 |
Right to left, in the center, seated teachers: 1. unidentified, 2. Loubards Trachtenbroit, Zina Tzukerman, Meir Grossman, principal Yakov Berger, kindergarten teacher Buzia Friedman (Tzukerman), Mania Sharira, Shmuel Shternshis, and Baruch Sofer
|
|
[Page 563]
Translated by Ala Gamulka
Edited by Karen Leon
A. The problem of continuity
One of the main problems of the national school, felt particularly in smaller villages, was that it was only a four-year institution. There was no continuity. Seventy-nine point 8 percent of the Romanian population lived in rural areas. This percentage was higher in Bessarabia, at 87% of the population in rural areas. The structure of the elementary school was based on the demographics of the population. Many rural families did not send their children to elementary school. As a result, the school was expanded to seven grades, consisting of four elementary and three complementary. From fifth grade on, children received special instruction: agriculture in the villages and craftsmanship in the cities. Jewish schools in small villages could not support all seven grades. The three complementary schools were different from the first years of high school. Graduates of the seven year program could not take entrance exams for the fourth year of high school. .
Jewish students suffered greatly under this situation. In the small villages, it was impossible to run a middle school as both materials and teachers were sorely lacking. Very few families had the means to send their children to the city to study in the Hebrew high school since they did not have the money for tuition or for room and board. As for the others, some were satisfied with the seven years of schooling, and others continued in nearby Romanian middle schools. Some even walked to the next town to attend school.
B. Comparison exams
As noted above, education in Romania was compulsory for seven years. As such, all schools had a legal standing, especially the public ones. The difference was that in private schools, students had to be tested at the end of every year by a special committee.
This was not the situation in public schools. Since the Ministry of Education constantly refused to add Hebrew examiners to the testing committee, there were no exams.
[Page 564]
As a result, the schools did not have official rights, and their graduates could not continue on to higher education institutions in the country. This made it necessary to normalize the situation of the high schools. The only solution was to receive approval for the students to sit for “equivalent”exams (despite the fact they could not be considered to be external students), with Hebrew examiners. These exams would compare their knowledge to the ministry's curriculum, and hopefully, become a yearly practice.
Tarbut convened a special council of high school representatives on July 15 and 16, 1929, to discuss this important topic. After examining the problem from different angles, they found that besides the benefits, there were also some negative points. The more important ones were: a. Students would be lured to to transfer to state schools, and b. A second cadre of students could emerge, who were not interested in sitting for the exams.
At the end of the council the following decisions were made:
[Page 565]
The third conference of Tarbut[42]
The conference was held in Kishinev on 5-7 of January 1930, with about 100 delegates participating, including Tarbut members, teachers, and parent representatives from 27 towns and villages.
The guests of honor were Zeev Zhabotinsky, who also took part in another conference, Dr. A. Mavshan, from the Zionist Organization and Tarbut in Rigat, and Romanian Parliament member, attorney Michael Landau.
The conference was opened by Sh. Berliand, chairman of Tarbut's Central Committee. A few hundred guests from Kishinev and other towns participated. Sh. Berliand recalled active members and teachers who had died since the second conference, including Dr. Yakov Bernstein-Cohen, engineer Mordechai Gotlieb, Yakov Wasserman, M. Koblenov and I. Reidel. The last three had been authors of Hebrew texts published in Romania.
The poet Yakov Kutcher gave the opening address. He discussed three periods in the history of Hebrew education. Each one was short, but historically important, equal in weight to an entire generation in the past. The first period was marked by the spontaneous establishment of Hebrew institutions in Bessarabia. The second period saw a defensive struggle in which Hebrew culture fought against the evil determined to destroy it. After five years of stubborn resistance against the government's plan, a quieter period arrived. The evil hands did not destroy Hebrew culture, but we are still far from a complete victory. That is why we must stay alert and watch for the repetition of harm against us.
After receiving greetings from institutions in Romania and abroad (Zionist organization in London, M. Usishkin, Tarbut in Bulgaria, in Lithuania, etc.), the following offered their blessings to the conference: Israel Skvirsky from Zeirei Zion, Michael Yakhinson from the Revisionists, Israel Berman from Yavne, Dov Shafrir from Hechalutz, and the head leadership of Gordonia, Zalman Rosenthal from Unzer Tzeit and Poalei Zion and Nicosia Fridel (Natan Peled) from Hashomer Hatzair.
