Jewish Studies and the European Academic World

Albert van der Heide and Irene E. Zwiep (eds)

JEWISH STUDIES AND THE EUROPEAN ACADEMIC WORLD

Plenary Lectures read at the Vllth Congress of the European Association for Jewish Studies (EAJS)

Amsterdam, July 2002

Collection de la Revue des Etudesjuives dirigee par Simon C. Mimouni et Gerard Nahon

Peeters Paris - Louvain - Dudley, MA 2005 'JUDAISTIK' BETWEEN 'WISSENSCHAFT' AND 'JÜDISCHE STUDIEN'. JEWISH STUDIES IN POST-WWII GERMANY*

Michael BROCKE

While I hope that the following survey of the developments, the present state, and the prospects for the future of Jewish Studies in Germany will be of more than only national interest, I should warn the reader that this presentation will be fraught with specific 'national' problems, which may not exist in other countries and which at first sight may appear peculiar and remote. This begins with the designation of our field. One is tempted to give our topic the current English or American name, and call it simply 'Jewish Studies'. In German, however, the field enjoys at least two designations: 'Judaistik' and 'Jüdische Studien'. So one has to ask whether we have to deal with two distinct and, maybe, competing phenomena which in English would both be called Jewish (or Judaic) Studies, or whether it is, perhaps, a question of two appellations for the same object only: an older, established one, and one much more recent and fashionable. In German parlance Jewish Studies thus are split into 'Judaistik' and 'Jüdische Studien'. The first is a traditional, i.e., late nineteenth and early twentieth Century designation, coined in accordance with other fields of (philological) scholarship (comparable to 'Anglistik', 'Slavistik', 'Oriental- istik', and the like). The second is a modern but, in German, uncommon designation and loan translation from Anglo-American usage. Whether we prefer a 'nominalist' or a 'realist' reading, we have to admit that the terminological conflict has a certain importance, since the names are associated with, and are used to express conceptions of an academic field that has grown enormously since its hesitant beginnings in the 1960s. The recent struggles about scope and method of the discipline are witness of a conflict between the first-born, 'Judaistik', and the junior 'Jüdische Studien' äs designations of fundamentally differing approaches. All this has to do with Germany's century-long history of 'Wissenschaft des Judentums' äs the prehistory of today's 'Judaistik/Jüdische Studien'.

* The author wishes to thank Christiane E. Müller, Düsseldorf University, for her critical comments. 78 MICHAEL BROCKE

This is a history of its own, which is, of course, the fundament and found- ing history of the entire field, in itself a glorious and dauntless history, but at the same time a shameful one for the German nation and for the academic elite among which the concept emerged.

Whenever there was a classical monograph or an important article to be summarized for discussion in one of his seminars, Professor Ephraim E. Urbach of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem used to gently prod his students to volunteer by telling them, half-jokingly, half in earnest, that the German language of the texts under discussion, 'äs a Semitic language', is - or did he say 'was'? - second in importance only to Hebrew. 'Wissen- schaft des Judentums' should thus be read in its original languages, either Hebrew or German. Yet at the same time there would never, in everyday academic life, come a word of German from his lips (it took many years until he once, surprisingly, addressed the one or the other of his former students in colloquial German). Whatever had happened, äs a language of Jewish scholarship German came next to Hebrew. It was a working language (and even a language of communication) for that generation of teachers at the Hebrew University, back into the sixties of the past Century. Forty years have gone by, and things have changed drastically. From time to time classics of the 'Wissenschaft des Judentums' may still be consulted and quoted, a few of them having been translated to survive for the Hebrew or the English reader. 'Wissenschaft' history has begun to be written and will be written, but who in fact does read and use 'Wissenschaft' monographs or articles written in German in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries any more? Or, for that matter, 'Judaistik' monographs of the late twentieth and early 21 st centuries? Many, if not most present-day publications in the field of Jewish Studies that are not written in English, share the same fate1. One should not overstate this point, since it is an obstacle and a chal- lenge for most colleagues working in non-English speaking countries and Publishing in their own language. Nearly every field of supranational importance falls victim to the growing urge to publish in the lingua franca. It is the past glory of German-language Jewish scholarship that causes one to linger for a moment on the decline caused by the actors and perpetrators of twentieth-century German history on the one hand, and by the domi- neering presence of English on the other; concomitant, thirdly, with the

1 See äs an example The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. by Martin Goodman, associate eds Jeremy Cohen and David Sorkin (Oxford 2002), and see the critical review by Robert Jütte, "Die Welt der Jüdischen Studien — von außen betrachtet", Aschkenas 13 (2003) 513-517. JEWISH STUD1ES IN POST-WWH GERMANY 79

impressive flourishing of Jewish Studies in the USA2. English has attained the Status of 'Semitic language Number One' in Jewish Studies äs well äs in Madda'e ha-Yahadut. Some time ago, in an address to the President of the State of Israel, the President of the Academy of the Hebrew Language in Jerusalem complained about the fact that Israeli universities are paying more and more attention to publication records in English. He called it a dangerous development for Hebrew that publications in English are valued higher than articles and books published in Hebrew. While Hebrew (even Hebrew!) and German, together with other languages important for Jewish Studies, will share a common fate, when it comes to German the deeper reasons have different origins. Jewish Studies in Germany today perceive the tension of a finely honed linguistic Instru- ment that used to be appreciated by Jewish scholars and scholarly Jews all over Europe, and the steep decline of the importance of the very medium in which 'Wissenschaft' once began to blossom. If today's Jewish Studies in Germany wish to hold on to this tradition, they are at least able to do so lin- guistically, notwithstanding the fact that this language is no longer spoken nor read by the vast majority of committed Jewish intellectuals, of scholars and students of Judaica, Jews and non-Jews alike.

Back to the 'four cubits' of German scholarship, be it 'Judaistik' or 'Jüdis- che Studien'. I shall present my overview of the discipline in today's Ger- many in three steps. Firstly, I will discuss the roots of modern Jewish Stud- ies in post-war Germany; secondly I will elaborate upon their development, including a brief factual overview of their present state, and touching upon the recent branching out of Jewish Studies into 'Jüdische Studien' versus 'Judaistik' äs well äs the tensions brought about by the discussion äs how to best fester the discipline; thirdly, by way of conclusion, I will offer some reflections on what to strive for, where to go and what to attain in the near future.

