy" wrote: "Alexander knows that the vices attributed to the Jewish nation are necessary consequences of this entrenched oppression that has been crushing them for many centuries. The purpose of the new law is to give the state useful citizens, and to the Jews—a homeland."⁵

However, the most pressing issue was resolved by the Regulation not in the way that all Jews collectively wanted—the Jewish population, the deputies of the kahals, and the Jewish members of the Committee. The Regulation stated: "No Jew… in any village or settlement may hold any leases, taverns, inns, or guesthouses, neither under their own nor under another's name, nor sell wine in them, nor even live in them"⁶ — and it was completely intended to remove the Jewish population from villages within three years, that is, by the beginning of 1808. (We remember that such a measure was planned as early as under Paul in 1797, and before the Derzhavin project emerged: not the wholesale removal of Jews from villages, but "to thin out the Jewish population in district settlements so that their number does not exceed the economic capabilities of the peasants, as a productive class, it was merely proposed"⁷.) Now, it was envisaged to redirect the majority of Jews to agricultural labor on vacant lands within the Pale of Settlement, Novorossiya, and also Astrakhan and Caucasian provinces,—with exemption from the currently paid tax for 10 years, with the right "to receive a loan-like advance from the treasury," starting to repay it also after 10 years of benefits; and for the more affluent—to acquire land in personal and hereditary ownership with the right to cultivate it using hired workers⁸.

The Committee argued against the wine trade, stating: "As long as this business is open to Jews… which, ultimately, exposes them to universal reproach, contempt, and even hatred of the common people, the general indignation towards them will not cease"⁹. And yet, "can this measure [expulsion from villages] be called restrictive for them, when at the same time, it opens up a multitude of other ways for them not only to maintain themselves in a state of well-being but also to make acquisitions — in agriculture, factories, crafts, when along with this, it opens up the way for them even to own land. How can the restriction of one branch of industry be restrictive for this people in such a state, where thousands of other opportunities are open to them", where lands suitable for agriculture and various establishments in fertile and sparsely populated provinces… ?"¹⁰.

The arguments seem compelling. However, Hessen finds the Committee's view "naive… on the nature of the economic life of the people… that economic phenomena can be altered in a purely mechanical way, by means of orders"¹¹. The Jewish side assessed the planned expulsion from the villages and the prohibition of the tavern business, this "age-old occupation" of the Jews¹², as a terrible and cruel decision. (And such was the condemnation by Jewish historiography, both half a century and a century later.)

Given Alexander I's liberal views, his favorable attitude towards Jews, his flexible character, and his indecisive will (likely undermined for life by ascending to the throne through the violent death of his father) — the proclaimed expulsion of Jews from the villages would hardly have been carried out energetically, and it would not have been dragged out even in a calm state environment. And here, almost immediately after the Statute of 1804, the war with Napoleon loomed, beginning on the fields of Europe, and then came Napoleon's favorable measures towards the Jews, creating a Sanhedrin in Paris of Jewish deputies. "The whole Jewish affair suddenly took an unexpected turn. Bonaparte established a meeting of Jews in Paris, aiming primarily to grant various advantages to the Jewish nation and to form connections among Jews scattered throughout Europe." And in 1806, Alexander I ordered the formation of a new committee to consider whether any special measures were needed and to postpone the resettlement of Jews"¹³. The Russian government was also required not to appear as oppressors of Jews.

The expulsion of Jews from villages, scheduled in 1804, was supposed to begin in 1808. But practical difficulties also emerged, and in 1807, reports were submitted to Alexander I about the necessity to postpone the expulsion. At that time, a supreme decree was issued: "to allow all Jewish communities… to elect deputies and present, through them… the methods which they themselves find most convenient for the most successful implementation of the measures, depicted in the Statute of December 9, 1804." Elections of such Jewish deputies in the western provinces took place, and their feedback was presented in St. Petersburg. "The deputies, of course, spoke out for the expulsion to be postponed for a long term." (There was also the consideration that in villages, tavern keepers had free lodging from landlords, while in small towns and cities, they would have to pay for it.) And the Minister of the Interior reported that relocating Jews from their current village dwellings to state lands "would require several decades, due to their [Jews'] excessive number"¹⁴. By the end of 1808, the Emperor ordered the suspension of the article that had prohibited Jews from leases and the alcohol trade, and to leave the Jews in their places "until further command"¹⁵. Immediately (in 1809), a new "Committee of Senator Popov" was established to study the range of Jewish issues, including the petitions of Jewish deputies. This Committee "found it necessary 'decisively' to stop the ongoing expulsion, while preserving for Jews the right to leases and to trade in vodka"¹⁶. The Committee worked for three years and presented its report to the Sovereign in March 1812. Alexander I did not approve the report: he neither wanted to undermine the significance of the previous decision, nor had he lost the motivation to act in defense of the peasants: "he would have been ready to mitigate the measure of expulsion, but not to abandon it entirely"¹⁷. However, then came the Great War with Napoleon, followed by the European conflict, shifting Alexander's interests — and "the expulsion was never again undertaken as a general measure for the entire Pale of Settlement, but only as private directives in specific localities"¹⁸.

During the war, according to one source, Jews were the only inhabitants who did not flee from the French army either into the forests or away at all; around Vilnius: they refused to comply with Napoleon's order to join his army, but they supplied forage and provisions to them unconditionally; however, in some places, forced levies were required¹⁹. Another source, reporting that "the Jewish population suffered greatly from the depredations of Napoleon's soldiers," "many synagogues were burned," also speaks more broadly: "Significant assistance was provided to the Russian troops during the war by the so-called 'Jewish post,' created by Jewish merchants and transmitting information with unprecedented speed ('postal stations' were taverns)"; even "Jews were used as couriers for communication between units of the Russian army." When the Russian army returned, "Jews joyously welcomed the Russian troops, bringing bread and wine to the soldiers." Then the Grand Duke, the future Nicholas I, wrote in his diary: "It is amazing that they [Jews] were exceptionally loyal to us in 1812 and even helped wherever they could, at the risk of their lives"²⁰.

A well-known episode describes how, at a key moment of the French retreat across the Berezina, local Jews informed the Russian command of the expected crossing point. But this turned out to be a successful ruse by General Lauriston: he was confident that the Jews would convey this information to the Russians (while the French, of course, crossed at a different location)²¹.

With the annexation of central Poland to Russia after 1814, more than 400,000 Jews became part of the Empire, making the Jewish problem even more urgent and complex for the Russian government. In 1816, the State Council of the Kingdom of Poland, which lived much like a separate state entity, decreed the start of the expulsion of Jews from villages, allowing Jews to remain only for direct agricultural labor and without Christian help. However, upon the petition of the Warsaw kahal, which quickly reached the Sovereign, Alexander ordered that the Jews be left in their places in Poland, — allowing them to trade in vodka, with only one prohibition: not to sell it on credit²².

Indeed, the Senate Rules of 1818 reintroduced such clauses: "To abolish the ruinous execution by landlords for the non-payment of Jewish debts, which forces peasants to sell their last belongings… Jews who lease taverns should not be allowed to lend money at interest to peasants, give them wine on credit, and take from them cattle or anything else necessary for the peasant"²³.

Characteristic of Alexander's entire reign was a lack of consistency in the measures adopted; rules were proclaimed without effective control over their enforcement. For instance, "by the statute of 1817 concerning the liquor tax in Great Russian provinces, Jews were prohibited from distilling spirits there, yet by 1819, this prohibition was lifted," — "pending the improvement of Russian masters in distillery"²⁴.

