Cecil Roth is a Jewish historian
who recently retired after a long
career at Oxford University. He
soon afterwards accepted an invitation from Bar llan University to
come to Israel and join their faculty
as professor of Jewish history.
In an interview with the Israel daily Davar, Prof. Roth told a reporter that he was pleased to be
able to teach in a Jewish university
where he would not be inhibited in
stating his opinions as he had been
at Oxford.
As an example he said
that in England he could not freely
discuss the fact that throughout
Jewish history many great Torah
scholars, among them the Balai Hatosfos, were forced by discriminatory practices of that time to draw
their livelihood from the lending of
money at interest. At Bar llan, he
said, he could freely discuss such
matters.
This interview brought forth a
torrent of criticism, interestingly
enough, from rabbinic leaders of
Mizrachi, which sponsors Bar Ilan.
Roth was accused of having slandered leading Jewish scholars whose
works and memories are revered by
all of religious Jewry. Among his
severest critics was Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, head of the Yeshivah
Merkaz Harav and son of the late
Rabbi Kook, first Chief Rabbi of
the Holy Land. Rabbi Kook addressed a letter to Mizrachi leaders
warning that he would not participate in any Mizrachi activity so long as Cecil Roth remains a member of Bar Ilan's faculty.
Following attacks on Roth based
on his statements to Davar, new
attacks were made quoting from
the published works of the professor, charging that Roth was "revealed in his books as a detractor of the image of the holy patriarchs
and the principles of our faith,
which guide us daily." So stated
Rabbi A. Blomberg of the Mizrachi
education department (quoted in
the London Jewish Chronicle) insisting that Roth had "no place in
an institution bearing the name of
authentic Judaism."
Roth was defended by leaders of
Mizrachi who said that the charges
were based on citations taken out
of context; a group of professors
at the Hebrew University came to
his aid by charging that attacks on
their colleague were a breach of
"academic freedom," and Hatzofe,
Mizrachi's daily accused the rabbinate of "witch-hunting." Finally,
the Faculty Senate of Bar Ilan
reiterated its "complete and unshakable confidence in Professor
Roth as an historian and as a teacher qualified to lecture at this religious university .... "
An attempt to view soberly what
has become an emotionally-charged
issue requires a closer look at Bar
Ilan University and at the writings
of Professor Roth.
This is not the first time that Bar
Ilan has been in the eye of a storm,
but by whatever criteria journalists
decide on what is, or is not newsworthy, this incident has become a
"big story," occupying Israelis for
many weeks, and receiving coverage
in New York and London newspapers.
From its inception, religious leaders in Israel were divided as to
whether Bar Ilan could successfully
carry out its objective to serve as
a training center for religious Jews
who needed grounding in secular
disciplines for careers in the professions, in government service and
in the diplomatic service. Many
felt that the pitfalls were too numerous to overcome - and pitfalls there
have been.
First came the problem of assembling a faculty composed of
men well grounded in their fields
and yet committed to a belief in
Torah. This proved to be impossible in the so-called secular studies,
and it soon became evident that
even among those teaching religious
studies were men who had no commitment to Torah and in some
cases were hostile to Torah thought
and belief.
The problem of faculty is closely
tied to the problem of curriculum.
Should a religious university, for
example, teach Bible Criticism?
Yes, said some, so that students
could learn to refute the critics.
Others strongly opposed teaching
the subject, citing the fact that even
the Hebrew University had until recent years excluded Bible Criticism
from its course of study. However,
the dangers of teaching the subject
became more apparent when it was
revealed that some professors of
Bible were men who had been Reform "rabbis" prior to coming to
Israel. (In this context it is worthy
of note that in the Hildesheimer
Seminary in pre-war Germany,
where Criticism was studied, it was
taught by rabbinic scholars of unquestionable religious repute.)
The low religious standards of the
faculty reflect in the general laxity
of the student body.
--------
This is an article from December of 1964 but reflects a tension and problems that still exist today. The article goes on to say that the good Professor questioned whether the Avos actually existed. This is a problem at Bar Ilan, YU and any university that believes in the primacy of academia while at the same time trying to maintain Jewish tradition.
בימים ההם בזמן הזה.
------------
The magazine also has an interesting article on the Orthodox Jew and the Negro [!!] revolution.
What I miss from the old days is the ad for a hotel in Miami. NINE DOLLARS A DAY - double occupancy. AHHHHHH - those were the days. Today it is closer to nine dollars a minute.