From the 1960s to the 1980s How did 'Judaistik', forty years ago, come into being in Western Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany?3 There were three major Stimuli.

2 One should not overlook the fact that American Jewish Studies seem to be aware of the importance of German; e.g., the interdisciplinary Jewish Studies Programme of Columbia University includes, besides Hebrew, German äs a foreign language. See M. Brenner, "Jüdi- sche Studien im internationalen Kontext", in: M. Brenner and S. Rohrbacher, eds, Wissen- schaft vom Judentum. Annäherungen nach dem Holocaust (Göttingen 2000) 42-57, esp. 46. 3 We ignore the GDR where until 1990 'Judaistik/Jüdische Studien' were non-existent (see below). 80 MICHAEL BROCKE

The first was the slowly growing awareness of the genocide and its impact, äs expressed by Michael Landmann, a philosopher at the Freie Uni- versität Berlin, in 1962: "It is the task of scholarship, the task of the Humanities, to bear witness of a culture, which those once living it no longer are able to bear witness of."4 The second source of growth was the strong tradition of German research into rabbinic literature, based in the faculties of Protestant theology, especially in their Instituta Judaica (developed either äs an auxiliary discipline for New Testament and biblical 'Umwelt' studies, or äs an academic instrument for 'sophisticated missionizing'). And thirdly there was the - sporadic - awareness that Judaism cannot be studied äs a religion only and must not be seen through Christian eyes exclusively. The adequate context for the study and teaching of Judaism should be the philosophical faculty, not the theological department. This slowly rising urge to have the study of Judaism enter, at long last, the broad secular realm of the philosophical faculty reminds us of the classical, pre- Nazi, time, when 'Wissenschaft' scholars struggled unsuccessfully against having to work extra muros of the universities, and against being confined to the rabbinical seminary. Entrance into the philosophical faculty now seemed to be the belated repair of an unjust Situation. But this reference to the academic ambitions of the great predecessors is barely tangible and may be no more than a subjective construct.

Since no serious research has äs yet been dedicated to the rationale and the beginnings of 'Judaistik' in post-war Germany, we depend upon personal accounts of individual German students who picked up the thread at Jerusalem's Hebrew University. At the outset they were unaware of the fact that they were being taught by great scholars who themselves had been educated by the great personalities of the 'Wissenschaft des Judentums' in the early twentieth Century. They first learned about this past through the many anecdotes told and retold by their teachers, about Victor Aptowitzer and Ismar Elbogen, about Wilhelm Bacher and Jacob N. Epstein - rather than by reading their somewhat forbidding books. Thus the Stimulus to establish chairs in 'Judaistik' did not stem from any direct appreciation of the achievements of 'Wissenschaft des Judentums', and motivation was not stirred up by the esteem for intrinsic Jewish values, nor by the appreciation of Jewish culture and history äs worthy to be studied for their own sake. It rather came from the growing consciousness of the unfathomable crime

4 M. Landmann, "Lehrstühle für die Wissenschaft vom Judentum", Die Deutsche Uni- versitätszeitung (Frankfurt 1962) 3-7, esp. 7: "Es ist Sache der Wissenschaft, das Verlorene auf ihrer Ebene zu bewahren und von einer Kultur zu zeugen, von der ihre einstigen Träger selbst nicht mehr zeugen können." JEWISH STUDIES IN POST-WWII GERMANY 81 committed a few years before, and from the fear that anti-Semitism might flare up again. One remembers, for example, the Cologne synagogue van- dalized by anti-Jewish graffiti in the early 1960s äs a trigger for establish- ing the 'Martin Buber-Institut für Judaistik' at Cologne University, and similar circumstances leading to the establishment of the chair for Jewish Studies in Frankfurt am Main in 1970. It is therefore not surprising that the major task of 'Judaistik' was seen äs aimed at academic Aufklärung. The early hopes were pinned upon the fight against prejudice and unfathomed ignorance. A positive presentation of Judaism and a direct confrontation with anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic prejudice were expected to bring about this 'Enlightenment'. Even today older German-Jewish colleagues see these tasks äs the major, the truly noble and sober duty of 'Judaistik' in Germany. This is an understandable view. The lifespan of those colleagues bridges both eras — the final years of the Weimar Republic, the first years of Hitler's regime, äs well äs the first decades of the Federal Republic of Germany. This attitude is certainly a matter for further reflection and, one might add, not entirely unique for Germany, where indeed, by historical necessity, the urge is strenger than elsewhere. Although evidently not the major task of Jewish Studies (in Germany or anywhere eise), this element should not be utterly rejected. It unmistakably remains an aspect to be considered in teaching, äs long äs it does not deter- mine or even influence the direction and the subjects of research. Against the (ever changing yet always similar) demands of politicians and public opinion, we must remain free to chose our subjects äs we wish and see fit, to do things l'art pour l'art — or to put it more correctly: le-shem shamayim - and leave the fight against prejudice to other institutions in education and dissemination of knowledge. Is it possible to assess with some objectivity how much work done by early 'Judaistik' was achieved with the needs just mentioned in mind? How strong was the influence of religio-theological challenges and interests (besides the missionary, of course)? I for one would not be able to answer those questions. There must have been a strong first impact from religio-theological circles, at first predominantly Protestant, later catholic (and thus influential). Over the years, however, 'Judaistik' has managed to shed this influence and establish itself äs a new entity. There is now a clear-cut Separation between the interests of theological faculties in the area of early and rabbinic Judaism äs part of New Testament and 'Umwelt' studies on the one hand, and the study of Judaism in the broader sense of 'Judaistik' on the other5.