Of course, the eradication of Jewish alcohol businesses from the rural areas of the Western region faced resistance from Polish landlords, who had a vested interest, — and at that time, the Russian government was still not bold enough to act against the landlords. However, in the Chernigov Province, where there was no centuries-old establishment of the landlord-Jewish alcohol business, — it was possible to end it in 1821, when the province suffered a poor harvest and the governor reported that "Jews keep in severe bondage" state peasants and Cossacks²⁵. This measure was implemented in the Poltava Province in 1822; in 1823, the prohibition was partially extended to Mogilev and Vitebsk Provinces. But further, these measures were stopped by intensified petitions of the kahals.

Thus, the fight against alcohol businesses by means of expelling Jews from villages — in essence, made no progress throughout the entire quarter-century reign of Alexander I.

However, distilling was not the only type of lease from landlords within the Pale of Settlement. Lessees also took on specific branches of the economy, specific estates, where they might run a mill, engage in fishing, manage bridges, or even lease entire estates — and then not only the serf peasants themselves fell under the lease (such cases became more frequent from the end of the 18th century²⁶), but even "khlopskie churches," that is, Orthodox churches, as reported by several authors — N.I. Kostomarov, M.N. Katkov, V.V. Shulgin. These churches, being part of the estate, were considered the personal property of Catholic landlords, and "as lessees, Jews considered themselves entitled to collect money from those visiting the church and from those requesting services. To baptize, marry, or bury, one had to get permission from the 'Jew' for a corresponding fee"; "Malorussian (Ukrainian) historical songs are filled with bitter complaints about 'zhidy-orendary' (Jewish lessees), who oppressed the population"²⁷.

Russian governments had long been aware of this danger: that the rights of lessees should not extend to the person of the peasant and directly to his labor, "that Jews should not use the personal labor of peasants and that through leasing, they, as non-Christians, should not own serf Christians at all." This was consistently prohibited: by the decree of 1784, Senate resolutions of 1801 and 1813, stating that "Jews should in no way own or control villages and landlord's peasants under any name or title"²⁸.

However, the ingenuity of both Jews and landlords did not stop there. By 1816, the Senate discovered that "Jews had devised a way of ownership under the name of 'krestentsy'," meaning they arranged with landlords to take "from the fields the grain and hay sown by their peasants… which those same peasants had to thresh, transport to the distilleries, which were leased by Jews, and look after the oxen, provided [to the peasants] for feed, while also providing Jews with labor and carts… Jews fully manage such estates… at the same time, landlords, receiving profitable rent for the estates under the name of 'krestentsy,' sell to Jews the entire future harvest, sown in their fields: hence, it can be concluded that by the mentioned means they expose their peasants to famine"²⁹.

It's as though not the peasants themselves are leased, but only the "krestentsy" — yet the result is the same.

Despite all prohibitions, the practice of "krestentsy" flexibly continued. The complex difficulty also lay in the fact that many landlords themselves fell into debt to their Jewish lessees, receiving money from them against the pledge of their estates — thus Jews managed both the estate and the labor of the serfs. But when in 1816 the Senate "decided to take the estates away from Jews," it left to the Jews themselves the task of recovering the loaned amounts. The kahal deputies immediately submitted the most humble petition to cancel this order — and the chief of spiritual affairs of foreign confessions, Prince A.N. Golitsyn, convinced the Sovereign that "it is unfair to subject one class of guilty to punishment, exempting" landlords and officials. Landlords "can still profit if they refuse to return the capitals given to them for krestentsy and retain the krestentsy for their own benefit"; having leased lands to Jews contrary to the law, they are now obliged to return the money³⁰.

Serving in the army in the western provinces during those years, the future Decembrist P.I. Pestel, by no means a defender of autocracy but a fervent republican, recorded some of his observations about the local Jews. Pestel partially included these observations in the foundational positions of his state program ("instructions for the temporary Supreme Government"). "Expecting the Messiah, Jews consider themselves temporary inhabitants of the region they reside in and therefore have no desire to engage in agriculture; they even partly disdain craftsmen and are mostly engaged in trade." — "Jewish spiritual leaders, called rabbis, keep their people in incredible dependence on themselves, forbidding in the name of faith the reading of any books other than the Talmud… A people not seeking enlightenment will always remain under the power of prejudices"; "The dependence of Jews on rabbis goes so far that any order given by them is followed devoutly and unquestioningly." — "The close connection among Jews allows them to accumulate large sums… for their common needs, especially for bribing various authorities into malfeasance and all kinds of abuses that are beneficial for Jews." How easily they become dominant "can be clearly seen in those provinces where they reside. All trade there is in their hands, and there are few peasants who are not in their power through debts; hence, they terribly ruin the region where they live." — "The previous government [of Catherine] granted them many distinct rights and privileges, intensifying the harm they do," for example, the right not to provide recruits, the right not to declare the deceased, the right to litigate among themselves according to the verdicts of rabbis, and "besides, they enjoy all the same rights as other Christian peoples." And "it can be clearly seen that Jews in the state, so to speak, constitute their own separate state within the state and currently in Russia enjoy greater rights than the Christians themselves." Thus, "such a state of affairs, which has established hostile relations of Jews towards Christians and placed them in a position contrary to the social order in the state, cannot continue any longer"³¹.

In the last years of Alexander I's reign, there was a general tightening of economic and other prohibitions against Jewish activities. In 1818, a Senate decree stated that henceforth "Christians are not to be given to Jews as servants for debts under any circumstances"³². — In 1819, a decree was issued to cease "works and services provided by peasants and household people for Jews"³³. The same Golitsyn reported to the committee of ministers that "Christians living in houses owned by Jews 'not only forget and neglect the duties of the Christian faith but also adopt Jewish customs and rituals'"³⁴. And a decision was made about "Jews not keeping Christians in domestic service"³⁵. At the same time, it was considered that "this would be beneficial for poor Jews, who could replace Christian servants"³⁶. However, this did not happen. (And how surprising it is: there was poverty and destitution among the Jewish urban masses, "mostly poor, barely scraping a living"³⁷, — but the reverse was never observed: Jews did not go into domestic service for Christians. This means — there were deterring considerations, but also means of livelihood from close-knit communities.)

However, from 1823, Jewish leaseholders were allowed to hire Christians. And the "strict observance of the prohibition," for example, for Christians not to cultivate land for Jews, "was… difficult to implement in practice"³⁸.

In the same years, in response to the rapid development of the Sabbatarian sect in Voronezh, Samara, Tula, and other provinces, measures were taken to tighten the Pale of Settlement. Thus, "in 1821, Jews accused of 'severe enslavement' of peasants and Cossacks were expelled from rural areas of the Chernigov Province, and in 1822 — from villages in Poltava"³⁹.

In 1824, Alexander I, during a trip across the Ural Ridge and noticing at the mining plants "a significant number of Jews who, 'engaging in the secret purchase of precious metals, corrupt the local inhabitants to the detriment of the treasury and private manufacturers,'" ordered that "Jews 'should not be tolerated either at state-owned or at private plants in the mining department'"⁴⁰.

Similarly, the treasury was undermined by smuggling along the entire western border of Russia, duty-free transport of goods and products to both capitals, and their trade. Governors reported that smuggling was predominantly carried out by Jews, who precisely populated the dense border strip. In 1816, there was an order in the Volyn Province to completely expel Jews from a 50-verst border strip, even within three weeks. The expulsion in this province lasted for 5 years and was only partially carried out, and from 1821 the new governor allowed Jews to return to their places. — In 1825, a more general but much more cautious decree was issued: only those Jews who were not registered with local kahals or did not own real estate in the border strip were to be expelled⁴¹. That is, the intention now was to expel only those clearly found to be in violation. However, the measure was not consistently implemented.