[Page 566]
Dr. A. Mavshan from Bucharest said he was glad to have attended the Tarbut conference held in Kishinev, the “Jerusalem of Romania.”He noted the few Hebrew schools are like “small islands which are part of the basic Hebrew shore that cannot be moved.”
He stated, on behalf of the upper council of the Zionist organization in Romania, that the Romanian Zionists were ready to support this work for the good of Hebrew culture in all forms. He acknowledged that, among the Jews of Old Romania, the need for a full Jewish school was not yet understood, and that the help of Tarbut in Bessarabia was needed in this matter.
Member of Parliament, Landau, brought greetings from the Jewish group. He spoke about the various aspects of minority education in general, and the Jewish minority in particular.
The following were elected: Musia Kh. Bilostoskaya (Arziv), Yakov Berger (Akkerman), Zadok Veinshteym (Kishinev), Yitzhak Khitron (Soroka), Zeidel Turiansky (Romanovka), Israel Skvirsky (Kishinev), Hillel Dovrov (Yedinets), and Yakov Steinhaus-Amitzur (Rishcan).
Secretary David Vinitsky reported on the unrest, successes and failures experienced by the Hebrew school in Bessarabia in the five years since the second Tarbut conference. The persecutions and the decrees continued during the entire period after the first attempt to introduce the Romanian language to the Hebrew schools had failed.
During this trying time, Tarbut encouraged strong resistance to the state's intentions to hamper the spiritual needs of the Hebrew people. About 20,000 parents signed a memo against the proposal by Angelescu and presented by the Jewish representatives to the chair of Parliament. The struggle was successful, and the government was obliged to remove it. However, this was not the end of the struggle for the rights of Hebrew education. The state accepted the view of the Jewish community and allowed Hebrew to be used as the only language of instruction, but Tarbut was not willing to give up Yiddish. Finally, in December 1925, Parliament agreed, in section 36 of the law, to recognize the two languages.
[Page 567]
To see details, read pages 549-551.
Later, it became clear that the state did not plan to carry out everything in section 36. It was also obvious that there would be snags in the development of the Hebrew school.
When the new law was passed in Parliament, many urgent issues arose that needed immediate solutions. The most crucial issue was publishing general studies textbooks that followed the approved analytical program. The center did its utmost to overcome the financial difficulties and fulfilled this need.
Even more dire was the lack of licensed teachers in the elementary schools. The Ministry of Education was not helpful. A teacher training institute was needed, possibly as a special section in the state seminary. For now, the Ministry of Education was granting temporary permits only.
The situation was different in the high schools, which had no rights. Their graduates were not able to continue their studies, and the parents had to carry a heavy financial burden. The number of schools decreased, with two institutions that were closed and the others struggling. Another problem was that due to the shortage of teachers, some unsuitable people were hired, and they tried to sow hatred toward the national dream of redemption.
The lack of rights put the high schools in a difficult position. The center investigated the possibility of having students take equivalent exams each year, with the participation of Hebrew examiners. The Minister of Education, Prof. Kostakastu accepted Tarbut's proposal. At first the various institutions doubted what benefit this would bring, but they were eventually convinced. This will be the first trial year, and we shall see what happens.
While the high schools face difficulties, the kindergartens shine. The Hebrew kindergartens are developing well and are raising the level of Hebrew education in Romania. The Hebrew kindergarten even impresses the Ministry's inspectors.
[Page 568]
The inspectors are not usually so enthusiastic, yet their reports after visiting the kindergartens are full of praise for the classes and the teachers. Many kindergartens were opened in Old Romania with the help of Tarbut in Bessarabia. But when the Institute for Kindergarten Teacher Training under I. Alterman closed, Bessarabia lost its only source of educators. All the pedagogues involved moved on, and Bessarabia thus lost its educational advantage.
The secretary spoke about the network of Hebrew school in the current 1929/30 school year as follows:
| 17 kindergartens | 420 children | 25 teachers |
| 38 elementary schools (4-7 school years) | 4448 students | 188 teachers |
| 11 high schools (Not all full) | 1263 students | 145 teachers |
| 66 institutions | 6131 students | 358 teachers |
The reporter also discussed the dire financial situation of the educational institutions in Bessarabia. Since the communities are not organized, the burden falls on the parents. They provide about 70% of the annual budget, which amounts to 20 million lei. Recently, the Jewish community has grown poorer, particularly among the middle class, which made up most of Bessarabia's population. It is difficult to pay full tuition, and the schools face large deficits. The teachers' salaries, small as they are, are not paid on time. The Tarbut center tried to secure help from other countries, but without success. In the previous year it was possible to obtain, on a one-time basis, a small contribution for education institutions in southern Bessarabia, which were suffering from hunger.