5 However, it took until 2003 to have 'Judaistik' be accepted äs a discipline in its own right by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, the greatest German Research and Endowment Organization, where some 186 disciplines each have their own referees). 82 MICHAEL BROCKE

Historically, it seems that most of the personalities that promoted chairs of 'Judaistik' in philosophical faculties, a fortiori those who advocated them in a theological context, were motivated by religiously rooted feelings. It was a small elite minority of, at first, mostly Protestant Christians turning to a few influential Jewish personalities to find ways to somehow engage in what one might call today an attempt at tiqqun6. It would be difficult to distinguish between the (inner-)theological interests of the Christ- ian theologians and their genuine feelings of guilt and responsibility towards the Jews and Judaism after the failure to stand up against Nazism and genocide. Stimuli came from several sides. From the early fifties onwards, individual Jewish and Christian voices uttered - rather feebly at first - the wish to bring back German-Jewish emigrants and refugees and help establish chairs. From about 1952 Adolf Leschnitzer taught German-Jewish history at the 'Freie Universität' in Berlin. In 1959 Frankfurt University established a 'Honorarprofessur' in 'Wissenschaft des Judentums', held, on the advice of Martin Buber, by Rabbi Dr. Kurt Wilhelm (Jerusalem/Stockholm) until 19637. These instances facilitated the establishment of the later permanent chairs8. The first institutes in 'Judaistik' were then established: Berlin in 1964 (Jacob Taubes), Cologne in 1966 (Johann Maier), and Frankfurt a.M. 1970 (Arnold Goldberg, until then Privatdozent in Freiburg)9. The majority of that first generation, both the political and academic administrators and those occupying the newly created positions, were religiously committed, had studied denominationally defined fields of theology, or general religious studies. Yet cautiously they set the agenda for an

6 E.g., Leo Baeck (d. 1956); Martin Buber (d. 1965); Robert Raphael Geis (d. 1972); Gershom Scholem (d. 1982); Ernst A. Simon (d. 1988); and Kurt Wilhelm (d. 1965). 7 See W. Schottroff, "Nur ein Lehrauftrag. Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Religionswis- senschaft an der deutschen Universität", in: idem, Das Reich Gottes und der Menschen. Stu- dien über das Verhältnis der christlichen Theologie zum Judentum. Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog 19 (München 1991), 9-30, esp. 28f. Interesting in this context is the case of Frankfurt a.M., where since 1957 E.L. Ehrlich had lectured. In 1963 he was called to take the new chair. After his refusal, the chair was occupied only in 1970 after the incidents mentioned above (Schottroff, 29f.). 8 Cf., e.g. the illustrative case of Regensburg University, founded in 1967, which planned a chair in 'Judaistik' for its large faculty of Roman Catholic Theology. The faculty could not agree on an appointment, rededicated the chair to a second professorship in systematic theology, and offered it to a prominent candidate. When after a few years he left, there was no question of returning to the original plan. Thus, the only two professorships in Bavaria with its eleven universities remain that in 'Judaistik' of the Semitics department and the chair (founded in 1996) in Jewish history, both at Munich University. g NB: As early äs 1956 Vienna University established an 'extra-ordinary' professorship, which was extended into an entire 'Institut für Judaistik' in 1966. Comp. the dedication in J. Maier, Geschichte der jüdischen Religion (Freiburg i. Br. 1972,21992): 'Dem Begründer der Universitätsdisziplin Judaistik [...] Kurt Schubert [...] gewidmet.' JEWISH STUD1ES IN POST-WWII GERMANY 83

independent, non-Christian, non-theological, 'Judaistik', at least for those positions that were not affiliated with, or to be incorporated into, the theological faculties.

Seen from today's perspective it is not surprising that in the 1980s, less than two decades later, scholars and students from other areas and disciplines of study, and especially historians, developed an interest in things Jewish. It is also understandable that they feit 'Judaistik' to be a rather lop- sided enterprise, which neglected historical research and did not recognize the Jewish aspects of a growing number of disciplines surfacing over the years10. Those competing for academic careers in those years found, to their dismay, philologists, scholars in rabbinics and religious studies, and other 'old-fashioned' non-guild-historians occupying the few positions in 'Judaistik' available. In their own field there were äs yet no positions where their interest in Judaica was welcomed. That these scholars succeeded in obtaining, creating and also transforming positions, that they were able to found Institutes and make themselves heard without much härm to 'Judais- tik' proper, is a fine success that Stands in great contrast to the slow build- up over two preceding decades. This was due to a growing interest in Judaism from the side of the secular public, which was decidedly more var- ied than the commitment that dominated the sixties. Taken together, these developments over just forty years may be called spectacular when com- pared to the Situation during the Weimar Republic, when the newly founded universities of Frankfurt am Main and Hamburg offered a few openings", and even more so in comparison to the fierce resistance of the German university System during the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. This rise provoked Gershom Scholem to the remark, in bis 1977 memoirs: 'Zu jüdischen Studien wurde man damals [in his youth; MB] an der Universität freilich nicht ermuntert. Heute, wo es kaum mehr Juden in Deutschland gibt, wollen alle deutschen Universitäten ein Ordinariat für Judaistik grün- den.'12 But did all German universities indeed wish to establish a chair in 'Judaistik'? Scholem's stark exaggeration serves well to underline the contrast with the preceding era, but then and today it remains a far cry from reality.

" The insinuations uttered in that discussion that interdisciplinary studies were necessary for fighting anti-Semitism, cannot be taken seriously. 11 See H. Wasserman, False Start. Jewish Studies at German Universities during the Weimar Republic (New York 2003); but comp. W. Schottroff, "Nur ein Lehrauftrag". 12 G. Scholem, Von Berlin nach Jerusalem (Frankfurt a. M. 1977) 147, in the extended version (Frankfurt a. M. 1994) 133; the Hebrew (Tel Aviv 1982) 128 has some telling expressions: "limmude yahadut... ve-retzach ha-yehudim me'iq 'alehem... qatedra'ot le- Yudaistika[\]". 84 MICHAEL BROCKE

