Content uploaded by Andreas Brämer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreas Brämer on Dec 11, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
©Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 EJJS 7.2
Also available online – brill.com/ejjs DOI:./X-
“MAKING TEACHERS...WHO DO NOT TREAT THEIR
PROFESSION AS AN OCCASIONAL BUSINESS”:
LEOPOLD ZUNZ AND THE MODERNIZATION
OF THE JEWISH TEACHER TRAINING IN PRUSSIA*
Andreas Brämer
Abstract
Although Leopold Zunz has spent most of his years in Berlin, he had led an active life.
German-Jewish history rightly remembers him rst and foremost as the iconic gure of the
Wissenschaft des Judentums (the Science of Judaism) whose inspiring charisma has lasted
to this day. However, Zunz has also left inuential traces in the German and German-
Jewish history as a preacher, pedagogue, and political contemporary. This essay ponders a
facet of his biography which thus far has rather eluded further attention. When the entire
educational system of German Jewry underwent a modernization process of transforma-
tion, Zunz had not only given fresh impetus for the momentary education at his Gemeinde-
Knabenschule (Berlin’s former Jewish Freischule where Zunz served as principal). In
addition, Zunz was among the most signicant advocates of a Jewish faculty at schools. He
sought their professionalization through raising the general level of qualication. Zunz’s
eforts in this are the subject of the following discussion. The focal point will be set on
Zunz’s years as principal of the Jewish Lehrerseminarium (Teachers’ Seminary) in Berlin
which ofered training to young prospective Jewish teachers between and .
Keywords
Leopold Zunz, Jewish Teachers’ Seminary, Religious Education, Prussian Jewry
I
Prussia’s Emanzipationsedikt (Edict of Emancipation) of March in
had granted to the state’s domestic Jews far reaching improvements in
their legal status. However, the edict had explicitly excluded fundamental
* The quote in the title is taken from one of Leopold Zunz’s speeches. See Moritz Veit
and Leopold Zunz, Das jüdische Schullehrer Seminarium in Berlin: Eröfnet am . November
(Berlin: Veit, ), .
See a more thorough study from the perspective of the institute’s history in Michael
Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin: Eine Festschrift zur
Feier des fünfzigjährigen Bestehens der Anstalt am . November (Berlin: Hermann,
), –.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 151 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
152
clauses for the “betterment of the Jews’ education.” A new Jewish educa-
tion policy began taking shape as late as May in . Then—for the rst
time—the government department for religious afairs had formulated a
rescript that contained concise provisions for the re-organization of the
Jewish schools in Prussia’s provinces under contemporary criteria. This
decree was a turning point in the educational history of Jews in Prussia.
Jewish boys and girls who were ve years and older were now liable to
compulsory school attendance. They were free to fulll this obligation
through private tutors, especially through attending Christian elementary
schools, or Jewish parochial school (which did not receive public funding,
of course). Answering the new legal situation, the Jewish community of
Berlin introduced the Gemeinde-Knabenschule (Communal Boys’ School)
in , and whose rst principal was Dr. Zunz until .
Other paragraphs of the decree dealt with Jewish teachers. Comparable
to their Christian colleagues they now had to produce sucient docu-
mentation of their professional qualication in order to receive accredita-
tion. There was, however, no provision included explaining where Jewish
school teachers were supposed to be educated themselves. There existed
Protestant and Catholic seminaries in larger numbers since the authori-
ties had begun to understand them as catalysts for the modernization of
education. The state supported these seminaries through nancial and
legal measures. Jewish elementary schools, though, proted only indi-
rectly from this development. The Jewish teacher body presented itself as
“§ , Edikt, betrefend die bürgerlichen Verhältnisse der Juden in dem Preußischen
Staate, ..,” in Ismar Freund, Die Emanzipation der Juden in Preußen unter beson-
derer Berücksichtigung des Gesetzes vom . März : Ein Beitrag zur Rechtsgeschichte der
Juden in Preußen, Vol. : Urkunden (Berlin: Poppelauer, ), .
This rescript has been reprinted repeatedly. See, for instance, Ismar Freund, Die
Rechtsstellung der Juden im preußischen Volksschulrecht nebst den bezüglichen Gesetzen,
Verordnungen und Entscheidungen (im Auftrag des Verbandes der deutschen Juden syste-
matisch dargestellt) (Berlin: Guttentag, ), –.
See Festschrift zur Feier des jährigen Bestehens der Knabenschule der jüdischen
Gemeinde in Berlin (Berlin: Phönix, ).
See, for instance, Frank-Michael Kuhlemann, Modernisierung und Disziplinierung:
Sozialgeschichte des preußischen Volksschulwesens – (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, ), –; Michael Sauer, Volksschullehrerbildung in Preußen: Die Seminare
und Präparandenanstalten vom . Jahrhundert bis zur Weimarer Republik (Köln and
Wien: Böhlau, ), –; Heinz-Elmar Tenorth, “Lehrerberuf und Lehrerbildung,”
in Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte. Vol. : –: Von der Neuordnung
Deutschlands bis zur Gründung des Deutschen Reiches, eds. Karl Ernst Jeismann and
Peter Lundgreen (München: Beck, ), –; Heinz-Elmar Tenorth and Sebastian F.
Müller, “Professionalisierung der Lehrertätigkeit,” in Enzyklopädie Erziehungswissenschaft.
Vol. : Organisation, Recht und Ökonomie des Bildungswesens (Stuttgart: : Klett-Cotta),
–.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 152 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
153
rather resistant to modernizing reforms of their teaching and professional
practice until well into the second quarter of the th century. Jewish
teachers in the entire German-language world rarely moved beyond the
connements of the religious component as they neither acquired knowl-
edge of the secular elds in a systematic way, nor did they adopt the
concepts of contemporary educational theorists.
One of the counselors in the ministry for education was Ludolph von
Beckedorf (–) who was most inuential for shaping the Prussian
policy of education at the time. Through discussing the contemporary
state of Jewish education in the Jahrbücher des Preußischen Volks-Schul-
Wesens (Yearbooks of Prussian Elementary Schools), which he edited,
Beckedorf addressed the problem of the Jewish backlog in the modern-
ization of education. He expressed his hope that “maybe as early as in the
next generation this peculiar—and in some respect misfortunate—nation
will walk the path to better intellectual, moral, and civil conditions.”