The central committee of Tarbut is also in a difficult financial situation. It cannot carry out the work it is supposed to do, and its income is not stable. As a result, less work is being accomplished and important projects are neglected. The lack of pedagogical direction is noticeable, and it results in poorer education. The secretary concluded by speaking about the need for changes to improve and expand the activities.
[Page 568a]
|
|
Right to left, in the center, seated teachers: 1. unidentified, 2. Loubards Trachtenbroit, Zina Tzukerman, Meir Grossman, principal Yakov Berger, kindergarten teacher Buzia Friedman (Tzukerman), Mania Sharira, Shmuel Shternshis, and Baruch Sofer |
|
|
Right to left, in the center, seated: Shaul Gibelder, Coca Horvitz, Moshe Vratikovsky, Sara Vratikovsky, and Moshe Kornblit |
|
|
In the center: Principal A.Z.Malmud. Staff. |
[Page 568b]
|
|
Right to left, in center, teachers, seated: Binyamin Yonahvitch, Shneyor Heinikhovitch, principal Moshe Fisher, Rachel Markovtzkaya, and L. Gahirner |
|
|
|
|
Right to left, in center, seated teachers: David Shuster, Yael Drakhlis (kindergarten teacher), Yitzhak Agant-chair of Tarbut, principal Zvi Ribakov, and Yeshayahu Vinitsky |
[Page 568c]
|
|
Right to left, in center, seated: 1-2. members of Tarbut in Kiliya, 3-10. David Shuster, Shimon Landa, Rachel Markovskaya, Yeshayahu Vinitsky, Yael Drakhlis, Zvi Ribakov - principal of Rani school, Moshe Fisher - principal of Kiliya school, and Mrs. Shuster, 11. Karl Leventon - chair of Tarbut in Kiliya, 12. Unidentified member of the committee |
|
|
|||
of Artiz Tarbut school, 1931
Bottom to top, right to left. |
Right to left, seated: Yeshayahu Vinitsky, Moshe Avigal, and David Shuster |
|
|
[Page 568d]
|
|
|||
end of the 1920s Right to left, seated: Mrs. Ludmir, Toporovsky, principal Baruch Yashtchikman, M. Kopit, A. Gukovsky |
in Romanovka, 1927
From bottom to top. |
|
|
In the center, teachers: Sh. Mironiansky, principal Abba Blank, Aharon Tur-Kaspa, I. Librovitch |
|
|
In the center, from right to left, are teachers: Meir Vinitsky, Galia Kritzman, principal Nahum Radulliansky, kindergarten teacher Sheindl Gorenshteyn (Vinitsky), Mola Rabinovitch |
[Page 568e]
|
|
Right to left, in center, seated teachers: Yehuda Khariton, Kh. Drabdiner, I. Ris, Dvora Schechter, chairperson Israel Berman, Unidentified, Faberman |
|
|
|||
Right to left: teacher Zeev Shtziglik, principal Moshe Guta |
From bottom to top, right to left |
|
|
Right to left. Center. Teachers: Hadassah Dubrov, Toporovsky, M. Dubrov, Hillel Dubrov, Haim Feldman |
[Page 568f]
|
|
[Page 568g]
|
|
Bottom to top, right to left |
|
|
1.Moshe Krasiuk (chair of committee), 2. Boris Dubinsky (principal), 3. Avraham Gafter (founder), 4. Sh. Burd, 5. I. Gafter, 6. P. Korotenko, 7. M. Gafter, 8. Prof. Libomudrov, 9. Yafe, 10.Zeidenman, 11. Shteynberg, 12. Kreymer, 13. A. Golirgat, 14. Goldberg, 15. R.P. Goolak, 16. Lindbergh, 17. Bernstein 18. Spector, 19. I. Italian, 20. Lekhtman, 21. I.S. Lapansky, 21. Fish, 23. Kalikhman, 24. Kh. Feinboim |
[Page 568h]
|
|
1-4 unidentified. 5. Ida Drakhlis, 6. B.S. Dubinsky (principal), 7. Avraham Gafter (founder), 8. Prof. Libomudrov, 9. ?, 10. Lapansky, 11. Serebrnikov, 12. unidentified, 13. Pinkham Langerman, 14. P. Korotenko, 15. Beynush, 16. Sh. Burd, 17. K. Tatshenko, 18. M. Seidenman, 19. Yakov Reidel, 20. MItzenmakher, 21. Dr. Fishel Krasiuk |
|
|
Yeshayahu Tomarkin, director |
|
|
[Page 569]
The topic of unifying the Tarbut organizations throughout all of Romania held an important place at the conference. Zadok Veinshteyn, the speaker on this issue, emphasized the importance of coordinated activity. This included creating central institutes for education and culture, including a shared pedagogical seminary, and publishing textbooks. As Bessarabia was no longer a province, and since it was annexed by Romania, Tarbut provided experienced teachers to schools in Old Romania and Transylvania. Unity also provides a moral force to the outside world. For this reason, it would be useful to hasten the opening of a teachers' seminary, whose absence is strongly felt in Hebrew education in Romania. According to the basic principles of unification, developed in shared meetings, legal matters will be handled in Bucharest, and educational matters in Kishinev.