Developments until the present Let me give here a quick survey of the Situation äs it presents itself today. Approximately seventeen universities (of the ca. 70 universities in Ger- many, not counting applied sciences Colleges etc.) offer 'Judaistik/Jüdische Studien'13 in some form or other: • Magister Artium curricula (major and minor MA) are offered by (in alpha- betical order): Berlin (2 professorships), Düsseldorf (3), Frankfurt am Main (1), Halle-Wittenberg (1), Köln (2); selfcontained seminaries and Institutes in philosophical faculties are found in: Freiburg i. Br., in the Oriental Seminar (l professorship), Munich Uni- versity, in the 'Institut für Semitistik' (l, see also below); under the responsibility of the 'Central Council of Jews in Germany' a state- funded yet private College connected with Heidelberg University is the 'Hochschule für Jüdische Studien' (seven subdisciplines, not all of them represented by a chair; at present the school is undergoing yet another reshuffling and will soon function under a new rector); • interdisciplinary MA-programmes, both äs major and minor: Potsdam Uni- versity (one professorship in Religious Studies with a Judaic Studies spe- cialization, plus quite recently an additional chair in Rabbinics and Halakhah connected to a small new rabbinical College of Reform orienta- tion); of similar approach, but only äs an MA minor: Oldenburg University (without a Jewish Studies professorship or scholar); • Yiddish äs a minor for MA: Düsseldorf (l professorship), Trier (1); • a Jewish Studies professorship (within a religious studies department, but with no financial means to teach Hebrew): Erfurt; • Instituta Judaica within long-standing faculties of Protestant theology, with or without a professorship in Jewish Studies: Göttingen (major for DPhil.), Mainz (no degree), Münster (no degree), Tübingen (minor for MA); and finally, within a Protestant faculty without an institute but figuring äs 'Jüdis- che Studien': Greifswald University (minor for MA) • a professorship/department for Jewish History and Civilization established in the Historical Seminar of Munich University, without institutional links to the professorship in the Semitics department; • an annual 'Martin Buber-Visiting professorship' for Jewish religious philosophy ('Religionsphilosophie') at Frankfurt University, sponsored since 1989 by the Protestant Church of Hesse-Nassau; • then there is a number of historically oriented research institutions, either independent or affiliated with universities (in chronological order): the 'Institut für die Geschichte der deutschen Juden', Hamburg 1966; the 'Salomon Ludwig Steinheim-Institut für deutsch-jüdische Geschichte', Duisburg 1986; the 'Moses Mendelssohn Zentrum für europäisch-jüdische Studien', Potsdam 1992; the 'Simon Dubnow-Institut für jüdische Geschichte

13 Not included here are incidental courses in Judaica offered by scholars working in other disciplines, such äs biblical and post-biblical literature, social history, anti-Semitism and Holocaust, Jewish law, modern philosophy, German-Jewish history, German or Ameri- can-Jewish literature, etc. JEWISH STUDIES IN POST-WWII GERMANY 85

und Kultur' (with an emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe), Leipzig 1995/96; the 'Arye-Maimon-Institut für Geschichte der Juden' (medieval history), Trier 1996/97; and the 'Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung' at the 'Technische Universität' in Berlin. Finally, special mention should be made of the fact that, after the reuni- fication of the two Germanies, in a climate of new beginnings a blossoming of newly founded institutions broke out. For ideological reasons there had been no Jewish Studies in the German Democratic Republic. Next to some theological ('dissident') interest, there was a chair of Hebraic linguistic studies plus a politically committed 'Israelwissenschaft', open to very few politically selected students only. Not accidentally, the positions, chairs, and Institutes that were created during the nineties (in Potsdam, Erfurt, Halle, Leipzig, and Greifswald) are all situated in the federal states of eastern Germany.

All in all, Germany now counts nearly thirty professorships, of which at least one third was established during the last decade. It is much more difficult, however, to estimate how many students are registered in Jewish Studies today. The German System of free university education allows enrolment without compulsory study and class attendance. According to the numbers proudly boasted by some of the larger institutes, one easily counts more than l .200 students, about half of whom could be said to be actively studying for the MA-degree14. There are state grants for "one year of 'Judaistik' in Jerusalem" (The Hebrew University) and for summer courses in Hebrew ulpanim, äs well äs grants for projects in other fields, to be spent in Israel. Unfortunately, there is no significant Student exchange in Jewish Studies with American universities. Quite recently an 'export' into the USA of young German scholars, post-doctoral fellows and assistant professors has begun, next to an ongoing 'brain drain' of young scholars who, äs converts to Judaism, left Germany to work in Israeli academic institutions. This somewhat surprising development is characteristic of the wide spectrum of active interest and attraction to be observed within the younger generation.

Major research projects Since it is impossible to do justice to all, the following enumeration of research projects cannot be more than a - mildly subjective - selection. As a general tendency, the traditional German penchant for 'Grundlagen-

14 Soon 'internationally compatible' BA and MA curricula will replace the Magister Artium degree of the past, a revolution which will reduce the number of MA students significantly and which will certainly stimulate the interdisciplinary part-time 'Jüdische Studien' approach, possibly at the expense of 'Judaistik'. 86 MICHAEL BROCKE forschung' is still largely untapped in comparison to other disciplines, and will be truly important for the development of Jewish Studies for years to come. There are critical editions and commentaries, for example of parts of Midrash Pesiqta Rabbati, 'synoptic' editions of the Hekhalot-literature, of the Palestinian Talmud (and its translation into German), translations of Qumran and rabbinic literature, editions of medieval Hebrew translations of Greek and Arabic medical treatises, translations of selected responsa, and Hebrew epigraphy (Germany being rieh in sepulchral inscriptions from the eleventh Century onwards). The largest project in German-Jewish history is still the Germania Judaica handbook (pari IV: Early modern time). There appear numerous editions of German-Jewish literature, handbooks, dictio- naries, local or regional histories, and a number of introductions to Judaism15. Hardly surprising, much research is published in Journals, of which we should mention the following: Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge (annual, has been published for thirty years); Ashkenaz (semi-annual, in its thir- teenth year); Jewish Studies Quarterly, founded in Berlin in 1993; and recently in Dutch-German co-operation the all-English annual Zutot. Per- spectives on Jewish Culture (three vols.), Jiddistik-Mitteilungen (Trier, irregulär, 30 issues), and a small quarterly of haute vulgarisation with a large readership: Kalonymos (in its seventh year).

