The Architectural Challenge of a Jewish Studies House at the Hebrew University: A Lost Opportunity

Jewisb Studies House at tbe Hebrew University THE ARCHITECTURAL CHALLENGE OF A JEWISH STUDIES HOUSE AT THE HEBREW UNIVERSIlY: A LOST OPPORTUNIlY by Diana Oolev and Haim Gordon Haim Gordon is a senior lecturer at Ben Gurion University. His recent books are: Make Room for Dreams: Spiritual Cballenges to Zionism (1989); Naguib Mabfouz's Egypt: Existential Themes in His Writings (1990); Israel/Palestine: The Quest for Dialogue (1991). Diana Oolev is currently studying toward her Ph.D. in the history of architecture at the University of London. 1 A major point made by Martin Buber, Berthold Feiwel, and Chaim Weizmann in their 1901 pamphlet "Die Jiidische Hochschule" was that Jewish Studies would be central to the Hebrew University that they proposed the Zionist movement should establish in Israel.i Until then, argued the authors, Jewish Studies had been pursued by prominent scholars in various academic disciplines and had therefore not attained the full status of an independent science. With the establishment of a Hebrew University in Jerusalem, they believed, Jewish Studies could come into its own, both as an independent scientific field and as an area where Jewish scholars could relate to and investigate their rich heritage. In the two decades following its publication, "Die Jiidische Hochschule " led to many discussions among scholars and central figures in the . Zionist movement and in the many committees set up to promote the idea of a Hebrew University. In these discussions the importance of Jewish Studies as crucial to the first Jewish university in history was never in doubt. For instance, Dr. Adolf Buchler and Rabbi Israel levi, who were not lBuber, Feiwel, Weizrnann, Diejiidische Hochschule (Geneva: Jiidische Verlag, 1901). 2 SHOFAR Fall 1992 Vol. 11, No. 1 supporters of Zionism but believed in the importance of a Hebrew University, held that the Hebrew University should be dedicated exclusively to Jewish Studies-they envisioned a sort of high seminar for rabbis and Jewish scholars. Others, such as Menachem Ussishkin andJoseph Klauzner who were dedicated Zionists, held that Jewish Studies should be central to the university, but they also believed that a university must include other academic fields, such as general history, philosophy, the sciences, and literature.2 Without presenting any of the details of the lengthy arguments that prevailed among the supporters of the Hebrew University during the period prior to its opening, we can firmly state that all sides agreed that a special building should be built to house Jewish Studies on the university campus. Indeed, when the Hebrew University finally opened in 1925 on Mount Scopus, it included two buildings, one of them a chemistry and microbiology building and the other dedicated to Jewish Studies. But the latter was a rented Arab building, which formerly had been a khan. In reviewing the discussion among the many scholars, rabbis, and Zionist leaders about the importance of Jewish Studies in the proposed Hebrew University, a discussion that continued until 1925, we found no concern as to how the 'Institute for Jewish Studies would look. It seems that these leaders, rabbis, and scholars considered only the contents to be studied and taught at the Institute for Jewish Studies, never the form of the building which would house this new discipline. Most of them did not seem to grasp that the architecture of a building is also a way of influencing the dwellers in that building, of engaging them as seekers for knowledge, beauty, and truth, and of encouraging them to relate to the interaction between form and content. An exception to this lack of architectural vision was Dr. Eder, head of the British Zionist Organization and a member of the Board of Governors of the Hebrew University. In a letter dated January 18, 1927, Eder wrote to Dr. Magnes, chancellor of the university, a lengthy criticism concerning the administration's response to the first master plan of the university: I ... have the impression that you rather regard architecture as one of the futile arts, and are not interested in considerations of beauty and strength being expressed in building form. . . . I know that my own views will not avail much, as I command no financial resources. 2For more details see: Diana Dolev, The Architecture of...