According to Beckedorf two main obstacles had to be leveled on the way
to an accelerated acculturation: the irregularity of Jewish boys’ and girls’
school attendance on the one hand, and the ignorance and—at times—
utter incompetence of their teachers on the other hand.
The educational authorities full-heartedly agreed to the acculturation
of the Jewish minority but never truly discussed any governmental fund-
ing for Jewish teachers’ seminaries. Thus Prussia’s Jews depended on
initiating their own projects—provided, of course, they were in favor of a
systematic confessional education of their elementary teachers according
to modern standards. The idea of introducing Jewish teacher seminaries
was in fact discussed in several congregations of the kingdom. The proj-
ect actually took shape in Münster, Westphalia. In there was con-
stituted the “Society for the Advancement of Craftsmanship among the
Jews, and the Formation of a Jewish Seminary where Poor and Orphaned
Children, as well as future Jewish Teachers will be Educated.”
Leopold Zunz, too, advocated the formation of a teachers’ seminary in
Berlin when he presented his “Outline for a Plan for the Establishment of
[Ludolph von Beckedorf,] “Jüdisches Schulwesen,” Jahrbücher des Preußischen Volks-
Schul-Wesens (Berlin: Brüschcke, ), , .
See Andreas Brämer, Leistung und Gegenleistung: Zur Geschichte jüdischer Religions-
und Elementarlehrer in Preußen / bis (Göttingen: Wallstein, ), –,
–.
See especially Susanne Freund, Jüdische Bildungsgeschichte zwischen Emanzipation
und Ausgrenzung: Das Beispiel der Marks-Haindorf-Stiftung in Münster (–)
(Paderborn: Schöningh, ); Mordechai Eliav, Jüdische Erziehung in Deutschland im
Zeitalter der Auklärung und der Emanzipation (Münster et al.: Waxmann, ), –.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 153 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
154
a Jewish Parochial School” in . As Zunz understood that future teach-
ers and rabbis could be educated in the same classes, he sought to incor-
porate these classes into a future boys’ school. The lectures were supposed
to be restricted to the “Aramaic (Chaldaic) language; instruction on rab-
binic authors; biblical hermeneutics; Talmud and knowledge of the laws;
Jewish history; Jewish literature; Jewish calendar; Jewish philosophy.”
Zunz further planned as practical tutorials “discussion of the Talmud and
comparison of several of the most inuential commentators;.. .linguistic
practices; translations and discussions of excerpts of the Mishna and other
rabbinic sources; explanations of biblical passages; . . . scholarly treatises
concerning the structure of thought to be found in the Talmud and the
most important points taken from the literary and political history of the
Jews; essays on assigned subjects, partially in the Hebrew language; and
the like.” The three-year-curriculum was intended to be supplemented by
practicing sermons and teaching at the attached school. Attendees of the
seminary were supposed to be allowed to attend classes at the university
upon their written application.
It is a noteworthy fact that Zunz had devised in this plan a curriculum
that avoided the secular subjects entirely. He must have been aware of
the authorities’ decree that the mandatory examination of the Jewish
teachers did not foresee testing the “actual knowledge of the Jewish reli-
gion.” The systematic acquirement of the future teachers’ qualications
thus had only been achieved in the eld of Judaica whose knowledge was
essential for the religious education. The candidates therefore would have
been responsible to acquire elsewhere the “knowledge and skills which
are to be expected from the individual dedicated to the profession of a
teacher.”
As an involuntary body corporate of the Jews of Berlin, the Jewish reli-
gious community likely was yet to be interested in an institution for the
education of teachers and rabbis. With such an institution they would
have taken the responsibility for the development of Jewish education
in the entire kingdom. When the boys’ school commenced teaching in
and Zunz was hired as its principal, his plans for a seminary had
become obsolete. The Vice-Chief Rabbi of Prussia, Meyer Simon Weyl
(–), seemingly was more successful. A few months after Zunz
had devised his plan, Weyl and the pedagogue Jeremias Heinemann
(–) established a “theological-pedagogical seminary” which was
Leopold Zunz, “Outline for a Plan for the Establishment of a Jewish Parochial School,”
, KGe Nr. , Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP), Berlin.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 154 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
155
attached to the equally newly established Talmud-Tora-Schule. Despite
Heinemann’s statements, this institution was incapable of ensuring a
regular instruction. Until it was nally closed in /—the Talmud-
Tora-Schule had been consolidated with the Gemeinde-Knabenschule as
early as —the institution apparently never saw any graduation at all.
Zunz himself explained in that “the seminary which the late Rabbi
Weil [Weyl] had planned in Berlin never existed.”
II
During the s the board of the Jewish religious community of Berlin
decided to assert their position as leaders of all other Jewish congrega-
tions in Prussia by a practical initiative in the question of the semi-
naries. However, the hopes for a lasting institutional solution for the
education of teachers were temporarily dampened by unresolved issues
of competencies and the discussion of innovative elements in liturgy and
education within the congregation. In Brandenburg’s Provincial
School Council was informed of the existence of a new seminary where,
among others, Salomon Plessner (–) taught—the neo-Orthodox
preacher and teacher of religion. The institute promised to ofer the
necessary education to “young people wishing to be educated in order
to be rabbis, teachers of religion, cantors, and other religious personnel
[Kultusbeamte].” In light of the poor conditions of teaching and learning,
the institute proved to be of a rather provisional character. Furthermore,
it cannot be ascertained beyond doubt whether or not the conserva-
tive board of the Talmud-Tora-Schule—which had announced plans
for a seminary as early as —was responsible for the new institute.