One might well end this brief survey here, were it not for those areas which, if we yield to the specific German penchant towards clear-cut Separation between diverse areas of life, might not be considered äs belonging to the academic levels of Jewish Studies, but which in other countries are counted äs relevant, even important, parts of it. The canvas of this survey would be incomplete without this richly diversified landscape of 'related agencies'. There is a special German-Jewish public library called 'Germania Judaica. Kölner Bibliothek zur Geschichte des deutschen Judentums'; its bulletin Arbeitsinformationen is an information Service listing projects on German- Jewish topics. There are learned societies such äs the recently founded international Zürich-based 'Hermann Cohen-Gesellschaft', or the brand new international Kassel-based 'Franz Rosenzweig-Gesellschaft'. There are of course quite a number of theological academic activities. The 'Institut Kirche und Judentum', for example, is a Berlin-based academic theological institute related to the Protestant church and the Von Humboldt University, with a small Publishing house and a 'summer university' that offers an ambitious program. The Journal Kirche und Israel is an independent semi-

15 The developments in the fields of rabbinic literature, philosophy, history, art, literature, Yiddish, have been described in the well-informed volume by Brenner and Rohrbacher, eds, Wissenschaft vom Judentum (2000). JEWISH STUDIES IN POST-WWI1 GERMANY 87 annual on Jewish-Christian dialogue on an academic level. A further quarterly on dialogue funded by the Catholic Church, the Freiburger Rundbrief. Neue Folge, operates in the margin for a religiously interested wider audience. Individual biblical scholars and systematic theologians, both Protes- tant and Catholic, may venture into Judaica in a wider sense, while historians and scholars of literature enter the field in fast growing numbers, in groups and Workshops of all shades and colours. One simply cannot list all publications pertaining to things Jewish. Suf- fice it to say that in most realms of culture and music it is de bon ton today to include Jewish interests, origins, fate, questions etcetera. Quite a number of regulär publications feature contributions on Judaism, thus showing that, without being spelled out in detail and depth, the relevance of Judaica in German civilization and culture today is of the highest order. Similarly, Jewish museums are competing to offer not only educational exhibits but also sophisticatedly conceived shows. A few museums, such äs those in Frankfurt am Main and Berlin, can even stimulate research, although this research remains limited to specific, mostly modern, topics in Jewish Stud- ies. In Berlin too, a branch of the Leo Baeck Institute (archives) is now to be found. Many publishers can boast of Judaica and translations of scholarly classics from English, French and even Hebrew, such äs the works on German- Jewish life by Jacob Katz, Mordechai Eliav and Azriel Shohet. Much of these laudable efforts, however, are undertaken without competent counsel or professional assistance16. Even in the realm of rabbinics we encounter this alarming indifference towards competence. Several 'naked' reprints (i.e., without any introductory or interpretative efforts) of Lazarus Gold- schmidt's (1878-1950) 12-volume German translation of the Babylonian Talmud have been a surprising commercial success. No need was feit for a key volume, for an introduction to that 'Sea of the Talmud', or an index in a companion volume like that of the English Soncino translation. In the presence of such successful ventures the representatives of academic Jewish Studies feel almost superfluous and incapable to earn the public's acknowl- edgement of the fact that scholarship is at least helpful, if not necessary. Besides these scholarly relevant projects there is an ever-growing publications industry of the populär kind, of introductions to Judaism on nearly all levels, from children's books upwards, translated äs well äs written in German by all kinds of experts. This industry, too, not only lacks competent assessment and counsel, but also an informed audience, able to discem kitsch and swindle.

16 The recent German translation of A. Shohet's classic 'Im chillufe tequfot (Jerusalem 1960) äs Der Ursprung der jüdischen Aufklärung in Deutschland (Frankfurt a.M. 2000) is a remarkable example of good intentions mixed with Judaic and Hebraic incompetence. MICHAEL BROCKE

In passing we should also mention the countless local and regional memorializing initiatives, which centre around incisive historical dates. In 1978 and 1988 the so-called 'Kristallnacht'-pogrom of November '38 was commemorated. Local interests exploit such dates for 'history-workshops', for tracing the tracks of the past, and writing micro-history. Socio-cultural events such as the Hollywood series 'Holocaust' in 1978, or the movies of Lanzmann ('Shoah') and Spielberg ('Schindler's List') also form a strong undercurrent. While they remain outside the scope of the present survey, we should not belittle the impact of such external influences. In earlier years the memory of the Shoah and local anti-Semitic incidents had been co-instrumental in getting 'Judaistik' established in the post-WWII university, and these effects have not yet worn off. It is impossible to do justice to all these efforts at remembering, telling, reconstructing, accounting, measuring, cataloguing, and evaluating; at recapturing names and faces from cemeteries and synagogues, at writing annals of scholarly or liberal professions and identifying Jewish colleagues - from philologists and pediatricians to pharmacists - and at reviewing the lists of elite society personalities from the past centuries. It is a belated post-mortem representation of German-Jewish life, which only a cynic might call a post-mortem realization of the so-called German-Jewish symbiosis. Modern scholarship often fails to appreciate these popular initiatives, dismissing them as being of limited scholarly value. Yet they have both positive and negative effects upon the field of Jewish Studies. Young students become motivated to take up the study of Judaism. And a larger audience is imbued with an appreciation of Jewish history and culture in their own right (and not just in the depressing light of destruction, bad con- science, and guilt). Thus the relevance and interest of Jewish life past and present, a relevance beyond the Shoah, is being acknowledged. Simultaneously, however, there are negative side-effects. Projects like those mentioned above draw away large resources and are often realized in ways that reduce their validity and reliability. For example, there remain some two thousand Jewish burial places to be documented, which is an enterprise of more than local or regional interest. Many fine academics are working on this with the best intentions, yet without feeling the need to reflect on the soundness of their methods or quality of their efforts. One is inclined to think that so much good will must need produce good work. However, inadequate renderings from Hebrew, French, or English remain incorrect, even when good will and common sense abound. A recent e-mail, received from a student of theology and German literature, may help to further illustrate this beatific ignorance. While preparing a doctoral dissertation on 'Walter Benjamin und das Judentum' (no more and no less!) and becoming aware of his ignorance of Haggadah, Kabbalah, JEWISH STUDIES IN POST-WWII GERMANY 89 and Hassidism, the question arose "which us university to choose for a semester or two to learn about all this?" Fundamental insights such as the idea of 'alterity', or the possibility that Judaism might be 'different', appar- ently do not enter the naive, good-willing mind when it is not exposed to personal encounter and learning. The possibility of deeper-reaching, unknown, differences, cultural, religious, and historically grown, is not considered. No need is felt to learn something beyond 'the facts', no need to ask for counsel, assistance or criticism. No wonder then that, while we think that more qualified Jewish Studies departments in the main universities should strengthen the field, most of the proponents and sponsors of the activities described here do not miss us at all. Similarly, our own colleagues next door may not even think of asking Jewish Studies for co-operation or 'permission' in their attempt to incorporate their freshly awakened Jewish interests into their teaching and writing. Are such the fruits of 'our' Judeo- Christian tradition? The ambivalence of many of these activities strongly reminds us, be it via negationis only, of the fact that Jewish life, religion, culture, and history, were once richly and deeply rooted in German language culture and history. Their bearers were intensely intertwined in life and letters, life and lore. It will take much time to come to grips with this history, its unfathomable richness and its abysmal destruction in adequate, competent, and dignified ways. Jewish Studies is only one partner in this effort.