The role of Eretz Israel in Hebrew schools was discussed in a lecture by Aryeh Likhtinger (Nahir) from Eretz Israel. He pointed out the basic weakness of Hebrew schools in the Diaspora, which can not match the completeness as those in Eretz Israel. Students lack a true Hebrew atmosphere even within schools. A young Hebrew student cannot absorb the essence of Hebrew culture or the living spirit of Eretz Israel, because they are not present in the Diaspora. The students are also not aware of the economic and cultural decline prevalent in the Jewish community in the Diaspora. Likhtinger concluded that it is essential to imbue the students with the genuine ideal of Eretz Israel. Students should embrace its fundamental principles, with both knowledge of and love for Eretz Israel integrated into all subjects through many activities.
The legal counsel, Sh. Rozenhaupt, spoke about the legal situation of the schools. He listed all the prohibitions imposed by the state through skewed interpretations, which he often finds in the law governing private schools. Among these is the requirement that students in Hebrew schools be tested in secular subjects in Romanian, starting in Grade 3, despite Hebrew being their language of instruction. Many obstacles stand in the way of launching evening classes for the study of Hebrew. Most of the inspectors and local clerks are not helpful, and actually hinder Hebrew education. Requests to open new schools are met with the same response: there are no Hebrew teachers!
[Page 570]
There is still a prohibition by the previous government on opening a seminary for Hebrew teachers funded by public money. At the end of his remarks, Rozenhaupt listed the demands that must be presented to the authorities once again.
The poet, Eliyahu Maitus and the teacher, Abba Blank, spoke about the Hebrew school. They said that the school must develop a creative personality capable of fighting the emptiness and superficial nature that had pervaded Jewish life. The new education should not be limited to teaching language and literature, it should draw from actual life. It is necessary to instill in school life, a sense of reality and work and the spirit of life itself. Even in the Diaspora it is possible to create the new and complete type of Hebrew school, a place for children already known in Eretz Israel.
In his lecture about culture and education outside of school, Yitzhak Schwartz spoke about the stream of influence that connects the school to the Jewish surroundings, and vice versa. This mutual exchange brings benefits to the young students and to the graduates. Only in this way is it possible to create a complete Hebrew atmosphere.
Zev Zhabotinsky took part in the conference on its last day. In his opening remarks he emphasized the need for all branches to support the work of the “Committee for Libraries”in Kishinev.
[Page 571]
It is necessary to collect books and valuable documents for the National Library at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. This would unite the activities of Tarbut in Romania. According to the main points of Lichtinger's lecture, it was decided to encourage teachers to increase activities relating to the JNF, and to integrate the living essence of Eretz Israel into every subject. There was a push to teach Hebrew with a Sephardi pronunciation even in schools still using the Ashkenazi one. A committee was formed to show the correct methods on a permanent basis. Its members were: Yitzhak Schwartz (Beltz), Hillel Dobrev (Yedinets), Yakov Kutcher, Yitzhak Fiter and Yeshayahu Vinitsky (Kishinev).
Unfortunately, it is not possible, here in Israel, to give details of the decisions by the conference. Only those dealing with the legal status of the school and the Romanian language are available. These were presented by Representative Michael Landau to the Romanian Parliament, on 24 September 1930, and were published in “Moniturol Ofitzial”(Parliamentary Notes). The following individuals were elected to the new central committee: Shlomo Berliand, Israel Berman, David Vinitsky, Shmuel Rozenhaupt, Zadok Weinstein, Israel Skvirsky, Zalman Rosenthal, Yakov Kutcher, Yitzhak Fiter and Rachel Lev.
