In the second half of the 19th century, as the majority of Russian Jews faced ever greater immiseration, some managed to benefit from rapid economic changes, and few even acquired fabulous wealth. The most famous to do so were members of the Gunzburg family, who played outsized roles in Russian-Jewish life until the Bolshevik revolution. Reviewing a recent book about the family, Josh Meyers writes:

It was in Kamenets-Podolsk, a city in [what is now] western Ukraine, that the family’s ascent truly began. There in 1849, the family patriarch Joseph Efzel purchased a concession from the state monopoly to produce and sell alcoholic beverages in southern Ukraine and Crimea. In normal times this was a lucrative business, and Joseph Efzel was good at it. Choosing to produce beer and mead over vodka (which sold for a higher price, but was also more expensive to produce), he brought in record profits, overcoming the low margins with massive market share.

Joseph Efzel’s investments made him extremely rich; they also brought him political influence. The Russian state depended on alcohol taxes to remain solvent—it is estimated that 40 percent of state revenues came from alcohol sales in 1860. As a good earner, Joseph Efzel became a key partner for the Russian Empire, an essential cog in the machinery of state. In 1849 Joseph Efzel was declared an “honorary citizen” as opposed to an imperial subject out of gratitude for his success.

In the 1860s, the tsar began a program of political and economic reform, which offered new opportunities for Jews in general, and the Gunzburgs especially:

Notably for the Gunzburgs, Russia . . . decided to allow private banking for the first time in its history. . . . The step into banking allowed the Gunzburgs to enter two new worlds. On one hand, Joseph Efzel gained permission to settle in St. Petersburg, outside the Pale of Settlement—roughly encompassing present-day Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, and parts of Lithuania and Latvia—to which Jews were legally confined. There, along with other members of the Russian Jewish elite, they built the first Jewish community in that city, including the building of the Grand Choral Synagogue. The family also expanded to Paris, where they built a mansion (which still stands today) on the fashionable Rue de Tilsitt.

The move to Paris and St. Petersburg opened up new cultural frontiers for the family. Russian and French replaced Yiddish, and artists and intellectuals entered the family’s orbit. Ivan Turgenev was a family friend. The family remained devoted to traditional Jewish religious practice, but with their own particular twist: Sabbath dinners were major affairs and the family prayed three times daily, but this did not stop the family from eagerly participating in the culture of balls and parties of Paris and St. Petersburg. On [holidays and the first day of the Hebrew month], when the Hallel prayer [Psalms 113-118] is recited, they hired a cantor who sang the prayer to the tune of Italian opera.

The Gunzburgs also remained devoted to Jewish philanthropy and communal leadership, even after they lost most of their fortune at the end of the century.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.