Leopold Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt. Ein
Beitrag zur Alterthumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte
(Frankfurt/Main: Kaufmann, ), . See also vgl. S[amuel]. M[ayer]. Ehrenberg to
L[eopold]. Zunz, Jan. , ; Feb. , , in Leopold and Adelheid Zunz—An Account in
Letters, ed. Nahum N. Glatzer (London: East and West Libr., ), ; Zunz to S[amuel]
M[ayer] Ehrenberg, Dec. , , in Leopold Zunz: Jude—Deutscher—Europäer. Ein jüdis-
ches Gelehrtenschicksal des . Jahrhunderts in Briefen an Freunde, ed. Nahum N. Glatzer
(Tübingen: Mohr, ), . On the seminary, see Carsten Wilke, “Den Talmud und den
Kant”: Rabbinerausbildung an der Schwelle zur Moderne (Hildesheim et al.: Olms, ),
–; “Lehrplan des israelitisch-theologisch-pädagogischen Seminariums und der damit
verbundenen Elementar-Schule,” Jan. , , in Jahrbücher des Preußischen Volks-Schul-
Wesens (), –. The last is available in parts in Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen
Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin, –.
On the following see Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in
Berlin, –.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 155 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
156
It had been established without the consent of the board of the Jewish
community.
After reviewing the institute in , the Prussian school board announced
the conditions under which the seminary was allowed to proceed. The
leaders of the Jewish community hired Leopold Zunz as principal. He
was, however, not entrusted with the reorganization of the existing semi-
nary but rather with the devising of a new seminary altogether. The fact
that the school board posed conditions before accepting the new plans
might have been related to the existence of the seminary for the educa-
tion of municipal teacher. It had been established in Berlin in , headed
by the reform-pedagogue Adolph Diesterweg (–), and was well
on the way to an exemplary existence: the future teachers received a
subject-related and pedagogical training that was noted beyond the limits
of the metropolis.
The authorities had reserved the right of examining all docents of
seminars for their pedagogical skills unless the candidates had been able
“to prove their capability through school teaching stretching over several
years.” Zunz’s merits as the principal of a school for the period between
and were not deemed sucient enough for proving his compe-
tence and waiving the examination. In December , the Royal School
Council of the Province of Brandenburg ordered Zunz to visit the provin-
cial school inspector Johann Schulz who would examine Zunz jointly with
Diesterweg:
One aspect of the examination will be your own examination of the condi-
tion of the so-called Jewish seminary. You will examine the students in the
presence of the School Inspector Schulz and the Principal of the Seminary
Diesterweg; report your ndings in written form, and outline your ideas
concerning the future constitution of the seminary.
It was only after further delay—when Zunz had successfully passed his
examination pro rectoratu—that the authorities accepted his provisional
appointment as head of the institute. However, there was to overcome
opposition within the Jewish congregation itself. The school board of the
congregation was called into action for Zunz’s past activities as a preacher
and scholar who advocated reforming the religion. The board’s demand
for taking into consideration for his appointment Zunz’s “practical life-
See Sauer, Volksschullehrerbildung in Preußen, .
Royal School Council of the Province of Brandenburg to Zunz, Dec., , , °
/C– (Zunz Archive), Jewish National and University Library (JNUL), Jerusalem,
Israel.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 156 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
157
style in respect to the Jewish rituals” did win a majority. On September ,
, the contract was signed retroactively to January of that year. The
new Schullehrer-Seminarium, the school teachers’ seminary, commenced
regular classes in November , and was backed nancially through the
resources of the congregation and the Talmud-Tora-Fund.
The plans for the institution and curriculum which Zunz had devised in
the fall of and which the board and administration had accepted—
excluding a small number of paragraphs—set new quality standards for
the education of Jewish teachers. In order to lay the material bases for a
successful education, Zunz had specied his expectations for the locality
and its equipment with furniture. He had also provided detailed informa-
tion for the necessary equipment for teaching and learning, among them
writing utensils, textbooks, tools, maps, and scientic instruments and
showcases—right up to the heating, illumination, and cleaning.
When devising the inner structure of the seminary, the principal-elect
used the example of the public seminaries. As it was custom elsewhere,
the faculty should consist of three full teachers (including the principal)
as well as assistant teachers for individual subjects if necessary. Without
making specications concerning his educational background or compen-
sation, Zunz characterized the principal as the denite authority in all
internal or external issues of the seminary. The regulations formed a clear
hierarchy: While enjoying a reduced teaching load, the principal was not
only responsible for the institute’s administration and its departments,
but also enjoyed a broad power to direct the faculty, and to decide over
the acceptance and dismissal of the students.
The enrollment of students was, of course, liable to objective condi-
tions. It was of essence for the seminary to ofer an education free of
“Kontrakt zwischen dem Vorstand der Berliner jüdischen Gemeinde und Leopold
Zunz,” .., ° /C– (Zunz Archive), ibid. See also a letter from the school
principals of the Jewish community of Berlin, received May , . ° /C– (Zunz
Archive), ibid.
Veit and Zunz, Das jüdische Schullehrer-Seminarium, . On the history of the
seminary, see Eliav, Jüdische Erziehung in Deutschland, et seq.; Jörg H. Fehrs, Von der
Heidereutergasse zum Roseneck: Jüdische Schulen in Berlin – (Berlin: Ed. Hentrich,
), –; Ludwig Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin: Als Festschrift zur zweiten
Säkular-Feier, vol. (Berlin: Guttentag, ), et seq.; Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen
Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin, –.
Leopold Zunz, “Einrichtungs- und Lehrplan für das zu errichtende Jüdische Seminar,”
in Veit and Zunz, Das jüdische Schullehrer Seminarium, –; Holzman, Geschichte der
Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin, –. See also Israelitische Annalen (),
et seq., et seq.; Orient (), –, –; “Moritz Veit to Michael Sachs, Dec. ,
,” in Michael Sachs und Moritz Veit. Briefwechsel, ed. Ludwig Geiger (Frankfurt/Main:
Kaufmann, ), .
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 157 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
158
charge to the young males as the profession of a teacher was not very
attractive, and Jewish teachers were traditionally recruited from the non-
bourgeois segment of society. The main criterion of being accepted—
apart from the formalities like a minimum age of —was the successfully
passed admission examination. The requirements, of course, were not too
excessive. Aspirants had to demonstrate
a minimal knowledge, proving that the applicant is familiar with the
German language and understands given texts when reading, writes down
dictated sentences without excessive mistakes, has to have necessary prac-
tice in the four basic operations of arithmetic and must be familiar with the
basic geographical terms. In addition, he has to read and understand the
Pentateuch and Rashi, read passages of the Mishna, and translate the daily
prayers, to know the common liturgical practices, and has to be versed in
reading and producing Jewish cursive writings.