In general, it is important to emphasize that the conference had an atmosphere of practical activity. Concern about the fate of Hebrew education was demonstrated by the lively discussion among the representatives on all items on the agenda. The conference projected a new faith and encouragement to the teachers and community workers who continued their grueling work despite many obstacles.
These are the decisions regarding the legal situation of the school, as translated by the author from Romanian:
The Third Tarbut conference in Bessarabia, held in Kishinev on January 5, 6, and 7, 1930, with the participation of representatives of the branches, parents' committees, and pedagogic councils, dealt with the legal situation of the schools and cultural institutions of the Jews in Bessarabia. The following are the decisions that were taken:
- The Private Education Law does not allow private schools to develop normally. It burdens them with debts without giving them any rights. The Law does not differentiate between a public school and a truly private school.
[Page 572]
Clause #7 of the law - about the establishment of elementary schools by the government, is not activated for the Jewish minority. The same is true for Section #11 of the law regarding high schools.[43])- The conference notes, with some doubt, the government's first attempt to provide aid to the Hebrew school. It also states that the small amount offered is only a tiny percentage of the budget of these institutions, and can ease their needs only in a limited way. Therefore, the conference decided:
- To give the central committee the power to demand:
- The implementation of clause #36 concerning private education by forming a panel of examiners who know Hebrew, for elementary and secondary schools, for subjects taught in Hebrew.
- Certification of the existing schools and their teachers.
- Limiting clause #51of the Private School Law to apply only to final exams in elementary schools. Until then, it should apply only for the first three grades, as the Ministry did in 1926, 1927 and 1928.
- Freeing the private schools which function like public schools from the examination tax.
- Establishing a seminary for Hebrew teachers in order to prepare more staff, and to cancel clause #8, which restricts the creation of a private seminary
- Creating a Hebrew teaching post in public elementary and high schools where Jewish students are enrolled.
- Establishing government elementary and high schools in Hebrew.
- Preparation of a curriculum for the teaching of the Romanian language in elementary schools where the language is Hebrew, according to clause #39 of the Private Education law.[44]
- Increasing financial aid to Jewish schools so that more of their needs will be covered.
- Work to find a solution for the problems of mixed schools, while paying attention to the special situation of our school.
Worsening of the economic distress
In addition to the Hebrew school's daily struggle for its very existence, there was always also dire economic distress in the community. In the past, Bessarabia was rich in agricultural produce which it exported to Russia and other countries, for good remuneration. Suddenly, Bessarabia became poor. The Romanian authorities did not have confidence in the province and sought to deplete its natural resources. The farmers lost their markets and backing from the government, and were obliged to sell their produce at low prices which did not reflect the arduous work they had put into it.
The lives of the Jews in the province, especially in the villages, depended on agriculture and the economy connected to it. Tobacco growers, vineyard and garden owners made up a quarter of the Jewish population in the smaller towns. They also suffered from the economic downturn of the province. The drought of 1926, which struck Bessarabia every 3 to 4 years, especially the southern part, and some of the central region, added insult to injury.
[Page 574]
Even worse in 1932, was the terrible blow caused by the freezing of farmer's debts. Storekeepers, merchants and some craftsmen suffered as well. The farmers were accustomed to selling their produce to the Jews before the harvest, i.e., the“green bread”before it ripened. The storekeepers and craftsmen would sell their goods on account until the next harvest. Most of the Jewish community were harmed by the freezing of debts and many bankruptcies followed. Several years passed before the difficult situation improved. Commerce returned, but the economic situation did not return to normal.
The financial situation of the schools was different from those in other European countries. This was because most towns and villages did not have organized and established communities. It was also different from other parts of Romania. Instead of communities, the famous Korobka was in charge, mostly in the hands of the clergy and the Orthodox. It was thus not possible for the modern Hebrew school, except for the Talmud Torahs and extra classes, to receive help from this public fund. The main heavy load fell on the parents, at least those who could afford it. As the economic distress in the province grew and the Jewish population became poorer, the financial situation of the schools worsened.