Simultaneously with the Statute of 1804, and its clause on the expulsion of Jews from villages in the western provinces, the state authorities naturally faced the question: where to resettle them? Towns and small towns were already densely populated, and this density was exacerbated by fierce competition in retail trade amid very weak development of productive labor. Meanwhile, south of Ukraine lay the vast, sparsely populated, and fertile New Russia. The most obvious turn of state reasoning was to encourage the non-productive Jewish mass being expelled from the villages to take up farming in New Russia. Ten years earlier, Catherine tried to implement this encouragement by imposing a double tax on Jews, but offered them a complete exemption from it if they moved to New Russia for agriculture. However, this double tax (frequently mentioned by Jewish historians) was not realistic, partly because there was no accounting of the Jewish population; only the kahal knew it and hid almost half of its numbers from the authorities. (By 1808, it was no longer enforced.) That Catherine-era incentive did not motivate any Jews to relocate.

Now, specifically and only for Jews, 30,000 dessiatinas of land were allocated in New Russia "for the first time," meaning with possible additional allotments as needed. The government offered substantial benefits for the settlers: acquisition in New Russia of 40 dessiatinas of state land per family for hereditary use (not ownership) (the average peasant land allotment in Russia was several dessiatinas, rarely over ten), cash loans for relocation and setting up a farm (buying livestock, equipment, etc., with loans to be repaid only after 10 years and then over another 10 years), as well as the preliminary construction of log huts for the settlers (in this region, not only all peasants but even some landlords had clay houses) — and exemption from taxes for 10 years, all while maintaining personal freedom (during the serfdom era) and under the protection of the authorities⁴². (According to the Statute of 1804, Jews were already exempt from military service obligations, with a monetary compensation included in their tax payments.)

Enlightened Jewish figures, who were still very few in number at the time (Notkin, Levinson), also supported this state initiative — "this should be achieved through measures of encouragement, and not at all by coercion" — wisely understanding the necessity for their people to transition to productive labor.

The entire 80-year — and torturous — epic of Jewish agriculture in Russia is represented in the voluminous, painstaking work of the Jew V.N. Nikitin, who was taken as a child into the cantonists (where he received this name), and then devoted many years to studying the archives of the most extensive — unpublished — official correspondence in St. Petersburg and New Russia. All of this is richly presented in his book, layered with a multitude of documents and statistics, with repeated repetition, sometimes contradictory reports from differently minded inspectors over years far apart, with detailed tables, not always complete, and this has not been organized by anyone subsequently, — and constitutes, for our very brief overview here, material excessively rich. Nevertheless, we will attempt, by quoting closely, to extract from it a comprehensive and vivid picture.

The government's goal, Nikitin acknowledges, besides the state task of developing vast uninhabited lands, was to resettle Jews in more spacious conditions than they were living, to attract them to productive physical labor, and to remove them from "harmful occupations," under which they "en masse, willingly or unwillingly, aggravated the already unenviable existence of serf peasants." "The government… proposed that they turn to agriculture," with the aim of "improving their own living conditions… The government… did not entice Jews with promises, but on the contrary, strictly limited the transportation of more than 300 families per year"⁴³, delaying resettlement until houses were built on the sites, and invited Jews to send scouts to New Russia for exploration in the meantime.

The idea initially was benevolent, but it did not match the sentiments of the Jewish settlers and the limited organizational capabilities of the Russian administration. The plan was doomed from the start because agriculture is a great art cultivated only through generations, and against people's will, or in their indifference, one cannot successfully settle them on the land.

30,000 dessiatinas were allocated for Jews in Novorossiya, and then for decades, it was preserved exclusively for them. (Publicist I.G. Orshansky later expressed the opinion that Jewish agriculture could be successful only by transferring state lands to the Jews right there, nearby, in Belarus, where the rural way of life was visible to them⁴⁴. But there were no such lands there, for example, in the Grodno province, only 200 dessiatinas — and this in the context of poor, infertile soils, "where the entire population suffered from crop failure"⁴⁵.)

However, "the Jews were far from rushing to become farmers." Initially, only three dozen families wanted to resettle. The Jews hoped that perhaps the decree for their expulsion from the villages of the Western region, which was given a three-year period to take effect in 1804, might be canceled or not enforced at all. Yet, it did not begin. But the fatal deadline — January 1, 1808 — was approaching, and they were already being moved from villages to small towns under escort, and from 1806, the movement of Jews to resettlement finally began, especially as rumors about its profitability spread. Now, applications were being submitted en masse, "they rushed… as to the promised land… just like their ancestors from the land of Chaldea to the land of Canaan", and some even "secretly went there in groups, without permission and even without passports." (Some who had already obtained a passport sold it to people from another stage of the party, and then requested a new one as if it had been lost.) The number of those wishing to move "increases day by day", and all "persistently ask for land, housing, and food"⁴⁶.

The influx was greater than the Trustee Office for Jewish Settlers, founded in the Kherson Governorate, was prepared to handle: they couldn't keep up with building houses, digging wells, and the establishment was hindered by the steppe distances, and the lack of craftsmen, doctors, and veterinarians. The government "did not spare money, sensible orders, or sympathy for the settlers," but Governor Richelieu in 1807 requested to limit the pace of settlement to 200-300 families per year, and only those who wished to resettle at their own expense were to be accepted without limit. "In case of crop failure, it would be necessary to feed these people for several years in a row." (The poorest settlers received daily rations.) — However, governors of the Western region began to release applicants outside of organized groups — and precise records of how many settlers left were lost. This led to their hardships on the way, poverty, diseases, and deaths⁴⁷. And some — simply disappeared en route.

The steppe distances (where it was a hundred, and in some places up to three hundred versts from the colony to the office) and the administration's unpreparedness for accurate record-keeping and proper distribution resulted in some settlers receiving more, others less; there were complaints about not receiving rations and loans. The few overseers of the colonies couldn't keep up with their duties. (Overseers were paid a meager salary, often didn't have their own horses, and would walk the lands on foot.) There were settlers who, even after two years in the new place, had neither a household, nor crops, nor bread. Such destitute individuals were let go wherever they wished. There were "requests from Jews to be excluded from the agricultural status," after which they were released from the settlers back to their previous status of townsfolk, but "of those released, not even a fifth returned, instead indulging in idleness." (Along with the dismissed, the loans issued to them were also lost.) Some settlers "would appear in the colonies and then disappear without asking and without a trace," some wandered around the nearest towns — "trading in the old manner"⁴⁸.