The rules appear modern were they do not only see as a precondition
the talent of the applicant but also requires his motivation for teaching
(“passion for and capability of the school subject”). With this implied con-
gruency of personal interests and the alignment with the common good,
Zunz moved away from a strictly commercial understanding of the profes-
sion—thus an economy based one—towards a professionalized image of
the teachers that was also aimed at gaining prestige within society.
According to Zunz punishment—as well as rewards—was an insuf-
cient way of inuencing learning behavior. The teachers’ appreciation
and the awareness of the own accomplishments were to be the students’
encouragement rather than bonuses and grades. Zunz was equally not
convinced of public exams as an assessment of training success. He
intended the annual reports of the principal to be the sole outward infor-
mation for the condition and development of the seminary, its students
and their accomplishments. Those students risked premature expulsion
whose submission and eforts did not meet the standard despite repeated
warnings.
The question of confession was an important one in the Jewish context
but the seminary’s constitution knew how to avoid it. Far from measur-
ing the aptitude of the applicants by the traditional forms of piety, the
constitution’s article simply asked for a “religious personality and morally
acceptable behavior” according to common standards. In his opening
Zunz, “Einrichtungs- und Lehrplan,” § , . See also the “Kontrakt zwischen dem
Vorstand der Berliner jüdischen Gemeinde und Leopold Zunz,” Sept. , , ° /C–
(Archiv Zunz), JNUL.
See Zunz’s speech in Veit and Zunz, Das jüdische Schullehrer-Seminarium, et seq.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 158 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
159
address, Zunz markedly advocated the “religious progress.” As it was the
seminary’s intention to lay the path to a “spirit of genuine culture and
ethical order” there was no room at the seminary for the “mere appear-
ance” of the past orthopraxis. Thus Zunz took a view that reected the
altered aesthetic and intellectual conceptions. The principles matter-of-
factly barred law-abiding future teachers from enrollment whose orienta-
tion toward external norms marked them as perceived non-citizens.
Religious discussions aside, Zunz moved within the ambit of Adolph
Diesterweg, the principal of the Protestant municipal teachers’ seminary
which was equally organized as a day school. At the beginning, Zunz’s
curriculum was planned as a course of three years, covering, of course, not
more than two classes which were instructed separately. Zunz referred
to the following subjects as belonging to the common, i.e., Christian, semi-
naries: German, history, geography, natural history, geometry, calculus, as
well as writing and graphics. Latin was taught as well although Zunz was
unable to justify its necessity from a didactic angle. He considered Latin,
however, a marker for higher education and thus an important condition
for the social improvement of the teachers.
At least of the weekly hours of class were dedicated to the Jewish
subjects (bible, Talmud and codices, religion, Hebrew, Jewish cursive writ-
ing, homiletic practices). The theoretical training as educators, however,
only began in the third semester and was limited to some few hours—
knowledge of logic, psychology, methodology and pedagogy were taught
over the course of one single semester. The curriculum avoided detailed
descriptions of the educational content, but rather included specications
concerning the work-load to be mastered for the general and the religious
subjects.
Ibid., . See also Israelitische Annalen (), et seq.
Simone Lässig, Jüdische Wege ins Bürgertum: Kulturelles Kapital und sozialer Aufstieg
im . Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ), . See also Manfred
Hettling and Stefan-Ludwig Hofmann, “Der bürgerliche Wertehimmel: Zum Problem indi-
vidueller Lebensführung im . Jahrhundert,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft (): .
See Otto Schulz, “Nachricht von dem Berlinischen Seminarium für Stadtschulen,”
Schulblatt für die Provinz Brandenburg (): –; Karl Schultze, Nachrichten über das
Königliche Seminar für Stadtschullehrer in Berlin: Eine Festschrift zur Feier des jährigen
Bestehens der Anstalt am . Januar (Berlin: Verlag des Seminars, ), –.
See the curriculum of .
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 159 9/26/2013 10:09:26 AM
160
Curriculum at the Jewish School Teachers’ Seminary in Berlin,
Source: Veit and Zunz, Das jüdische Schullehrer Seminarium, . See also Orient
(), .
Subject Second Class First Class
st nd rd st nd rd
Semester Semester
Bible
(Original
Language)
hrs.
Pentateuch
hrs.
Pentateuch
and Rashi
hrs. histor.
Books and
Rashi
hrs. Psalms
or Proverbs,
hr. bible
lessons
hrs. Prophets, Koheleth
etc.,
hr. Jewish history and
literature
Religion hrs. bible
history,
hr
prayerbook
hrs. rel.
bible study,
hr.
prayerbook
hrs. theory
of God,
hr. Ethics of
the Fathers
hrs.
deontology
hrs. how to use the
catechism and instruction
for religious education
Talmudic hrs. Orach
Chayim
hrs. Orach
Chayim
hrs. Orach
Chayim and
Mishna
hr.
Shulchan
Aruch, hrs.
Talmud
hrs. Talmud and
Maimonides
Hebrew hrs.
grammar and
practice
hrs.
grammar
and
practice
hrs.
grammar and
dictates
hrs.
syntax and
translation
into Hebrew
hrs. one ethical author
German hrs.
grammar and
practice
hrs.
grammar
and
practice
hrs.
grammar and
essays
hrs.
prosody and
one poet
hrs. one historical author
and interpretation
Latin — hrs. Latin
elements
hrs.
grammar and
reading
hrs.
historical
author
hrs. one ethical or
philosophical author
Logic,
Psychology,
etc.
— — hr. logic hrs.
psychology
hrs.
methodology
hrs.
pedagogy
Geometry hr. plane hr. plane hr. plane hr. on the
objects
hr. on the
objects
hr. applied
mathematics
Calculus hr.
mental and
blackboard
arithmetic
each
hr.
Mental and
Blackboard
arithmetic
each
hrs. hrs. hrs.
arithmetic
hrs.
algebra,
elements
Geography hr. general hr.
Germany
and Europe
hr.