In the early 1930s, the elected democratic communities were reorganized as an alternative to the autocratic Korobka. However, the path taken was different from what the founders had planned. There was a general depression. There were plans for purposeful reorganization which was preferable to levying a tax on everyone to meet the needs of the institutions. However, the difficult and dire reality prevailed. The financial strength of the community was not better than the Korobka. The community was just a formal roof for the local institutions, with only symbolic power. Therefore, the local committees continued to exist, as before.
Not everything that was convenient for the institutions, given their financial situation, was good for the schools. Teachers' salaries were reduced. It was felt that in addition to their key role of the teachers, that of educating in and out of school, they also had to help carry the heavy losses of the institutions. These losses grew from year to year.
[Page 575]
This topic brought Kishinev to the forefront. It became clear that the sharp, decade-long public struggle between the democratic faction and the Orthodox in Chișinău over the community's essence, had moved, in the eyes of the institutional leaders, to actual reality. They were convinced that once victory was achieved, the community would fully grasp the needs of the future, and would meet those needs. Instead, the leaders lost strength, and the community did not fulfill the hopes placed upon it. The budgets of the institutions were not incorporated into that of the community. The sums allotted to each institution were determined only after the income was calculated, and only after the salaries of the clergy were deducted. Most of the community's income came from the Meat Tax.
The teachers threatened to strike, and the community responded by proposing to merge several institutions to reduce expenses. The teachers did not accept the proposal and were left in deep poverty. This was more than the teachers in smaller towns had to endure.
Tarbut hoped that with the rise of the National Tsarist Party leading the government in 1928, it would finally be possible to obtain government funding for the national school. The Party had formed an electoral agreement with the Zionist organization.
Only a small amount was received. In 1929, 20 million lei were budgeted for private education. The Jewish minority received only 4,120 thousand lei. Bessarabia was allocated 1,188 thousand lei, which was sent to Tarbut to be divided among all institutions, Orthodox and Yiddish alike.
The amount was quite paltry and could not fulfill the needs of the institutions. The annual budget of the institutions under Tarbut was close to 20 million lei. It turned out that the government allotment amounted to only 5% of the budget. This was further decreased by 30% in 1930. The allotment was eliminated and never restored after the fall of the National Tsarist Party.
World Tarbut Fund
The dire financial situation of the Hebrew school was not unique to Bessarabia. The situation of institutions in other East European countries, especially Poland, was not better. Over the years, the Zionist movement became an instrument for raising money through various funds which allowed Tarbut to continue its work for Jewish education.
[Page 576]
This took place within a special legal situation which forced it to continue on its own. Education and culture stood behind every Zionist activity. The conviction grew that it was essential to connect the two, to guarantee the existence of the central institutions. These, in turn, could support the educational institutions by training teachers. At the close of the 16th Zionist Congress in 1929, the mechanism of propagation and guidance was recognized as essential. There was a fundamental change with the creation of “the wider Jewish Agency”and the expansion of its activities.
The following are comparisons between the Hebrew schools in Bessarabia and Poland, as included in a report presented to the Zionist Congress[45]. The facts are illuminating. Although Jews made up only 6.9% of the population in Bessarabia compared with Poland, the number of students was four times greater.
As mentioned in this report, details about Hebrew school in Lithuania, where the Jewish population was about 150,000, show there were 128 educational institutions with 9,995 students and 438 teachers. There were 26 kindergartens with 760 children, 81 elementary schools with 6,870 students, 10 middle schools with 597 students, and 11 high schools with 2,668 students.
[Page 577]
The Mizrachi and Yavne schools were not included in the report since the latter was only formed in 1927. There was no information in the report published in Warsaw in 1927. Also, in Congress Poland, these were bilingual schools. Hebrew studies were taught in Hebrew, while general subjects were taught in Polish.[46]
| Countries | Jewish Population Thousands |
No. Institutions |
No. Students |
|
|
High School
|
|||||||||
| Poland | 3000 | 236 | 24863 | 75 | 1975 | 149 | 19132 | 12 | 3756 | ||||||
| % | (100) | (100) | (100) | (100) | (100) | (100) | (100) | (100) | (100) | ||||||
| Average per institution: | |||||||||||||||
| Teachers | 1.1 | 4.6 | 16 | ||||||||||||
| Students | 26.3 | 128 | 313 | ||||||||||||
| Bessarabia | 207 | 65 | 5996. | 20. | 621 | 35 | 10 | 1255 | |||||||
| % | (6.9) | (27.5) | (24.1) | (26.7) | (31.44) | (23.5) | (83.3) | (33.4) | |||||||
| Average per institution: | |||||||||||||||
| Teachers | 1.9 | 4.6 | 14 | ||||||||||||
| Students | 31 | 118 | 125 | ||||||||||||
The second Congress dedicated a special Hebrew session to this issue, chaired by M.S. Ossishkin[49]. Yitzhak Grinboim, the first speaker on this matter, reviewed the development of Hebrew culture in its various phases, from the days of “Hibat Zion”through the period l after the first Russian revolution of 1917, and up to the rise of the new, modern, Hebrew school. He stated that the parameters had to be broadened for the good of the youth movements.