Many reports from the agency and inspectors reflect how the new settlers managed their households. To the settlers "who do not know how to start or finish anything," state peasants were hired to teach them; thus, tilling was "mostly done by hiring Russian workers." The habit was adopted: "to fix deficiencies with hired labor." They only sow a minor part of the allocated land and use not the best seeds for sowing, and some, although they received special seeds for sowing, do not plow the land or sow at all, or vainly waste the seeds during sowing and lose them during harvesting. Due to inexperience, they break tools, or even outright sell agricultural implements. They do not know how to herd. "They slaughter livestock for food, and then complain about the lack of livestock," others sell the received livestock and buy bread with the money. They do not stockpile dung bricks, and the houses become damp due to the lack of fuel; and houses falling into decay are not repaired. They do not plant gardens. The straw, prepared to feed the livestock, is used to heat the houses. Due to their inability to reap, mow, and thresh, the settlers cannot even get hired for work in neighboring villages, they are not taken. Due to the unclean keeping of dwellings — diseases arise. They "did not expect at all that they would be forced to engage in agricultural work," clearly, they understood — farming by hired workers, and when the livestock multiplies — to trade and at fairs. The settlers still "hope for the treasury's assistance." They complain that "they are brought to the most miserable condition," — and it is indeed so; that they — wore out to rags, and this is also true, — but, the inspection objects: "they had no clothes due to laziness, because they did not keep sheep, did not sow flax [and] hemp," and women did not spin or weave. (Yes, of course, concluded one of the inspectors in his report, the Jews did not cope with farming due to "the habit of carefree life, little diligence, and inexperience in agricultural work." However, he considers it fair to add: "one needs to be prepared for farming from an early age; Jews, having lived a life of luxury until the ages of 45 and 50, — cannot quickly become farmers" ⁴⁹.) The treasury's expenses on the settlers required twice and thrice the planned amounts, constantly requesting additions. Richelieu asserted that complaints "come from the idle ones, not from the good housekeepers," although, another report notes, "to their greater misfortune, since their settlement, 'not a single year were they cheered by a decent harvest'" ⁵⁰.

From St. Petersburg, they responded to "many facts that reached the ministry… that Jews deliberately avoided farming" as follows: "The government sacrificed treasury assistance in the hope that they would be farmers not just in name but in reality." "Some of the settlers, without encouraging them to be industrious, can remain a loss to the treasury for a long time"⁵¹.

The influx of Jewish settlers at the expense of the treasury to New Russia, unmanaged and not secured by the success of the settlement, was temporarily halted in 1810. In 1811, the Senate restored the right of Jews to hold wine leases in the treasury villages of the settlement line provinces, and when this became known in New Russia, it "shook many people's desire to remain farmers and, despite the ban on releasing them, some left without written permission and took up tavern-keeping in the landlord and treasury villages." — By 1812, it was revealed that out of 848 families that had initially settled, only 538 were still present, 88 families were away (having gone to trade in Kherson, Mykolaiv, Odessa, even in Poland), and the rest were completely gone, disappeared. — And this whole experiment, such a "settlement was completely new, not only in Russia but, it seems, in all of Europe"⁵².

The government now found that, due to the Jews' "recognized aversion to agriculture, ignorance of how to engage in it, and the oversights of the overseers," this resettlement "caused considerable disruption and therefore the Jews could be deemed deserving of leniency." However, they also questioned: "how to secure the return of the government debt from those who would be allowed to withdraw from being farmers; how to rectify, without burdening the treasury, the shortcomings of those who remain farmers, and how to alleviate the plight of these people, who have suffered many hardships and have been driven to extremes?" — Moreover, the overseers had not only a shortage in numbers and means, and not just oversights — there was also negligence, absence, delays in the distribution of grain or resources; they indifferently watched as Jews sold off their property; and even exploited them: for a bribe they allowed long leaves of absence, even for the main breadwinners in the family, which immediately led to the destruction of the household.

Improvements in the condition of the Jewish colonies after 1810-1812 were hard to discern. "Tools were lost, broken, or pawned by the Jews," "oxen were again butchered, stolen, and resold," "fields were sown late" (waiting for warmth), sowed "with poor seeds" and as close to their homes as possible, on the same spot, not breaking new ground, and "some sowed for 5 and more years in a row on plowed fields" without rotating crops, not replacing grain with potatoes. Year after year, the "harvest was insufficient" and even again "seeds were not collected." (But precisely the failures of harvests favored the settlers: they gained the right to temporary leave.) They did not take care of livestock either. Their oxen were rented out, with the oxen "they engaged in carting, exhausting them, not feeding, or traded and butchered them for food, then declaring them dead," — and the authorities either issued new ones or allowed them to earn money. "Did not bother to build sturdy livestock enclosures, from which stealing livestock at night would be difficult; at nighttime, they gave themselves over to endless sleep; employed children or lazy people as shepherds, who poorly supervised the integrity of the herds," and on holidays and Saturdays, they let them out without shepherds at all (on Saturday — and chasing thieves was not allowed). — And they grumbled at their rare co-religionists who worked hard and obtained excellent harvests; such could receive the Old Testament curse of herem: that "they would show the authorities the capability of Jews for farming, and they would be forced to engage in it." They "did not apply themselves to farming… intended to secretly practice agriculture weakly, so as to continually demonstrate their needs and show their incapability," they wanted to return "especially to wine selling, again allowed to their co-religionists." — Livestock, tools, and seeds were bought for them several times, loans were again and again given for sustenance. "Very many, having received a loan and considering themselves owners, — appeared in the settlements only at the time of cash distributions, and then… left… with the money to the surrounding towns and villages for trades," "traded the… land endowed," engaged in vagrancy, lived "in Russian villages for several months, sometimes even during the most needed work times," "sustained themselves… by deceiving… peasants." Accountability tables repeatedly show that half of the families were absent without leave or with passports, and many — without a trace. (Here is the completely disorganized Izrailevka of the Kherson province, "its settlers were self-paying, considered themselves entitled to engage in light trades, and settled only to enjoy the privileges," out of 32 families, 13 lived on site, these sowed only for show, the rest "ran taverns in neighboring districts.") ⁵⁴

Numerous inspections specifically and again note that "the aversion of the Jewish female population from agricultural work especially hindered… the welfare" of Jewish settlers. "Jewish women, who had begun to accustom themselves to farming, — later avoided this occupation." — "Upon the marriage of Jewish women, — their parents made agreements with future sons-in-law that they would not force them to do heavy field work or even carry water, plaster houses, but would hire workers for this; they would prepare for them, for holidays, 'outfits, fox and rabbit fur coats, bracelets, headwear, and even pearls.' These conditions forced young men 'to satisfy the whims of their wives — by ruining their households'"; they have "items serving for luxury and vanity," silk, silver, and gold, — while other settlers do not have winter clothes at all. Excessively early marriages led to "a rapid and significant increase in the number of Jews, more so than other settlers." And then, by separating young families become small and incapable of work. By concentrating several families in a few houses, slovenliness and typhus are created. (And some women marry townspeople — and thus leave the settlements altogether.)⁵⁵

As reported by the Guardian Office, repeated complaints were heard from Jewish settlers from various colonies — both about the steppe land being "so hard that it had to be plowed with four pairs of oxen," and about crop failures, and the lack of water, absence of fuel, the harsh and deadly climate leading to diseases, hail, locusts. Exaggerated complaints about overseers also came in, which upon examination turned out to be nonsensical. The settlers "immediately complained about their slightest grievances," "always exaggerated their claims," but "when they were right — they received satisfaction through the office." There were no complaints about restrictions in worship and about the schools established in the settlements (as of 1829, there were 40 teachers for 8 colonies)⁵⁶.