Again: 'Judaistik' or 'Judische Studien' Having strayed off far into the larger context, I must come back to our internal situation. From the beginnings in the 1960s there was no other word for the field but 'Judaistik', a term whose origins lay in the German university. When the term 'Wissenschaft des Judentums' was coined (in the second decade of the nineteenth century), it did not fare well at all. This 'Wissenschaft' was not academically accepted and was cultivated in the margin of society. On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Berlin 'Hochschule fur die Wissenschaft des Judentums' in 1922, Ismar Elbogen discussed the pros and cons of the terms 'Wissenschaft des Judentums', 'Wissenschaft vom Judentum' and 'Judaistik', which were then used in Jewish as well as non-Jewish academic circles. Elbogen came to the conclusion that, on the one hand, 'Wissenschaft des Judentums' was a clumsy expression that fitted badly within the usual range of academic disciplines; on the other, the term 'Judaistik' had its own limitations, the word pattern (compare Semitistik or Finno-Ugristik) being linked too narrowly to language study only17.

17 I. Elbogen, Ein Jahrhundert Wissenschaft des Judentums (Berlin 1922) 41. See also the 90 MICHAEL BROCKE

In the 1960s, however, 'Judaistik' was the obvious choice, for it would have been utterly impossible to call these new beginnings 'Wissenschaft des Judentums'. Such 'Wissenschaft' was completely unknown within the faculty, and for the scholars of the time it would have been a sign of arro- gance to appropriate the name. (The neologism 'Judaeologie', proposed in Munich in the early 1970s, was never given further consideration.) It was the Heidelberg 'Hochschule fur Judische Studien', established by the Cen- tral Council of Jews in Germany in 1979, that first introduced the term 'Jiidische Studien' as a translation from American English, in analogy to 'Semitic Studies', 'Slavonic Studies', and many more. For academic disciplines, however, this pattern did not exist in German, since we are not used to 'Franzosische Studien', 'Kulturstudien', or something similar for Reli- gious Studies. 'Studien' is a word that conveys a tinge of the preliminary, of amateurish, non-systematic, work. It only works well as a title for journals presenting 'studies' in the form of articles. So the term is not without its dangers. It may give the impression of an 'as-you-please' mentality, where every beginner is welcome. Occasionally such an atmosphere is indeed noticeable. A curriculum composed by staff members who just 'hap- pen to be interested' in teaching Judaica or Jewish Studies, indeed makes one feel uneasy. Of course, every initiative of putting together a program of 'Jiidische Studien' should be welcomed. But why do these 'get-togethers', laudable as they are, receive 'accreditation' more or less immediately, without an academic figure with a decent measure of competence in Jewish Studies being involved - apart perhaps from a theologian with knowledge of biblical Hebrew?18 It is difficult to imagine that this would be tolerated in any other discipline. No wonder then that the so-called established 'Judaistik' (established, after three or four decades only!) is not pleased and would like to be consulted. So it voices its criticism but sees itself forced into the defense against counter-attacks for failing to meet its claim to encompass all areas of Jewish life and lore, and for the gap between its ideals and its limitations in praxi. These limitations are real. They partly stem from intentional self-restric- tion (e.g. to rabbinics), but in greater part they are due to the small number of positions and the need of a discipline in statu nascendi to gradually find its areas of preference and its place in the international interplay of forces -

terminological survey and discussion in M. SchlUter, "Judaistik an deutschen Universitaten heute", in: Brenner and Rohrbacher, Wissenschaft vom Judentum, 85-96, esp. 87f. 18 Germany counts two academic societies: the thirty-years old 'Verband der Judaisten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V.', with membership open only to those holding a Jewish Studies position or a Jewish Studies degree (MA, Dr. phil.), and the recent, less strict 'Ver- einigung fur Judische Studien e.V.'; the names of the two organizations exemplify the split discussed here. JEWISH STUDIES IN POST-WWII GERMANY 91 not to mention the competition with long-established chairs in the neigh- bouring departments of history or theology. Protagonists of 'Jiidische Studien' like to point out that their 'all-interdisciplinary' approach is modeled on 'the' American prototype19. Accord- ingly, individual scholars in various fields channel their Jewish interests - and thus their Jewish Studies interests - into a multi-disciplinary curriculum in Jewish Studies. German protagonists of this model, however, tend to overlook two basic facts. Firstly, co-operative build-ups need years of preparation, they must conform to basic curricular standards, and should be run successfully for some time in order to be accredited for a BA in Jewish Studies. Secondly, elsewhere in the world the overwhelming majority of teachers participating in such interdisciplinary programs are Jewish, and in general quite consciously and self-assertively so. Therefore many points of contact between scholarship and the various realizations of Jewish life are generated. The Jewish contributors to this model, who are specialists in their own field, do possess Jewish information and willy-nilly draw their often widely differing Jewish affiliations into the curriculum. This is a far cry from the average German situation, where a group of colleagues interested in, but fairly ignorant of, Judaism may venture into that new segment of easily shared interest without much ado, and with local success (i.e., with student interest and state support) guaranteed. The combination of abysmal ignorance and genuine thirst for knowledge of things Jewish is indeed widespread among the younger generation, who thus provide an eager audience for such endeavors. However, the delineations and frontiers seem to be fading. The polemi- cal split expressed in the terminology is no longer wholly valid. Newly established departments, structured according to the 'old Judaistik pattern' with emphasis on Hebrew in its major historical phases, or built on the traditional tripartite scheme of religion/culture - literature - history, now have been named 'Jiidische Studien'20. Time will tell whether these are the first signs of the wish to bury the hatchet.