[Page 578]
Every cultural institution that is based on Hebrew culture, Eretz Israel, and pioneering work, belongs to us, whether it is religious or not, since religion is only a part of our movement.
After the proposals were presented in detail, in a report to the members of the Congress, Grinboim emphasized that it was not useful to disparage the Hebrew schools in the Diaspora. They had 50,000 students in attendance, that is three times more than in Eretz Israel. The lack of financial means is a serious obstacle, but it does not stem from the lack of these schools' rights. In many instances, parents had to adjust to the many languages and cultures of the new authorities that arose after the war. It was possible to prepare the hearts for Zionist activity by receiving funds from the Diaspora to enable cultural work. Spending some tens of pounds Sterling each year would not diminish the Zionist funds; on the contrary, it could only strengthen them.
The second speaker to address this issue was Dr. A. Wolfsburg (Mizrachi). He was the only one who spoke in German. He began by saying that “Hebrew is beloved and cherished by us, as it is for all Zionists. It is unimaginable that any cultural activity in Eretz Israel or in the Diaspora would not have Hebrew at its foundation. The only differences among them are differences in outlook and methods.” The lecturer argued that modern science is not sufficient for the life of our people. He said that religion is the most visible part of our national life. Therefore, at present, we cannot give up our religious character. We must bring future generations closer to Jewish sources, and their education must be based on our traditions”.
Dr. Wolfsburg opposed Grinboim's proposal, saying that the establishment of a special fund in the Diaspora would weaken existing efforts and disturb the present order. Many people contributed to the existing funds simply because there was no fund specifically for Tarbut.
Zev Zhabotinsky was the first to respond. He reminded us that when the Zionist movement began, we all believed that it was possible to create a Hebrew atmosphere in the Diaspora. These efforts were successful in other countries but they were not fully developed. We still have not succeeded in creating a complete Hebrew culture in the Diaspora. He supported Grinboim's proposal and called on Tarbut workers in Europe not to accept a bilingual school, but to insist on a fully Hebrew school.
The last speaker, Hillel Zlatopolsky, said that our early insistence on supporting Hebrew everywhere produced real results.
[Page 579]
This was so even though no one else understood our language and our aspirations. We have finally succeeded in creating a full Hebrew school. On the other hand, we have recently set aside our stubbornness, and at this Congress, a well-known man among us even spoke in a foreign tongue. Mizrachi sent a man who spoke German. This compromise is eating us alive and has already penetrated our schools. We now hear that Mizrachi is supporting a bilingual school. We must understand that there can be no separation between the Zionist movement and the Hebrew movement. There is only one living movement.”
As usual, the issue was referred to a special committee of the Congress which brought its recommendations to the plenary session where it met opposition from the executive, from Keren Hayesod, and especially from Mizrachi and Poalei Zion. This struggle about Hebrew culture found its expression in the words of the writer Eliezer Shteinman. They were published in Haolam, (#36, 17 Av 1929). He wrote that “the miserable culture stands like a poor relative at the door of all congresses without being given permission to enter by the gatekeepers; the right, and the left, the religious and the secular. The two sides were always like two Cossacks who strike their Jewish friend with a stick. Between the religious and the secular sides of education in the Zionist movement, it is being smothered.”