Palestine
hr. Asia, etc. hr.
mathematical
geography
hr. physical
description
of the world
History hrs. ancient
history
hrs.
medieval
history
hrs.
modern
history
hrs. Greek
and Roman
history
hrs. specic
topics of the
medieval
history
hrs. of
the modern
history
Natural
History
hrs. general hrs. man
and animal
hrs. plant
and mineral
hrs. physics hrs.
botanic
hrs.
Calligraphy
and
Graphics
hr. German,
mathematical
objects
hr. Jewish cursive writing,
hrs. free drawing and
maps
hrs. homiletic practices
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 160 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
161
Zunz had his own share in the intense Jewish perception of contemporary
educational theories, of course. He apparently employed, for instance,
the maxims the followers of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (–) had
popularized. The ideas are present when Zunz understands the insemina-
tion of qualications for the profession as a process that ideally progresses
from the general to the particular and from the specic to the abstract.
The Jewish seminary employed the same Spiralunterricht (“synchronized
education”) most state school followed: the instructions were supposed
to seize on the lessons of past semesters—to repeat, broaden and build
upon them at the same time. The resulting knowledge transgressed the
mere capability of elementary education by far and was rather tting for
enabling a convergence of the teachers with the “intelligentsia.” The prac-
tical instructions relevant for the profession dovetailed in a conception
with personal development according to bourgeois conceptions—such
as prociency, rationality, self-reliance, morality, moderation, aesthetics,
order. It was this conception that was deemed to take up a standardizing
function in the overall concept of the Jewish qualication of teachers:
The teaching methodology is always supposed to strive for thorough and
clear knowledge; it may inspire contemplation, nourish a healthy mind,
bring order into the activities of the soul, and widen the alumnus’s abilities
towards an independent development. Neither the training for doing tricks
nor ramming not understood results into the alumni may take place. The
purpose of the seminary is not the transmission of detailed knowledge or
rened education, but rather a solid, comprehensive and fruitful kind of
knowledge. It is of essence to work towards the correct terminology, apt and
eloquent expression, enunciation, pleasant delivery. It is equally relevant to
promote reasonable manners, practicality, and civility. Reliable teaching is
preferable over the hasting procession; and truthfulness is always superior
over pomposity.
The level of aspiration at the Jewish Seminarium outdid the one of its
counterpart in Westphalia by far. Moreover, in light of the teaching load,
the Provincial School Council decreed an extension of the education to
four years. Three of the total of ve instructors—two of three main teach-
ers—were academics who held PhD degrees; the others were licensed
elementary teachers. The local and regional aspects played only a minor
role for the seminary in Berlin. This stood in contrast to the Vereinsschule
in Münster which predominantly trained teachers for Westphalia and the
Rhine Province. The seminary in Berlin emphasized its responsibility for
all of Prussian Jewry. The positive response through enrollments proved
Veit and Zunz, Das jüdische Schullehrer Seminarium, .
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 161 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
162
the current necessity for such a seminary, which was still embedded in a
religiously legitimized overall concept. Eight of the Jewish aspirants
were from the Prussian province of Poznan; ve from Silesia, three from
the Province of Prussia (East and West Prussia), and one from Westphalia.
Four applicants were from non-Prussian territories. The origin of the three
remaining aspirants cannot be veried. Not one single application for
admission had come from Berlin itself !
Ten candidates were accepted after the entry exam. They had stated
their homes to be in Poznan (ve), in Silesia (two), in West Prussia (one),
and “abroad” (two). The institute’s funding, however, was only ensured
through Berlin’s congregation—all calls were futile for donations from
Jewish community members, or for grants from congregations in other
major cities for the largely impecunious students. Zunz had privately
voiced his opinion that it was easier to collect support for the erection of
hospitals. He thus pointed to the problem that a faith-based charity had
not yet understood the instruction of Jewish teachers as worthy of back-
ing. The notion of solidarity among the entire Jewry had not produced
any recognizable nancial support. This fact might have been due to the
expectations that primarily the schools in Berlin would directly prot
from the new educational courses. When seen from the perspective of the
congregations beyond the city limits of Berlin, the seminary would have
uncertain benets.
III
The development of the Jewish Schullehrerseminar was slowed down
by resistance within the congregation as well as unfavorable political
framework conditions. The planned introduction of a second class of the
seminary was temporarily uncertain as early as . Then, the instruction
The Jewish teacher M. Weinberg concluded in that “the seminaries were largely
frequented by students from the rural areas or small-towns since even the most impecu-
nious metropolitan harbors a certain antipathy for the subject. He still feels entitled to
contribute precious advice to a better career of his sons.” Weinberg, “Der Lehrer außerhalb
seines Schulzimmers. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte seiner Einseitigkeit und Unbeholfenheit,”
Der Israelitische Lehrer (): .
Veit and Zunz, Das jüdische Schullehrer-Seminarium, et seq.; Orient (), .
The congregation of Poznan was the only one to at least hold out the prospect of
a grant. See Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin, –;
Israelitische Annalen (): et seq.; Zunz to S.M. Ehrenberg, Nov. , , in Glatzer,
Leopold Zunz, et seq.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 162 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
163
followed religious guidelines that were contrary to the expectations of the
inuential and conservative seminary’s board. The members of the board
were especially taken aback by the fact that Zunz never consulted them
when making important decisions. Plans, according to which the insti-
tute was to be put under the supervision of a religious scholar and that
contradicted the principal’s expressed will, led to nothing: The designated
Chief Rabbi Zacharias Frankel (–)—who was known as a moder-
ate reformer—refused the ofer from Berlin. Michael Sachs (–)
succeeded Frankel as rabbi in the Prussian metropolis in . Sachs was
called to the board of the institute but never interfered with its issues.
Zunz had recently become a member of the board himself and thus
gained further independence.
In the Prussian ocials devised a new Gesetz über die Verhältnisse
der Juden, the eventual Jewry Constitution. Leopold Zunz was repeat-
edly invited to ofer counsel at the ministry of education and cultural
afairs—along with the member of the community board Joseph Muhr
and the legal advisor Julius Rubo. They were heard as representatives of
Berlin’s Jewish community in various matters concerning religion and
education. As they were convinced that the current plight of the educa-
tion in Jewish elementary schools had to be solved as soon as possible,
the three representatives jointly argued for the introduction of teachers’
seminaries in the university cities of Berlin, Bonn, Breslau and Königsberg.