Prospects While competition can be productive, enmity is not. It would be wise, therefore, to opt for co-operation between the representatives of the two major approaches, yet without in any way trying to unify them (which would be a waste of time and energy). Both 'Judaistik' (as a self-contained

19 It would be correct to say: a prototype, since us universities also host full-fledged Jew- ish Studies departments. :0 The Heinrich-Heine-Universitat of Diisseldorf houses an 'Institut fur Jiidische Studien' with four professorships. Halle-Wittenberg boasts a 'Seminar fiir Judaistik/Jiidische Studien' with one professor. 92 MICHAEL BROCKE

specialism) and 'Jiidische Studien' (multi-, interdisciplinary from the outset) are imperfect designations for the expression of their respective historical raisons d'etre and ideals. For reasons described above these names are neither better nor worse than the other historical or international designations, but there are differences of approach connected to them, which bear real danger if allowed to develop freely without keeping close touch with each other. Jewish Studies in Germany, its 'established' 'Judaistik' and the ambitious 'Jiidische Studien' should have the courage to stop any further uncon- trolled growth that lacks firm and proven competence in the classical Hebrew sources. Professional associations should act as consultants and referees for the structure and quality of research and teaching programs, and both approaches should work together in order to define criteria for a basic 'canon' of needs and conditions. If this common ground will not be found, the new modularized curricula for BA/MA degrees will be likely to hamper the established possibility to freely switch universities during one's studies. Compatibility between curricula is a vital prerequisite for national and international co-operation. Thus the 'Judaistik' departments with two or more professorships will have to become more open to interdisciplinary co-operation. But the new BA/MA curricula will lead the smaller institutes, with only one professorship, into interdisciplinary curricula too, as they will have to furnish mod- ules for, to name but an example, 'cultural studies'. This will change the academic landscape to a remarkable extent. 'Jiidische Studien' departments with one professorship or none in Judaism itself, which had their origin in interdisciplinary co-operation from the very beginning, will have to become more professional in content and language requirements - if only in order to withstand the growing competition from other disciplines discovering, ad hoc, their own 'Jewish aspects and interests'. With all due respect, there is too much well-intended dilet- tantism around that lacks self-criticism and reflection on its scholarly legit- imacy. Jewish Studies will have to fight valiantly for Jewish Studies to remain recognizable as a discipline in its own right.

A number of factors are needed for this endeavor. May I consider one here, which has been alluded to earlier: the place given to the Hebrew language and its highlights should remain the ultimate touchstone, in combination with the value we attach to making this need understood by our public and the funding authorities. The language and its acquisition has been held in the highest possible esteem by early and later 'Judaistik', and we will con- tinue to demand of our students the labor of acquiring a thorough command of Hebrew in several - if not all - of its historical strata, besides a due mea- JEWISH STUDIES IN POST-WWII GERMANY 93

sure of fluency in contemporary written and spoken Hebrew. For the study of Judaism this is a basic requirement, preparatory to all later individual preferences. There is no alternative to reading the canonical, and many non- canonical, 'classical' texts in the original. One must go as far, mutatis mutandis, as Gerhard Scholem when he noted in his student years' journal in 1917: "Solange wir nicht Hebraisch konnen, haben wir keinen MaBstab fur das Jiidische, sind Opfer fiir jeden Schwindel."21 At a certain point there has been irritation between the proponents of 'Judaistik' and those of 'Jiidische Studien'. The latter asserted that the former put too strong an emphasis on Hebrew, and thus neglected other avenues through which Jewish creativity had realized itself over the centuries - as if stressing the need for Hebrew necessarily entailed a neglect of other 'media'. Eventually, however, this debate was recognized as pointless polemics and put ad acta. Yet for all those toiling the vast fields of Jewish studies Hebrew continues to serve as a shibbolet. Whether positively welcomed or grudgingly accepted, this seems to be the best visible mark of professional distinction. It may not be the only one, but all others depend on it. For serious study of Judaism Hebrew is an absolute must, an indis- pensable tool for delving into all its phenomena and tapping its riches - as the young Scholem discovered in 1917. There is no need to add here that there are areas where other (Jewish) languages are of the utmost importance. But the question remains whether there is any Jewish intertextuality that can do without the Hebrew - and incidentally Aramaic - fundaments. Even if we strove for a Judaism of translation and a translation of Judaism into German (as did the German- Jewish nineteenth century in an intense, internally Jewish, symbiosis), and even if we were as successful in these translating efforts as American Judaism seems to be today — there can be no doubt: eyn anachnu maspiqin\

Hebrew is not only a shibbolet - an academic krisis - it may, on the other hand, also bridge a gap and ease the tension caused by the growing non- Jewish demand for 'authenticity', i.e., for the Jewish voices of teachers and scholars, an 'authenticity' to be guaranteed by the overlapping of scholarship and private identity defined by religion or 'ethnicity'. Academic objectivity does not distinguish 'insiders' form 'outsiders', but applies scholarly criteria only. Still, it will be difficult to ignore the voices from the outside and, though thinly veiled, also from inside the ivory tower, that do not wish to distinguish between scholarship and private, religious or ethnic, affilia- tion and identity. I may be mistaken, but I have the impression that Hebrew

