THE FIRST HABONIM INSTITUTE

That fifteen years have passed since the first Habonim Institute is clearly the first provocative thought that strikes the reviewer trying to recall that experience for evaluation. It is, in fact, a shock to realize that one recalls something that took place fifteen years ago, when he was already no youngster; and yet, today, he feels himself young. It is probable that this type of thought was mutually experienced by many Habonim graduates over several continents, who were preparing contributions to this anniversary book. It is probably also true that, if we must grow old, one with a youth-movement background and memories and a continued interest in it grows old more slowly.

One of the observations that could be made after a study of the dynamics of a youth movement is that its leadership and leaders are a sort of catalyst between the aims and purposes on one hand, and the membership on the other hand, causing an interaction that produces the body of deeds and accomplishments that characterizes the movement. In a youth movement such as Habonim, where, in addition to everything else, personal values and personal realization of the aims are so important, the type, the training, the knowledge, and the conduct of the leadership and each individual leader are so much more crucial. Therefore, in Habonim, there has always been a great deal of thought and attention devoted to the selection, the preparation, and continued nourishment of leadership. The Habonim Institute, which functioned in the United States from 1945 to 1949 and continued in Israel until 1951, is one of the finer accomplishments in this pattern of intense concern for leadership.

In 1945, World War II was drawing to a close. It was clear that, in the immediate post-war years, tremendous tasks and responsibilities would fall on world Jewry, especially on the Zionist movement. Firstly, there was the growing realization of the ghastly destruction of six million Jews in Europe. Of more immediate importance was the problem of caring for and even settling the remnants of this community. In Palestine the community was rapidly strengthening itself and approaching the day when statehood would be practicable. American Jewry would have to be mobilized, would have to assume a new role in Jewish life.

Habonim would have its role to play. There were several basic problems that had to be tackled in order to gear the movement for its new tasks. In addition to the intellectual problem of re-orientation, due to a new and different situation, there were the responsibilities of organizing aliya and pre-aliya groups, of improving the organizational setup of the movement, and of replenishing the leadership. The war had made great inroads into the leadership ranks of the movement. The situation called for a radical departure, something comprehensive that would provide a group of leaders who could be counted upon, by ability and special training, to see the movement through what looked like years of expanded membership and responsibilities. Thus the idea of the Habonim Institute was created: to train, in the light of Habonim ideals, this corps of new leaders.

There was another factor that led to the creation of the Habonim Institute. This was dissatisfaction with many of the existing institutions of Jewish learning. A positive, forward-looking philosophy, combining Jewish values, national inspirations, and a concern for social welfare, was missing. Missing also, in most places, was an understanding of the dynamic, creative process that education and learning can and must be. These approaches and values became the very bases of the Habonim Institute. Therefore the Institute can be seen as the opportune fulfillment of two concepts and needs: a leadership-training school and a unique approach to Jewish education. That it contributed to American Jewish educational thought can be gleaned from the fact that similar institutes were organized by other Jewish youth organizations in America and that its program served as the basis for all sorts of courses organized after the creation of the State of Israel. When the Institute moved to Israel, it became the pioneer of the concept that American Jewish education is complete only if some time is spent in Israel.

A survey of the courses and instructors and techniques of the Institute reveals the uniqueness of form and content, reflecting the many facets of the movement's concerns and approach. This list of courses and hours is based upon the report of Shalom Wurm, who was the director of the first year of the Habonim Institute in 1945. (David Breslau was director of the Institutes from 1946 to 1948, and Yehuda Messinger was director of the Institute in 1949.) 

The first subject studied was Jewish history, which included the period of the emancipation of the nineteenth century, ending with the history between the two World Wars. The final part of the series consisted of several lectures on Jewish immigration and prospects for post-war rehabilitation. A second series of studies concerned the American Jewish community, which consisted of a brief history of American Jewry, the organization of the community, the Jewish labor movement, a statistical survey, and cultural and religious trends among American Jews. The third series was on Zionism and Palestine and included Palestinography and Jewish colonization in Palestine, the history of the Zionist movement, the sociology of the community in Palestine, its political and economic organization, and Arab-Jewish relations. The final part of this series was a study of the Jewish labor movement in Palestine. (One clearly remembers that, in a discussion of problems of the Histadrut, the situation of overpaid Egged bus drivers was mentioned. This same shaliach is probably one of those still working with this problem fifteen years later).

A special course was devoted to a study of the texts and personalities of Labor Zionism, as well as the history of the movement and its various branches. Another series was devoted to the study of labor
movements and socialism, including a survey of the history of socialist thought, modern trends and theory, a survey of the socialist movement in principal European countries, and the American socialist movement. Six lectures were delivered on Soviet Russia, and several on American labor unions.

There was a series on Yiddish literature, twenty hours; ancient Hebrew literature, fifteen hours; modern Hebrew literature, twenty hours. A special curriculum dealt specifically with the history of the youth movement, as a sociological phenomenon, its origin, and its development in various countries, particularly in Western Europe. It also dealt with the Jewish youth movements in the Diaspora and in Palestine. This series included a series of lectures and discussions on the psychology of youth-group work and youth leadership, cultural programs, and summer camping. There were also two classes in Hebrew, one intermediate and one advanced.