However, Nikitin writes, in the same steppe, during the same years, the same virgin lands were being developed under the same locust infestations by German colonists, Mennonites, and Bulgarians — they endured the same years of crop failures and the same diseases — but they always had both bread and livestock, lived in beautiful houses, with many farm buildings, abundant gardens, and homes amidst greenery. (The difference was especially striking when individual German colonists were invited to live in Jewish colonies, so they could transfer their experience and set an example — German estates stood out from the first glance.) There were also neighboring Russian settlements, and they had better harvests than the Jews. (However, some had already managed to owe more prosperous Jews and worked off their debts with field labor.) Russian peasants, Nikitin notes in explanation, "from the serfdom oppression that weighed upon them… got used to everything and stoically endured all hardships." And so for the Jewish colonists, after the losses they suffered from various misfortunes, "the steppe freedom somewhat rescued them… it attracted runaway serfs from everywhere, who paid the settled colonists: for pursuit — with robbery, cattle theft, and 'red roosters', and for hospitality — with diligent, accustomed physical labor. The Jewish farmers, as sensible and practical people, met the vagrants with kindness and greeting, for which the vagrants gladly helped them plow, sow, and reap"; and some, to better hide, even converted to Judaism. "These cases were revealed" — and in 1820, the government prohibited Jews from employing Christians⁵⁷.

Meanwhile, by 1817, the term of the 10-year tax privileges for Jewish settlers was ending, and now they were to be equated in taxes with state peasants. A movement began — from the settlers with collective petitions, but also among officials: to request an extension of the privileges for another 15 years. Prince Golitsyn, a personal friend of Alexander I, Minister of Education and Religious Affairs, who also dealt with all matters concerning the Jews, made a decision: to defer the taxes for the Jews for another 5 years, and the repayment of loans — for 30 years. "To the credit of the St. Petersburg authorities, it must be noted that previously no Jewish petitions were left without attention"⁵⁸.

Among those petitions from Jewish settlers, Nikitin found a "remarkably characteristic, in its content, petition":

"Experience has proven that as much as farming is necessary for humanity, it is equally considered the simplest of tasks, requiring more physical strength than mental ingenuity. Thus, across the entire globe, only those who, by their simplicity, are incapable of the most important practices that make up the class of industrialists or merchants have always been segregated to this occupation. To these latter, requiring abilities and education, serving as the primary means of enriching states, preference and special respect have always been given over farmers… However, slanderous reports about Jews to the Russian government succeeded in depriving Jews of the freedom to engage in their most advantageous commercial activities, forcing them to join the ranks known as the 'black people' — the farmers. Expelled from the villages in 1807-1809, more than 200,000 people" (mostly involved in the wine trade) "were forced to resettle in… uninhabited places." And thus, they requested: to be named again as "townspeople, with the right according to passports to leave freely wherever one wishes"⁵⁹.

Very clear, conscious formulations.

From 1814 to 1823, Jewish farms did not prosper at all. Statistical tables showed that less than ⅔ of a deciatina was cultivated per census soul. And with their "avoidance of hard labor" (in the supervisors' assessment), they compensated with trade and crafts⁶⁰.

Half a century later, the Jewish publicist I.G. Orshansky explained: "It's very natural that Jews, who moved here to engage in farming, seeing before them such a vast and untapped field of industrial activity, rushed to occupations that were congenial and dear to them, promising a more abundant harvest in the city than what they could expect as farmers. … So why demand that they definitely take up farming, which is bound to go poorly for them?" — "given the strongly enticing bustling activity of emerging cities"⁶¹.

To the provisional Russian authorities, it seemed otherwise: subsequently, "Jews 'can become useful farmers', whereas 'having registered as townspeople, they will increase the number of urban idlers'"⁶². And so, 300,000 rubles had already been spent on 9 Jewish colonies — a huge sum at the penny prices of the time.

By 1822, another 5-year tax deferment had expired — but the state of the Jewish farms required further concessions and subsidies: "the most dire situation of the settlers" was noted, amid "their entrenched idleness, diseases, mortality, crop failures, and their ignorance of farming work"⁶³.

Meanwhile, there were very successful harvests in 1816, 1817, and 1822, which were also beneficial for the Jews. Indeed, agricultural skills were gradually being acquired by the younger Jewish generation. Seeing that successful harvests were indeed achievable, the settlers began to call their countrymen from Belarus and Lithuania, where there had just been a series of crop failures — and Jewish families from there began to press both through legal petitions and by leaving without permission. Most importantly, by 1824, a final, hitherto unexecuted, eviction from the villages of the Western region was threatened, and in 1821, as already mentioned, measures were taken to stop Jewish distilling in Chernihiv province and then three others. The governors of the Western region let the petitioners go, disregarding how much reserve land in Novorossiya, allocated for Jews, was still available. Reports from Novorossiya indicated that they could not accept more than 200 families per year — yet 1,800 families had already set off (some dispersed and settled along the way). Now, government assistance was denied to the migrants (although a 10-year tax concession was still in place), — but the Kahals themselves were interested in sending off the poor to reduce their own future taxes — and partly supplied the migrants with funds from community resources. (They also sent the sick, the elderly, and large families with few able-bodied members, who were not in demand by agriculture; and when the authorities required written consent from those being sent, lists of meaningless signatures were compiled⁶⁴.) But of the 435 families that arrived in the Dnepropetrovsk region by 1823, only two families could settle on their own initiative. And what motivated them was "the endless hope of the Jews for government help, which easily distracted the newly arrived from labor." From Belarus, during 1822, 1,016 families arrived in Novorossiya, and the colonies quickly filled up with temporarily sheltered settlers; due to excessive crowding and unclean conditions, diseases arose⁶⁵.

And in 1823, Alexander I prohibited the resettlement of Jews. Then, in 1824 and 1825, there were new crop failures, and Jewish settlers were again supported with loans (but, to avoid raising hopes, it was disguised from the settlers themselves: supposedly arbitrary disbursement by the overseer or payment for some work). And — passports were again issued to go to the city. As for the start of tax payments, even by those who had settled 18 years ago — there could be no question of that⁶⁶.

And at the same time, in 1823, "a supreme decree was issued… that in the Belarusian provinces, Jews should cease wine-making activities and the holding of leases and postal services by 1824, and by 1825" they should have permanently resettled "to cities and towns". And so — the resettlement began. And by January 1824, "about twenty thousand" had been relocated. To this, the Sovereign demanded "attention to 'the methods of industry and sustenance'" of the Jews during this resettlement, "so that they, remaining without shelter, would not suffer the most severe needs in their sustenance in this situation"⁶⁷. — However, although a committee of four ministers was established for this purpose (the "ministerial committee"—the 4th on the Jewish question), there was no success in terms of treasury resources, administrative agility, or in restructuring the social structure of the Jewish society, which was an insurmountable task from the outside.

And in this, as in many things before, we see Emperor Alexander I characterized by impulsiveness and a lack of consistent will (as well as in his inaction towards the brewing secret societies preparing to overthrow the throne). However, it would be wrong to attribute his decisions to a lack of goodwill towards the Jews. On the contrary, he sincerely listened to their needs, even during the war of 1812-1814 at the army's headquarters, he kept Jewish deputies — Zundel Sonnenberg and Leizer Dillon, who "advocated for the Jews". (Dillon, however, was soon brought to trial for embezzling a quarter of a million rubles of government money and extorting landowners. Sonnenberg, on the other hand, maintained closeness to the Sovereign for a long time.) In St. Petersburg, by Alexander's command (1814), a permanent Jewish deputation operated for several years, for which money was collected among Jews, as "large secret expenses in government institutions were anticipated". The deputies petitioned to allow Jews across Russia "trade, leasing, and distilling of wine", "to grant a tax break", "to forgive arrears", to lift restrictions on the number of Jews as members of magistrates, — the Sovereign listened favorably and promised—however, this was not implemented⁶⁸.