21 G. Scholem, Tagebiicher nebst Aufsatzen und Entwurfen bis 1923, 2. Halbband 1917-1923 (Frankfurt a.M. 2000) 43. 94 MICHAEL BROCKE

language competence does serve to bridge the gap of the common inside/outside perception, not only in Germany itself, but also for Israeli and American Jews when they encounter German scholars in Jewish Stud- ies, who may still be objects of uneasy surprise outside the small word of scholarship. Knowledge of Hebrew implies the ability and willingness to participate in some kind or other of Jewish life. It shows that we strive for a vital discipline with vibrant exchange - with the international scholarly community as well as with Jewish communities and individuals - and shun the shallow satisfaction of 'Schwindel' and 'Kitsch'. Do we want to be 'needed' by Jews and Jewish communities in Germany, in German and in other languages? Don't we need the questioning and stimulant of an alert and critical public?22 Thus our work should prove the need for the study of Hebrew and cog- nate languages as the major instrument for reaching the profundity necessary for innovative scholarship and international recognition. There is no interpretation of Judaism, no keeping it alive and open to understanding - both of the well known and of the yet untapped - without that language. The Hebrew sources, then, should play their manifold roles in the curricula offered in the different federal states and nationwide. One should seriously discuss the question whether Jewish Studies should offer curriculum without any Hebrew requirements. Everyone will agree that there are no serious Japanese or Chinese studies without knowledge of the respective languages. That there are, however, fields in Jewish Studies that can be cared for without Hebrew, follows from the permanent involvement of Jew- ish life in other cultures and nations (other than was the case with China or Japan). Yet all understanding of the Jewish people in history, and of the full spectrum of its creativity, is impossible without unfolding Hebrew sources and documents, their language's longue duree measuring continuity and discontinuity in Judaism.

To conclude. The tasks lying ahead of Jewish Studies are arduous. They must flourish first and foremost for their own sake - amidst other disci-

12 It might be tempting to compare the two-tiered tension in the USA : either strict academic neutrality or a strong feeling of responsibility for Jewish (educational) causes, the community, and Jewish values. The growth of Jewish Studies cannot be separated from the need for Jewish knowledge on the part of non-observant Jews. Jewish life in Germany, growing again and growing fast, will ask Jewish Studies in a not too distant future to find a balance between community-concerns and academic neutrality and distance. This is only normal. Did not 'Wissenschaft des Judentums' have to find this balance with most of its representatives, many of them rabbinically educated, and did not most of them try to attain it quite willingly too? As yet there is no such tension in Germany; the Jewish communities do not yet expect much from academia, burdened as they are with social problems. There are a few contacts, but the 'scholarly' is of little concern to the much more basic educational needs of the various communities. JEWISH STUDIES IN POST-WWII GERMANY 95 plines fighting for their existence in a world ever more dominated by stri- dent economic efficiency. Secondly, Jewish Studies in Germany should not content itself with being a friendly-but-indifferently accepted, historically inevitable, fashionable addition to the Humanities. Rather, it should strive towards the creation of a more authentic, i.e., different, view of Occident and Orient, of the possibilities, limits and chances of civilization — introducing another set of questions and tentative answers. It should question the western canon, dominated as it is by Christianity and posing as 'the Judeo- Christian tradition', and thus labor against the truly 'established' disciplines and the authority they assume to dictate the definitions. Given the self- understood rootedness of western culture in Christianity and its tenets - especially in its less recommendable ones - the task of instilling knowledge of Judaism and introducing Jewish values into the discussion is an unend- ing endeavor. In this sense a request uttered forty years ago is still relevant: 'Judaistik' in Germany should see itself as 'Interventionswissenschaft'23. In the long run one of the more important tasks of Jewish Studies (under whatever German name) is the one pertaining to Humanities or cultural studies in general, namely 'to translate Hebrew into Greek' (and also to 'translate' Greek into Hebrew?) as Emanuel Levinas demanded from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, at a time when 'Jerusalem' was still unmistakably set on separating Judaism from outside influences and from the history of its humiliations24. Judaism, then, should both be researched for its own sake and be made known and understood to the Jewish, the non- Jewish, the Christian, the post- and the non-Christian world, the so-called western world. The knowledge of 'Jerusalem' should be instilled at long last into the dwindling - or newly-reconstructed — canon of 'Athens' and 'Rome', but a 'Jerusalem' of many definitions: the 'Jerusalems' and metropoles ('arim we-immahot be-Yisra'el) of the diaspora, flourishing in and suffering under 'Athens', in and under 'Rome' — and under 'Mekka', too. This 'Hebrew' and 'Greek', the original and its translation - with all the intimations of originality, influence, of the transformation and hybridization involved - still lie ahead of us. The effort to contribute in research to both the 'original' and its 'translation' will hopefully make Jewish Studies in the German language again and anew an important and esteemed partner in the 'Wissenschaft des Judentums'. This term itself has remained unblemished.

23 As formulated by the Berlin philosopher of religion Klaus Heinrich, one of the found- ing fathers of the 'Institut fur Judaistik' at the 'Freie Universitat' of Berlin (founded together with two chairs of 'Weltanschauung' in catholic and protestant theology. 24 Em. Levinas, "Assimilation et culture nouvelle", L'au-deld du verset. Lectures et dis- cours talmudiques (Paris 1982) 229-234; "La traduction de 1'Ecriture. Lecon talmudique au XXIIe Colloque d'Intellectuels Juifs de langue fran§aise", in J. Halperin and G. Levitte, eds, Israel, le judaisme et VEurope (Paris 1984) 329-362, 363-369. 96 MICHAEL BROCKE

Nowadays it can be heard most naturally in the circles of American Jewish Studies — shortened to 'Wissenschaft' tout court. So let this noble 'Wis- senschaft' again be our rallying call, nationally and internationally - a belated victory of greatness past - and all the rest, then, is 'commentary': zil, gemor!