J. D. B. News Letter

(By our London Correspondent)

In view of the Revisionist campaign which has been started in regard to the policy of development of the Hebrew University, Chief Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz, Chairman of the Governing Council of the Institute of Jewish Studies, has issued a statement outlinging the character and the objects of the Institute.

“Our starting point,” the Chief Rabbi said, “was the conviction that it was in the interests both of Jewish Palestine and the Jewish Diaspora that there should be in erusalem a centre of higher Jewish studies, attracting to its service the ablest of modern Jewish scholars, and in return sending out to Jewry at large and to Palestine Jewry in particular, teachers and spiritual leaders trained in the best traditions of modern scholarship, but steeped essentially in a positive Jewish consciousness such as only a training in a Jewish environment could provide.

“We thought that by training such an elite, producers of scholarly work of more than ordinary distinction, we would lay the foundations for the gradual evolution of a great teaching centre in Palestine; and, at the same time, provide the much needed ‘Nachwuchs’ to the Jewish Seats of Learning in the Diaspora. In that way, we would bring about a revival of Jewish learning and a strengthening of Jewish consciousness throughout Israel. It is for this reason that we started the Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem by establishing research and postgraduate courses for advanced students. We laid down strict conditions both as regards the method of work and the admission of collaborators. It seemed to use to be of the essence of our task that the men whom we secured on our academic staff should be men of outstanding qualifications and that the work done at the Institute should be of the highest order; and to maintain the essential character of the Institute we were emphatic in excluding, at least for the present, both examinations and degrees.

“We were well aware,” the Chief Rabbi proceeded, “of the difficulties that beset our task. We knew that the number of young scholars fitted for such advanced work would not be large. We also knew that patience and perseverance would be required to carry through so singular an enterprise from its tentative beginnings to its full realization. We were not insensible to the fact that so austere an academic idealism was liable to misinterpretation, that we might be accused of building up on Mount Scopus a spiritual monastery, far removed from the main current of the new Jewish life in Palestine and that of the Diaspora. But we were convinced of the essential soundness of our aim, and we know that we were thus serving the real requirements of that Jewish life in Palestine and in the Diaspora better than by providing mediocre courses of general training to the greatest possible number.

“I know well,” continued Dr. Hertz, “that we have on that account been accused of endeavoring to establish not a university but a rabbinical seminary. The accusation can only be made by those who have not troubled to read our curricula or the reports of our conference. Let me say in passing that I for one, am not shocked by the reference to rabbinical seminaries. I should be very glad indeed, if the work at our institute would never fall below the standard set by some of these institutions; and if our Institute could boast of having men like Frankel, Gractz, Bacher. Kauffmann and Shechter on its staff. It is furthermore forgotten what an infinite debt of gratitude the entire Jewish people, and especially the friends of Zion in Palestine and out of it, owe to the imperishable achievements in the realm of the Jewish spirit of these rabbinical seminaries. However, the Institute of Jerusalem is assuredly no theological college. Thus, we have established a chair for modern Jewish sociology and statistics, and accepted despite considerable opposition from Palestine, the proposal for the creation of a chair in Yiddish.

“Under the constitution of the Institute,” the Chief Rabbi proceeded, “it forms part of the university, but enjoys complete autonomy of administration. What place the Institute will take in the larger scheme of the university depends, clearly, on its actual development and on the degree in which the aims of its founders are realized in the course of that development. Speaking for myself, I see in the Institute the life-cell of a future faculty of humanities embracing the whole range of studies which deal with the mind of man. No university, no civilization, at all, is capable of existence without a basic philosophy. A university is not a technical mechanism for the professional training of specialists, it is a creative organism embodying the highest intellectual and spiritual aspirations of an age, and in return informing and guiding those aspirations. It follows that universities are not and cannot be identical in every age and in every environment. Every university type represents a specific outlook on life and civilization. This applies even to such universities which, like the German and English universities are based on the philosophy of classical humanism. Why should it not apply to our Hebrew University? Why should not the Hebrew University be as characteristic an embodiment of the spirit of Israel?”

Beth El College of Jewish Studies, which was founded three years ago to train teachers for the Jewish Religious Schools of the Detroit Jewish community as well as to offer courses in Jewish history and literature to the people of Detroit, held its first commencement exercises. The graduating class consisted of eighteen young men and women. The commencement address was delivered by Dr. Solomon B. Freehof of Chicago. Rabbi Leon Fram is general director of the school.