In 1817, Lewis Way, a lawyer and advocate for Jewish equality from the London Missionary Society, visited Russia with the specific goal of understanding the situation of Jews in Russia. He had a conversation with Alexander I and presented him with a memorandum. "Convinced that the Jews represent a royal nation, Way argued that all Christian peoples, having received salvation through the Jews, should accord them the greatest honors and benefits." — Such reasoning was very coherent to Alexander I in his later life, with a mystical mindset. He and his government were wary of "touching the religious precepts of the Jews with an incautious hand". Alexander had great respect for the ancient people of the Old Testament, their religion, and sympathized with their current situation. But from this, he utopically sought: how to peacefully transition this people into the New Testament. — Thus, with the participation of the emperor, the "Society of Israelite Christians" was established in the same year of 1817, that is, Jews who had converted to Christianity (not necessarily to Orthodoxy); they received a number of significant advantages: they could freely "trade and engage in crafts everywhere in Russia, without registering in guilds and workshops; they and all their descendants were forever exempt from civil and military service". — However, this "Society" did not experience an influx of converted Jews and failed⁶⁹.

Given Alexander I's favor towards the Jews, he was even more confident in halting the emerging accusations against them of ritual murders. (Such accusations were altogether unknown in Russia before the partitions of Poland, from whence they came. In Poland itself, they originated in the 16th century—and were also transmitted there from Europe, where they first appeared in England in 1144, and later recurred in the 11th to 12th centuries in Spain, France, England, and Germany. Both popes and kings fought against them, but the accusations did not cease even in the 14th to 15th centuries.) The first such trial in Russia occurred in Senno, near Vitebsk, in 1799, and the accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence. The Grodno trial (1816) was not only halted "by the highest command," but also prompted the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs Golitsyn to dispatch a decree to all provincial authorities: henceforth, do not accuse Jews "of murdering Christian children 'without any evidence, based solely on prejudice'"⁷⁰. — In 1822-23, another such case arose in Velizh, also in the Vitebsk region. But the Vitebsk court in 1824 decreed: the Jews, "upon whom, based generally on the testimony of many Christians, suspicion of murdering this boy to obtain his blood was conjecturally raised, are to be left without any suspicion"⁷¹.

However, having reigned for a quarter of a century, Alexander I never managed to focus on finding and implementing a consistent and beneficial solution to the Jewish question in Russia for all parties involved.

What is to be done with this separate population that is still not integrated into Russia and continues to grow numerically? — pondered Decembrist opponent of the emperor, Pestel, seeking solutions for the future Russia he intended to lead. In "Russian Truth," he proposed two solutions. One is to truly integrate Jews with the Christian population of Russia: "Above all, it is necessary to aim at eliminating the harmful influence for Christians of the close connections maintained among Jews or directed against Christians, which completely separate them from all other citizens… Convene the most learned rabbis and the wisest Jews, hear their presentations, and then arrange measures… If Russia does not expel Jews, then all the more they should not place themselves in a hostile relationship to Christians." The second solution "consists in assisting Jews to establish a separate state in some part of Asia Minor. For this, a collection point for the Jewish people should be designated and some troops provided to support them." (Is this not very close to the future Zionist idea?) All Russian and Polish Jews together make up more than two million. "For such a number of people seeking a homeland, it will not be difficult to overcome all obstacles that the Turks might oppose, and, passing through all of European Turkey, to cross into Asia and there, having occupied sufficient places and lands, to establish a separate Jewish state." However, Pestel soberly states: "This colossal enterprise requires special circumstances and truly ingenious entrepreneurship"⁷².

Another Decembrist, Nikita Muravyov, specified in his constitutional draft that "Jews may enjoy the rights of citizens in places currently settled by them, but the freedom to settle in other areas shall depend on special decrees of the Supreme People's Assembly"⁷³.

Meanwhile, the internal kahal organization of the Jewish population in Russia resisted the encroachment of state authority and all external influences in many ways and with much effort. And—how to view this. From an Orthodox-religious perspective, as some Jewish authors explain: the diaspora is a historical punishment for Israel's past sins. It must be endured in such a way as to earn forgiveness from the Lord and a return to Palestine. To achieve this, one must strictly live according to the Law and not mix with surrounding nations, which is itself a test.

For a liberal Jewish historian of the early 20th century: "The ruling class, incapable of creative work and alien to the spirit of the age, directed its energy towards shielding the petrified religious-national life from the impacts of time—both external and internal." The kahal harshly suppressed even the weakest voices of protest. "The cultural-educational reform outlined by the Regulation of 1804 was intended to superficially smooth the religious-national alienation of the Jews, without resorting to coercion and even 'sparing their very prejudices'"; "these regulations greatly alarmed the kahal… they harbored a threat to its dominance over the people," and especially sensitive for the kahal among all the clauses of the Regulation was "the prohibition of subjecting dissenters to cherem"; and more strictly: "to keep the people in servile subjection to a societal structure that had evolved over centuries, even a change of clothes could not be permitted"⁷⁴. However, it cannot be denied that the kahals also had sensible regulatory rights for Jewish life, such as the rule of hazaka — allowing or prohibiting individual community members from taking a particular lease or choosing a particular occupation, thereby curtailing excessive intra-Jewish competition⁷⁵. "Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone" (Deut. 19:14).

In 1808, an anonymous Jew (fearing reprisal from the kahal) submitted a memorandum to the Minister of Internal Affairs titled "Some Observations Concerning the Welfare of Jews". In it, he wrote: "Many do not regard the countless rituals and rules as sacred… these distract attention from all that is useful, enslave the people to prejudices, consume most of their time by their number, and deprive Jews of 'the convenience of being good citizens'". He pointed out that "rabbis, in their own interests, have ensnared life with a web of decrees", and in their hands were concentrated spiritual, legislative, and police powers, and thus "studying the Talmud and performing rituals, as the sole means to distinguish oneself and gain prosperity, became 'the principal dream of Jewish aspirations'"; and although the Regulation "limited the rights of rabbis and kahals, 'the spirit among the people remained the same'". The author of the memorandum considered "the rabbis and kahal to be the culprits behind the people's ignorance and poverty"⁷⁶.

Another Jewish public figure, Giller Markevich, originally from Prussia, wrote that members of the Vilna Kahal, with the assistance of the local administration, subjected anyone who exposed their illegal actions to severe persecution; now deprived of the right to cherem, they kept their whistleblowers "‘in prison for a long time… And if someone… found a way to write to the higher government from prison, they were promptly dispatched to the next world by the servants'; when such crimes were uncovered, members of the kahal spent large sums of money to cover up the case." And Yu.I. Hessen believes that this report "is not groundless, and is fair to some degree regarding other kahals as well"⁷⁷. Examples of direct murders ordered by the kahal can also be found in the works of other Jewish historians.

Because the kahals, in their opposition to government measures, relied mostly on the religious significance of their actions, "the kahal-rabbinical alliance, striving to retain power over the masses, assured the government that every action of a Jew was subject to some religious requirement; the role of religion was exaggerated," — from this "in bureaucratic circles there prevailed a view of Jews not as members of various social groups, but as a tightly bonded… unit", which led to the vices and misdemeanors of individual Jews being explained not by particular circumstances in each case, but "as supposedly the immoral foundation of Jewish doctrine"⁷⁸.