Future Jewish teachers of religion were supposed to be enabled to acquire
the necessary qualications there. Zunz and the other representatives
saw the state’s nancial support for these seminaries as crucial for their
success—not least because they were optimistic that the Jewish popula-
tion would then begin donating handsomely themselves.
The argument in favor of an ocial involvement in the Jewish educa-
tion had no efect: The memorandum that accompanied the drafted law
already included the ascertainment of the Ministries of Education and
Cultural Afairs and of the Interior that the state would never be able to
order the implementation of Jewish seminaries. Any statements were to
See the letters of the board of trustees of Berlin’s Jewish community to Zunz, Nov. ,
, Dec. , , Jan. , , April , , ° /C– to JNUL; Holzman,
Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin, –; Andreas Brämer, Rabbiner
Zacharias Frankel: Wissenschaft des Judentums und konservative Reform im . Jahrhundert
(Hildesheim et al.: Olms, ), ; Margit Schad, Rabbiner Michael Sachs: Judentum als
höhere Lebensanschauung (Hildesheim et al.: Olms, ).
Muhr, Rubo and Zunz, “Gutachten in Bezug auf die jüdischen Kultus- und Unter-
richtsverhältnisse,” June , , in Der erste Vereinigte Landtag in Berlin : Erster Theil,
ed. Eduard Bleich (Berlin: Reimarus, ), .
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 163 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
164
be avoided if they touched questions of the content of Jewish religious
education or the knowledge necessary for passing Jewish examinations.
The Christian authorities therefore continued to refuse any acknowledg-
ment concerning the religion-based professional qualifactions of Jewish
teachers. “Such an undertaking [i.e., a Jewish teachers’ seminary] will only
be left to the Jews themselves given the state’s approval and the Jews’
assumption of success.”
The Jewish community of Berlin—that was neither supported by the
state nor by other communities in Prussia—struggled with a permanent
consolidation of the seminary under Zunz’s administration. Fundamental
issues, for instance, arose from unresolved questions of where and how
the seminary students should familiarize themselves with the practical
experiences of education. The rules ordered the more advanced students
to assume teaching responsibilities in the lower classes of the seminary
“rst with a teacher of the seminary present, later without.” The seminary
students were supposed to acquire further experience in the interac-
tion with children at school. The seminary’s rules had clearly provided,
though, that future regulation would determine where seminary students
could sit in on classes and where the guided instructions would take
place. As a principal of the seminary, Zunz followed the model of the
public teachers’ seminaries which were typically connected to a teacher
training school. He argued for the Jewish community’s introduction of an
elementary school that was run by the seminary in order to better the
conditions of education for the future teachers. Yet Zunz’s suggestion
met emphatic refusal. Even the Prussian school administration’s solicita-
tion of a re-organization led to nothing. The seminary’s board referred to
the existence of the boys’ school which, of course, was able to retain its
independence under a separate administration. Therefore the connec-
tion of the education of children and the practical education of teachers
never became a reality. In practice, the seminary fell back on other Jewish
“Denkschrift zu dem Entwurf einer Verordnung, die Verhältnisse der Juden betref-
fend,” in ibid., . See also Annegret H. Brammer, Judenpolitik und Judengesetzgebung
in Preußen bis , mit einem Ausblick auf das Gleichberechtigungsgesetz des
Norddeutschen Bundes von (Berlin: Schelzky & Jeep, ), . In princi-
pal M. Bernhard of the Jewish communal school in Lissa composed another fruitless
plea for the establishment of Jewish seminaries under the auspices of the state. See
Bernhard, “Confessionelle Seminarien: Eine Lebensfrage auch für jüdisches Schul- und
Gemeindewesen,” I. HA Rep. III Sekt. Tit. XVI Nr. Bd. –, fol. –,
Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz (GStA PK), Berlin.
Zunz, “Einrichtungs- und Lehrplan,” .
See Fehrs, Von der Heidereutergasse, –.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 164 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
165
schools in Berlin in order to allow more advanced students to familiarize
themselves with the school routine.
Taken aside the insucient opportunities of the students to practice
their theoretical, basic knowledge for the professional conduct of teach-
ers in the everyday school life, the regular public reviews of the seminary
did not uncover material deciencies. The acknowledgment of the Jewish
seminary as an advanced seminar eligible for exams was, of course,
thwarted by the religious discrimination in Prussia. When in the rst
seven seminary students had completed their classes and Zunz contem-
plated the detailed procedure of the examination, he initially assumed
equal rights for the Jewish minority. He wished the school administra-
tion to participate in the graduation. However, he also presupposed that
the seminary assisted public aims for a professionalization and would
therefore be permitted to hand out its own diplomas of graduation for
the profession of a (Jewish) elementary teacher. The legal basis for this
assumption was doubtful but Zunz likely aimed at creating precedents.
The right to examine was legally reserved to the public teachers’ seminar-
ies whose docents were also entitled to the privileges of state ocials.
According to the provincial school council, Jewish institutions lacked
such entitlement:
The local Jewish seminary, however, can only be understood as a private
institution. As such, it is impossible to confer to it an entitlement to issue
nal examination certicates. The Jewish seminary’s students in fact have
to undergo the examination process of the local seminary [for municipal
school teachers] in order to be granted a certicate of qualication for the
oce.
Despite the fragmentary records there is room for reasonable assumptions
that could explain why the Jewish community of Berlin had given up the
seminary project after few years. The disappointment in the develop-
ment of the numbers of enrollments might have been a factor on the one
hand. Five students had moved up to the higher courses after the gradu-
ation of the rst one; only another six students had been accepted to the
second class. On the other hand, Diesterweg’s seminary for municipal
schools teachers ofered an alternative. It kept recording Jewish prospec-
tive teachers who either believed that the Protestant institute ensured a
Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin, .
Royal School Council in Potsdam to the Board of the Jewish Community in Berlin,
July , , quoted ibid.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 165 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
166
higher level of quality, or expected advantages from being examined by
their own docents.