A study of the list of lecturers and discussion leaders reveals a fascinating and able group of personalities. This list, taken at random, includes Dr. Ben Halperin, Dr. Ira Eisenstein, Dr. Benjamin Schwadran, Dr. Weinryb, Shlomo Grodzensky, Mark Starr, Daniel Bell, Professor Simon Halkin, Baruch Zuckerman, and the late N. B. Minkoff, Reuven Shiloach and Hayim Greenberg.

One of the most significant aspects of this list is the fact that most of the lecturers were not of the academic profession. In other words, the real living world was brought into the Institute by many of its active participants. This gave an added meaning to most of the studies and discussions.

In each course, the background, the ideas, and the theoretical roots necessary for a proper understanding of the subject were given; then the actual situation was presented and examined. In this way it was hoped to create well-rounded graduates, who were at least basically knowledgeable in the various areas demanded of a Habonim leader. Certainly a great deal of ground was covered in a very intensive form during the three months and four hundred instruction hours of the Institute.

It certainly cannot be claimed that even the best-planned and best-executed curriculum could have adequately covered all the material in the major areas in such a relatively short time. Nor did the Institute try to accomplish this. What it wanted to do was to expand the horizons of the eighteen students, to attempt to provide as much material as possible, to arouse an interest in further study both during and after the Institute, and to encourage the process of intellectual development. In other words, in its academic aspects the Institute did more than just create and pass on knowledge. It also aimed at being a stimulant to the further intellectual growth of the students, an important aim in itself.

Many of the educational forms and techniques of the Institute were geared to this double process of information and intellectual development. Instead of being lectures, many of the courses and classes were planned as seminars, in which the atmosphere was more one of give and take rather than the traditional teacher-student relationship. From time to time students had to prepare and present papers. There were special discussion groups to handle specifically prepared thought questions. In every course outlines and bibliographies were prepared, and books were put at the disposal of the students to encourage reading.

This enlightened educational approach was only one aspect of a broader concept of learning that seems to have been held by the planners of the Habonim Institute. They knew that education and learning are achieved and measured not only in academic terms or in the form and content of subject matter. Equally important in the learning process is the general development of the individual, his emotional as well as intellectual growth and maturity. This includes such things as the creation and broadening of a set of basic values and morals and developing an appreciation of people and ideas. This concept of the process of education views learning as a dynamic process that occurs not only in the classroom but in every activity. Specifically, this meant that the various aims of the Institute and the various ideals and aspirations of Habonim were expressed, taught, and reinforced not only in the study material but also in every aspect of life and learning in the Institute.

One important aspect of this approach was the methodology of the academic studies. Another important aspect that indicates this approach was the communal life of the student body. All the students lived in the building, sharing similar facilities. Most aspects of daily life and learning were communally controlled by the group, acting as a whole through weekly meeting and committees. These meetings handled the needs of individuals and reviewed the activities of the group and the study material covered during the week. It had the privilege of making recommendations for modification of the studies. There was a kupa, a common treasury, set up by the contribution of the spending money of the students, which was then shared equally by all. Evening and other special programs were prepared by the group. This included traditional Friday-night observance of the Sabbath with candle lighting, readings, singing, and the communal meal.

There were numerous special activities, such as a nine-day visit to the Hechalutz training farm, during which time the student body combined study with work, in addition to making the acquaintance of the group preparing for aliya. There were also trips to various Jewish and cultural institutions in New York City. Many times the Institute was visited by guests and personalities, who were lionized and pressed for information and ideas. The atmosphere in the Institute many times reached a high pitch of excitement and interest.

While it is hard to recall details, it is certainly easy to remember that life at the Habonim Institute in 1945 was much more than one of studies, meetings, and Sabbath celebrations. In addition to the serious atmosphere that generally prevailed on the lower floors of the building on Seventieth Street, there was certainly the gaiety to be expected of youths of seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen enjoying life. There were pranks; there were even students sleeping at lectures; there were hard times for the staff of the Institute. Just as the staff must have thrilled to watch individuals developing during the months, so must they have anguished at occasional breaks of discipline.

In addition to an analysis of its structure and contents, there are a number of other criteria by which to judge the Habonim Institute, Class of 1945. All the graduates were active in the movement, locally and nationally, for a number of years. Some played central roles in the development of the movement and its activities in the United States and in Canada. About half of the class have settled in Israel. Practically all are better Jews one way or another. Another interesting criterion by which to judge the effectiveness of the Institute is the fact that, for years, notes taken in lectures were circulating around the movement helping in the planning of discussions and seminars.

After the first Institute, "more and better" Institutes were held in the same building; and eventually it was transferred to Israel. With each year the approach, the curriculum, the content were changed to suit the specific needs of the time. But that is another story.

JERRY REICHSTEIN, Herzlia, 1960