"The Kahal-Rabbinic Union did not want to see or hear anything. It spread a heavy veil of its power over the masses… The power of the kahal expanded, despite the fact that the rights of the kahal elders and rabbis were curtailed by the Statute of 1804. The loss was compensated for by the fact that the kahal had acquired—admittedly, only to a certain extent—the role of a representative institution which it had enjoyed in Poland. The kahal owed the strengthening of its significance to the institution of deputies." Such a deputation from the Jewish communities of the western provinces for permanent discussion with the government on issues of Jewish life was elected in 1807 and periodically operated for 18 years. The deputies first of all tried to restore to the rabbis the right to excommunicate; they "declared that depriving rabbis of the right to punish dissenters was contrary to the 'spiritual respect' that Jews 'by law are obliged to have towards the rabbis'". The deputies managed to convince members of the Committee (Senator Popov, 1809) that the power of the rabbis was the support of the Russian governmental authority. "The Committee members could not withstand the threat that, having defied the rabbis' authority, the Jews would fall into 'debauchery'," and the Committee "was ready to preserve the entire archaic order intact, just to avoid the dreadful consequences that the deputies spoke of… The Committee did not realize who the deputies considered to be 'criminals of spiritual law'; they did not suspect that such were also those who aspired to education"; "the deputies directed efforts to strengthen the power of the kahal, to stop the cultural movement right at its inception"⁷⁹. The deputies also achieved the repeal of the previously introduced restrictions and measures against the traditional Jewish medieval attire, which so sharply distinguished the Jews from the rest of the world. Even in Riga, "the law regarding the use of German dress by Jews was nowhere observed," — and the law was postponed by the Sovereign himself — until future new legislation⁸⁰.

But not all of the deputies' petitions were satisfied. Money was needed, and "to get money, the deputies intimidated [their] communities, telling them in dark colors about the intentions of the government and conveying the capital rumors to them in an exaggerated form." Markevich in 1820 accused the deputies "of deliberately spreading false information… in order to force the population to contribute the required sums to the kahal"⁸¹.

In 1825, the institution of Jewish deputies was abolished.

The tension between the authorities and the kahals was also caused by the fact that the kahals, being the only entities authorized to collect the poll tax from the Jewish population, "concealed 'souls' during revisions," hiding them in significant numbers. "The government wanted to know the exact number of the Jewish population in order to levy the corresponding tax amount," and it was a major concern to ascertain this number⁸². For example, in Berdichev, "the unregistered Jewish population… was always about half of the total number of actual Jewish residents"⁸³. (According to official data, which the government could establish by 1818, there were 677,000 Jews, this was already an increased figure: for instance, compared to 1812, the number of men suddenly doubled, — but still the figure was greatly underestimated, and to this should also be added about 400,000 Jews in the Kingdom of Poland.) However, even with these reduced numbers reported by the kahals, there were shortfalls in tax collection every year, and not only were they not covered, but they grew year by year. The dissatisfaction with such undeniable concealment and arrears (along with the smuggling trade) was expressed to the Jewish representatives by Alexander I himself. In 1817, a decree was issued to lift the accumulated fines, penalties, and all previous tax arrears, forgiving everyone who had been penalized for incorrect registration of souls, — but on the condition that from now on the kahals would report everything honestly⁸⁴. However, this "brought no relief. In 1820, the finance minister stated that all measures aimed at the economic rehabilitation of the Jewish people remained ineffective… Many of the Jews roamed without documents; a new census established a number of souls that was two, three, or even more times higher than the figures previously indicated by Jewish societies"⁸⁵.

And the Jewish population continued to grow significantly. Many researchers consider early marriages established among Jews at that time to be a major reason for this growth: boys from 13 years of age, girls from 12. In the mentioned anonymous report of 1808, that unknown Jew wrote that this custom of early marriages "is the root of countless evils" and prevents Jews from breaking away "from those ingrained customs and affairs with which they bring upon themselves general indignation and are harmful to themselves and others." It became established that "those who do not marry at an early age are despised among Jews" and "even the poorest make the ultimate effort to marry off their children as soon as possible, although these newlyweds await the torments of a beggarly existence. Early marriages were introduced by rabbis who derived income from them. Those who zealously study the Talmud and strictly observe the rituals are more likely to find a profitable marriage… People who marry early engage only in the study of the Talmud, and when the time finally comes for independent living, these heads of families, completely unprepared for work, completely ignorant of life, turn to wine trading and petty commerce." The same applies to craft: "having married, a fifteen-year-old apprentice no longer learns his trade but becomes the master himself and 'only spoils the work'"⁸⁶. (In the mid-1820s, "a rumor spread in the Grodno and Vilna provinces that it would be forbidden to marry before mature age, and therefore marriages between even nine-year-old children were hastily made"⁸⁷.)

Early marriages weakened the vitality of the Jewish community. With such a swarm-like existence, such a density of population, and competition in homogenous occupations—how could poverty not arise? The policy of the kahals themselves contributed to "the deterioration of their [the Jews'] material situation"⁸⁸.

Menasseh Ilier, a distinguished Talmudist but also an advocate for enlightenment, printed and distributed to rabbis his book in 1807 (which was soon withdrawn from circulation by the rabbinate, and his next book was subject to mass burning). In it, he "highlighted the dark sides of Jewish life. Poverty, he said, is extraordinarily great, but could it be otherwise when there are more Jewish mouths to feed than working hands? It must be impressed upon the masses that the means of living should be obtained by their own labor… Young people, having no earnings, enter into marriage, hoping for divine mercy and for the father-in-law's purse, but when this support collapses, they, already burdened with families, rush into the first available occupation, even if it's not an honest one. In droves, they take up trade, but it cannot feed everyone, hence they resort to deceit. This is why it would be desirable for Jews to turn to agriculture. An army of idlers, under the guise of 'scholars,' lives on charity and at the expense of the community. No one cares about the people: the rich are preoccupied with thoughts of gain, and the rabbis—with disputes between Hasidim and Mitnagdim" (Orthodox Jews), and the only concern of Jewish leaders is to prevent "the misfortune in the form of government orders, even if they carried benefit for the people"⁸⁹.

And so, "the source of livelihood for a significant part of the Jewish population was small-scale trade-industrial and intermediary activities," "Jews excessively filled the cities with agency work and petty trade"⁹⁰.

And how could the economy of the Jewish people be healthy under such circumstances?

However, a later Jewish author, from the mid-20th century, writes about that time: "Indeed, the Jewish masses lived in cramped and poor conditions. But the Jewish community as a whole was not impoverished"⁹¹.

And here, testimonies from an unexpected side are not without interest: how participants of Napoleon's army in 1812, which was passing through these places, saw the life of Jews in the western provinces. Near Dokshitsy, the Jews "were wealthy and prosperous, they conducted extensive trade with all of Russian Poland and even attended the Leipzig Fair." In Hlybokaye, "Jews had the right to distill spirits and produce vodka and mead," they were "lessees or owners of inns, taverns, and coaching inns located on major roads." — The Jews of Mogilev "were prosperous and conducted extensive trade" (although "alongside them was terrible poverty"). "Almost all local Jews had licenses to trade in spirits. Financial operations were highly developed among them." Another external witness stated: "In Kyiv… countless numbers of Jews." — A common feature of Jewish life was contentment, though not universal⁹².

Observers from a psychological and everyday life perspective found "characteristic features" of Russian Jewry: "constant vigilance… towards their fate and uniqueness… in their ways of struggle and self-defense." Much was held by the regimen — the presence of "an authoritative and respected social form [for] preserving… a distinctive way of life"; "the adaptation of the people to new conditions was largely a collective adaptation," rather than an individual one⁹³.