The number of entries to the Jewish seminary developed positively,
though. Yet in the Jewish community was unwilling to yield to sug-
gestions of the school board to provide “a larger locality in a more favor-
able quarter.” The Jewish religious community had to sufer great cuts in
their budget as a growing number of members withheld their dues. The
unwillingness of paying the tax reached dramatic proportions during the
March Revolution. Thus no new second class was introduced in , and
the seminary’s docents had not received their full salary since .
The seminary students’ reaction prove the overwhelming intensica-
tion of the crisis: several students asked for their dismissal in order to
continue their education at the municipal seminary. The twelve remain-
ing students were apparently pressured to conrm by their signatures that
none of them had “applied for the entry in another seminary” since having
been accepted to the Jewish one. Yet the group was indeed unsatised
with their conditions of education and soon after composed a letter of
protest to the principal. They professed their own decline in motivation
and efort and blamed the faculty for it, since the faculty neither ofered
a methodologically sound education nor imparted the subject matters
thoroughly. The docents had also failed in presenting an example in punc-
tuality and eforts. The letter of protest described negative developments
in their education in order to present opportunities for improvement.
The students ended their letter by making an appeal to Zunz to remedy
shortcomings as soon as possible:
We do feel impelled to entrust to you, as the principal of our institution, that
we, the undersigned seminary students, never believe to be able to reach our
goal of becoming capable teacher if you, worthy Herr Direktor [principal], do
not take uncompromising action against the multitude of deciencies which
have befallen our seminary.
It cannot be fully concluded whether the students’ report of decien-
cies was simply a symptom of the de-stabilzing situation caused by the
revolution, or of axiomatic didactical undesirable developments. It is a
fact, however, that Zunz could not have saved the seminary even if he
had been able to raise the work ethics of the seminary’s teachers. The
See Orient (), .
Letter of the seminary students H. Rakwitz, N. Lewinksi, J. Heskel, H. Schwabach,
S. Caspari, A. Heilbrunn, L. Cohn, L. Davidsohn, D. Aron, H. Cohn, A. Salomon and
M. Rosenstock to Leopold Zunz, Jan. , , ° /C– (Zunz Archive), JNUL.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 166 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
167
newly elected council of elders of the Jewish community efectuated the
decision of liquidation that had been agreed upon only a short period
prior—and against the resistance of the school board and the Prussian
Provincial School Council who argued for the preservation of the insti-
tute. In March , not even ten years after its opening, the Jewish
Schullehrer-Seminarium [teachers’ seminary] ceased further education.
The closure was carried out at the approximate time the community’s
boy school was temporarily dissolved as well. Until then, the teachers’
seminary likely had educated less than candidates for the teaching
position at Jewish schools.
IV
Zunz’s reputation did not sufer permanently from the untimely end of
the seminary. In the Jewish merchant Jonas Fraenckel of Breslau
had died and had bequeathed , thalers to a “Seminary for the
Education of Rabbis and Teachers.” When being asked for his counsel,
Zunz appealed to the board of trustees of the Fraenckel Foundation in
that the “useful” education of teachers should be their rst priority.
The curriculum he devised barely difered from the seminary that had
ended its existence only three years prior through “the enemies’ re and
the friends’ cold” according to Zunz. However, his suggestions did not
nd a sympathetic ear. Zacharias Frankel (–) as the designated
principal initially planned the Jewish Theological Seminary to be an edu-
cational institution for rabbis. Only in , two years after its establish-
ment, was the pedagogical section introduced to the rabbinical seminary
in Breslau.
After being notied of the closure, nine remaining seminar students addressed
Zunz on Jan. , . They asked him to come through for continuing the classes until
the end of the summer semester in order to allow them the conclusion of their training.
° /C–, JNUL. See also Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt
in Berlin, –; Letter of the Municipal School Deputation to the Board of the Jewish
Community in Berlin, Jan. , , , A Be (Berlin) Nr. , fol. , Archiv der Stiftung‚
Neue Synagoge Berlin—Centrum Judaicum (CJA); Zunz to S[amuel] M[ayer] Ehrenberg,
Dec. , , to Philipp und Julie Ehrenberg, March , , March , , Jan , , to
P. Ehrenberg, Feb. , , April , , in Glatzer, Leopold Zunz, , et seq., ,
, , ; Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums (), et seq.; Peter Wagner, Wir
werden frei sein: Leopold Zunz – (Detmold: Gesellschaft für Christlich-Jüdische
Zusammenarbeit, ), .
However, the classes were restricted to the education of Jewish subjects. No student
was able to go through the complete training for becoming an elementary school teacher
until the closure of the teacher department in . Ludwig Geiger, “Eine Denkschrift von
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 167 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
168
The education of teachers moved into the focus of the Jewish commu-
nity in Berlin itself after it was able to right its nancial ship again after
the revolution. In the board of representatives accepted the elders’
motion for the establishment of a teachers’ seminary whose nancial
backing was to be ensured through the bequests of the Talmud-Tora-
Society. The community drew back on the experiences with the teach-
ers’ seminary of the s when devising the curriculum and the bylaws,
but also followed the model of existing seminaries for municipal teachers.
With the exception of some individual paragraphs, the school board did
not reject the procedure. The authorization process had passed all levels
without further delay as early as March .
As a matter of fact, many of the Grundbestimmungen, basic rules,
reected the structures of other local seminaries. The bylaws were mod-
eled after the ones of the Protestant municipal teachers’ seminary (not
under Diesterweg’s administration anymore, of course) and the ones Zunz
had devised for the Jewish seminary. Yet the new regulations allow only
a rough idea of the planned institute’s structure—there are no specica-
tions entailed as to the spatial and material endowment, rules concerning
the faculty’s work or the didactical-educational leitmotif. It is possible,
however, to compare the earlier with the later Jewish seminary. Some
minor changes aside—like the age of entry, years, the procedure of the
entrance exam, the introduction of requiring the students to enter on pro-
bation for one semester, or the segmentation of the three-year-curriculum
into three classes—the bylaws included fundamental innovations reect-
ing a diferent design of the profession of a Jewish teacher.