And one must properly appreciate the organic cohesion and unity that in the first half of the 19th century "gave Russian Jewry the character of a distinct world. This world was narrow, limited, subjected to oppressions, associated with suffering and deprivation, but still, it was a whole world. A person did not suffocate in it. In this world, one could feel the joy of life, one could find in it both material and spiritual sustenance, and one could build a life according to one's own taste and manner… The fact that the spiritual character of the community was connected with traditional scholarship and the Jewish language was also significant"⁹⁴.

Although another author from the same collection on Russian Jewry also notes that "the lack of rights, material need, and social degradation hindered the growth of self-respect among the people"⁹⁵.

As with nearly every issue related to Jewry, the picture of those years presented here is complex. It is important to continuously acknowledge this complexity in all discussions going forward, always keeping it in mind and not being confused by apparent contradictions between different authors.

"Once, before the expulsion from Spain, having been at the forefront of progress among nations, Eastern European Jewry had reached [by the first half of the 18th century] a state of complete cultural depletion. Lacking rights and isolated from the surrounding world, it turned inward. The Renaissance era passed by without touching it, and it was also bypassed by the intellectual movement of the 18th century in Europe. But this Jewry was strong within itself. Bound by countless religious prescriptions and prohibitions, the Jew not only did not find them burdensome but saw in them a source of endless joys. His mind found satisfaction in the subtle dialectics of the Talmud, and his feelings in the mysticism of the Kabbalah. Even the study of the Bible was relegated to the background, and knowledge of grammar was considered almost a crime"⁹⁶.

A strong movement of Jews towards modern enlightenment began in the second half of the 18th century in Prussia and was called Haskalah (Enlightenment). It was a movement of intellectual awakening, striving to assimilate European education, to elevate the prestige of Jewry, which had been demeaned in the eyes of other nations. Along with critical examination of the historical past of Jews, the figures of Haskalah— "maskilim" ("enlightened ones")—wanted to harmoniously combine Jewish culture with European knowledge⁹⁷. Initially, they intended to remain within traditional Judaism, but, becoming engrossed, they began to sacrifice Jewish tradition and lean towards assimilation, while showing "contemptuous attitude… towards the folk language"⁹⁸ (i.e., Yiddish). In Prussia, this movement lasted only one generation but quickly spread to the Slavic provinces of the Austrian Empire—Bohemia, Galicia. In Galicia, proponents of Haskalah, with an even greater assimilative slant, were already ready to forcibly introduce enlightenment to the Jewish masses, and even "often resorted to the help of the authorities" for this purpose⁹⁹. — The border of Galicia with the western provinces of Russia was quite easily permeable by both people and influences. Thus, almost a century later, this movement also penetrated into Russia.

In Russia, already from the beginning of the 19th century, the government was precisely "striving to combat… Jewish 'separateness' beyond the realms of religion and worship," — euphemistically expressed by a Jewish author¹⁰⁰, nevertheless confirming that the government did not infringe upon the religion of Jews and their religious life. — We have already seen that the Statute of 1804 unreservedly opened the way for all Jewish children to schools, gymnasia, and universities. But! — "the efforts of the dominant Jewish class were directed towards nipping the planned cultural and educational reform in the bud"¹⁰¹, "the kahal exerted efforts to extinguish the slightest glimmers of enlightenment"¹⁰². To "preserve intact the religious and communal way of life that had long been established… both Rabbinism and Hasidism alike strove to thoroughly stamp out the young shoots of secular education"¹⁰³.

And so, "the broad masses of the Pale of Settlement looked upon the Russian school 'with horror and suspicion,' unwilling to even hear about it"¹⁰⁴. — In 1817, and then in 1821, there were cases in various provinces where the kahals prevented Jewish children from learning the Russian language and from attending any general schools. Jewish deputies in Saint Petersburg insisted that they "did not see the need for the establishment of [such] Jewish schools" where languages other than Hebrew would be taught¹⁰⁵. They recognized only the heder (a primary school in Hebrew) and yeshivot (advanced, for deeper study of the Talmud); there was a yeshiva "in almost every large community"¹⁰⁶.

The Jewish masses in Russia were as if in a state of pawn, from which they could not escape on their own.

But from among them emerged the first enlighteners, who, however, were too weak to shift anything without the support of the Russian authorities. First among them was Isaac-Ber Levinson, a scholar who had lived in Galicia and interacted there with figures of the Haskalah, and who considered not only the rabbinates but also the Hasidim to be responsible for many of the people's woes. Drawing on the Talmud and rabbinic literature, he argued in his book "Instruction to Israel" that there is no prohibition against Jews knowing foreign languages, especially the state language of the country they live in, which is so necessary in personal and public life; that familiarity with secular sciences also does not pose a threat to religious-national sentiment; and that the predominance of trade occupations contradicts both the Torah and reason, and that productive labor needs to be developed. — However, to publish this book, Levinson had to use a subsidy from the Ministry of Education, and he was convinced that cultural reform in Jewry could not be realized without the support of the highest authorities¹⁰⁷.

Then there was the Warsaw teacher, Gezhanovsky, who in a report to the authorities, unlike others, did not rely on the Talmud but decisively opposed it, attributing to the kahal and the rabbinate the "spiritual stagnation in which the people seemed petrified"; that only by diminishing their power could a secular school be introduced; melameds (teachers in hederim) should be tested and allowed to teach only if they are pedagogically and morally suitable; the kahal should be removed from financial management; and the permissible marriage age should be raised.

Even earlier than both of them, the aforementioned Tiller Markevich also wrote in a report to the Minister of Finance that to save the Jewish people from spiritual and economic decline, it was necessary to abolish the kahals; Jews should be taught languages, their factory labor should be organized, and — they should be allowed to trade freely throughout the country and use the services of Christians.

Later, in the 1830s, Litman Feigin, a merchant from Chernigov and a major supplier, reiterated much the same more insistently, through Benckendorff and to the hands of Nicholas I (Feigin enjoyed support in bureaucratic circles). He defended the Talmud but blamed the melameds, saying they were "the last ignoramuses" who teach theology "based on fanaticism," and "instill in children contempt for other sciences, as well as hatred towards non-believers." He too believed it was necessary to abolish the kahals. (Hessen, a consistent enemy of the kahal system, expresses that the kahal, with its "despotism," provoked "dull resentment" among the Jewish people¹⁰⁸.)

However, the path for the breakthrough of secular education into the Jewish milieu was still long and arduous. Exceptions were only Vilnius, where, influenced by connections with Germany, a group of intellectual "maskilim" was strengthened, and Odessa—the young capital of New Russia, with many Jewish emigrants from Galicia (due to border permeability), but also populated by a diversity of nationalities and bustling with trade activity—here the kahal did not feel strong, while the intelligentsia, on the contrary, felt independent and culturally (including in clothing and appearance) blended with the surrounding population¹⁰⁹. Although even "the majority of Odessa's Jews opposed the establishment of a" general education school¹¹⁰, largely through the efforts of the local administration in the 1830s, secular private Jewish schools emerged in both Odessa and Kishinev and were successful¹¹¹.

As the 19th century progressed, the Russian Jewish community's drive and breakthrough towards education continued to grow, having historical consequences for both Russia and the entire world in the 20th century. With a strong concentration of will, Russian Jewry managed to escape from this perilously ossified state and rise to a vibrant and diverse life. By the mid-19th century, a near revival and flourishing of Russian Jewry became visibly apparent—a movement of historic scale, not yet foreseen by anyone at the time.