When Zunz presented his own ideal of educating Jewish teachers in
, he was ahead of his time. He anticipated a change in the reality
of the profession through decreeing a specialization of the teachers in
their own teaching. Zunz had devised the curriculum irrespective of the
fact that the development toward a full-time profession had largely been
Zunz,” in Das Breslauer Seminar: Jüdisch-Theologisches Seminar (Fraenckelscher Stiftung)
in Breslau –, Gedächtnisschrift, ed. Guido Kisch (Tübingen: Mohr, ), –;
see also Andreas Brämer, “Die Anfangsjahre des Jüdisch-Theologischen Seminars—Zum
Wandel des Rabbinerberufs im . Jahrhundert,” in In Breslau zu Hause?: Juden in einer mit-
teleuropäischen Metropole der Neuzeit, eds. Manfred Hettling, Andreas Reinke and Norbert
Conrads (Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz, ), –; Brämer, Leistung und Gegenleistung,
–.
See Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin, –.
See ibid., et seq. On the history of the Jewish Teachers’ Seminary, see also Brämer,
Leistung und Gegenleistung, –.
Printed in Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin,
–.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 168 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
169
concluded in Berlin, but not yet in small-town and medium-sized com-
munities. There, teachers still had to fulll other duties as well which were
often related to religion. The new Jewish teachers’ seminary now steered
a conservative course by acknowledging the variety of duties for Jewish
teachers. This pragmatic tendency is expressed best in the music lessons
whose content of teaching closely referred to the liturgy in the synagogues
and aimed at producing qualied cantors.
Several diferences might be mentioned. Unlike Zunz’s regulations two
decades earlier, the curriculum of the teachers’ seminary was specially
geared to utilize the gained knowledge at the schools in everyday life. Yet
it did not openly aim at a higher education for the seminary students.
For that reason the workload barely moved beyond the curriculum of the
municipal middle schools which were void of foreign languages—neither
in the profane subjects (German, history, geography, natural sciences,
arithmetic, geometry, writing, graphics and physical education) nor in the
so-called studies of religion. It was a functional improvement that the
teachers’ seminary became more closely connected to the boys’ (middle)
school that was re-opened after its reorganization in . The seminary’s
principal, Aron Horwitz (–), also headed the community’s boys’
school which from then on served an important role for the practical
education of teachers.
See the curriculum of in Hermann Baerwald, “Die Unterrichts- und Erziehungs-
anstalten der jüdischen Gemeinde zu Berlin,” Jahrbuch für Israeliten (/), .
In this should be seen the indirect inuence of the Stiehlsche Regulative of .
These requirements, named for the Prussian councilor Ferdinand Stiehl, for the rst time
subjected the training in the professional knowledge of Protestant elementary teachers to
a both comprehensive and uniform regulation. The Grundbestimmungen—following the
example of the st Regulativ—resisted a “scholarization” of the subject matter and pre-
dominantly aimed at the transmission of the teaching qualication. This is also reected
in the introduction of the subject “school studies.” Following Stiehl’s reactionary concepts,
this subject replaced the systematic and theory-based pedagogical disciplines and rather
promised to ofer a pronounced illustrative guide to the school instructions, i.e., a more
practical one. The workload the curriculum foresaw was reduced in the third year of train-
ing from to hours, in order to allow the seminary students to practice their skills
as teachers in the remaining free hours of the day, see Sauer, Volksschullehrerbildung in
Preußen, –; German reprint of the st regulativ “Betr. den Unterricht in den evangelis-
chen Schullehrer-Seminarien der Monarchie,” Oct. , , in Karl Schneider and Egon von
Bremen, Das Volksschulwesen im Preußischen Staate in systematischer Zusammenstellung
der auf seine innere Einrichtung und seine Rechtsverhältnisse, sowie auf seine Leitung
und Beaufsichtigung bezüglichen Gesetze und Verordnungen, vol. (Berlin: Hertz, ),
–.
See the plan, produced upon the request of the Provincial School Council, “für
die praktischen Unterrichtsübungen der Zöglinge im dritten Jahre ihrer Bildungszeit,”
Sept. , , in Holzman, Geschichte der Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin,
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 169 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM
170
The Jewish teachers’ seminary—many of its docents had graduated
from the previous seminary—cannot be understood without the back-
ground of the preceding institute of the s. This holds true despite the
fact that both seminaries were miles apart in their conception. Leopold
Zunz’s inuence on the education of Jewish school teachers thus lasted
well into the second half of the nineteenth century—even if he was nei-
ther a member of the board anymore nor asked for his conceptual advice
when the (second) seminary was planned and established.
Zunz’s eforts failed in making the profession of a teacher a bourgeois
one. This was not rooted in the seminary’s closure in but in the often
precarious working conditions for Jewish teachers. Their struggles for lift-
ing their own level of qualication did not meet the appropriate social
and economic appreciation even in the long view.
Andreas Brämer, PhD from the Free University of Berlin. Research
assistant at the Institute for the History of the German Jews (Hamburg) since
, associate director at the IGdJ since ; Privatdozent at Hamburg
University. Author of the following books: Rabbiner und Vorstand. Zur
Geschichte der jüdischen Gemeinde in Deutschland und Österreich –
(); Judentum und religiöse Reform. Der Hamburger Tempel –
(); Rabbiner Zacharias Frankel. Wissenschaft des Judentums und kon-
servative Reform im . Jahrhundert (); Leistung und Gegenleistung.
Zur Geschichte jüdischer Religions- und Elementarlehrer in Preußen /
bis (); Joseph Carlebach (); Die wichtigsten Fragen.
Judentum ().
Translation from the German by Anton Hieke
–; Festschrift zur Feier des jährigen Bestehens der Knabenschule der jüdischen
Gemeinde in Berlin, .
See the short biographies of the seminary teachers in Holzman, Geschichte der
Jüdischen Lehrer-Bildungsanstalt in Berlin, –. See also the descriptions in Bernhard
Jacobsohn, Fünfzig Jahre: Erinnerungen aus Amt und Leben (Berlin: Author’s Edition, ),
et seq., –.
EJJS 7.2_F4_151-170.indd 170 9/26/2013 10:09:27 AM