In his reply, Grinboim presented the multiple oppositions:
Some argue in the name of Torah and others in the name of Socialism. A third speaks for the Yiddishists and then for the organization. Our friend from Mizrachi is wrong. We do not intend to begin a struggle about culture. We do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of the schools. We simply say that the schools must follow Zionist programs. This can be done in any form you choose, Hebrew language, knowledge of Eretz Israel, regardless of whether the schools are modern or not. There is a group among the workers that is demanding a school in Yiddish, not in Hebrew. There is no need to set up a special section for Hebrew schools. It is obvious that they would fight against it. The question is this: here in Lemberg, where there is a struggle over Jewish rights, do we go to Parliament and demand our rights for a Hebrew school. If the Zionist Congress wishes to defer our proposal, it must understand that it will suffocate us. None of us will then be able to demand from Parliament any rights for a Hebrew school. You, my Mizrachi friends, must know what you are fighting for. You are not fighting for Torah. Are you fighting for Yiddish? We are entrusting you with the future of the Hebrew school and the struggle for the rights of the Hebrew language.[50]
After a detailed discussion about all sections of the proposal from the special committee, it was decided that[51]:
3)There is a need to strengthen Hebrew cultural activity in the Diaspora. The Congress decides that the Zionist movement must be mobilized to promote the teaching of Hebrew, and to integrate the spirit of Eretz Israel in all Jewish schools. This is a basic tenet in education and in the movement to propagate the Hebrew language among the youth and the graduates. Therefore, the Congress will, for this purpose, establish a special department for education in the Diaspora.4) The duties of this department will be:
5) Special attention and assistance must be given to the dire economic situation of the Hebrew organizations in the Diaspora. The Congress will establish a special fund for cultural activities in the Diaspora, and it will instruct the Executive to prepare a plan to present to the next session of the Executive Committee.
- To establish contact with all Hebrew education institutions in the Diaspora.
- To make sure that our rights are upheld, and that all schools can grow according to its own basic principles.
- To spread the Hebrew language and literature among young people and adults throughout the Diaspora.
- To hold information and promotional sessions for Hebrew language and culture.
- To pay special attention to training teachers for the Hebrew schools.
This was all theoretical. It became clear in the days following the Congress that it was not possible to implement these proposals. The Zionist Organization did prepare a plan and presented it to the Executive Committee in August 1930, but added that it could not take on financial responsibility for the schools in the Diaspora. The Executive Committee agreed on the need to set up a special department for Diaspora education and hoped that it would soon be possible to do so.
[Page 581]
We can follow how events developed after the Executive Committee meeting, in the report of the management to the 17th Zionist Congress in 1931:
Unfortunately, due to the political situation which we faced immediately after the Executive Committee session, and for budgetary reasons, we were unable to carry out the decisions.
This is how the plan to create a third fund, a universal Keren Hatarbut, and the heavy burden of Hebrew education in the Diaspora, remained stuck in place.
The Joint and its relation to the Hebrew School
The Joint's leadership also ignored the Hebrew school in Bessarabia. In its eyes, educational institutions in Eastern Europe were like stepchildren, receiving only the crumbs falling from the tables of the Yiddishist and religious schools. In Poland, the Hebrew schools at least benefitted from some of these crumbs, but not so in Bessarabia. All of Tarbut's efforts failed, and the Joint cash box was shut tight. The fact that these schools charged tuition, seemed in the eyes of the Joint, to disqualify them, and was the reason for the lack of support. It was just a cover-up meant to hide their hostile attitude towards the Hebrew schools. Most people did not speak Hebrew. Even during the drought years in Bessarabia, when parents could not afford tuition because they needed money for food, the leaders of the Joint did not change their position.
The terrible drought that struck Bessarabia in 928, especially the southern desert (Budjuzak) and the central region, disrupted the financial base of the educational institutions and the livelihood of hundreds of teachers' families. The schools would have been closed were it not for the teachers' patience and personal sacrifice. The Joint's special emissary, Yakov Leshtchinsky, visited the starving areas. His article about the visit was published in the foreign press. At the start of the 1928/29 school year, Tarbut organized a special council to find a solution. It tried to involve community leaders in supporting the cause of Jewish education, but they showed little interest and limited their assistance to providing food for the students.
There was a small breakthrough in mid-1928. Finally, it was possible to reach the director of the Foundation in Bessarabia.
[Page 582]
Yitzhak Milstein gave a small allocation of 350,000 Lei, to repair the buildings. The institutions had to collect the same amount on their own since the needs were great. It was good advice, but Bessarabia was poor and struggling. They managed, with great difficulty, to renovate only 27 dormitories, which was half of what was needed.
Things became even worse in 1940. It was the first year after Poland was overrun and Jewish life went into a nose dive. It was also the last year of existence for Jews in Bessarabia. The Joint allocated $2,500, but the money never reached its destination. Tarbut's management asked for the sum to be sent to Keren Hayesod in Jerusalem since its funds in Romania were frozen. However, the Joint leadership did not agree to do so. As a result, the value of the money decreased by two thirds. Negotiations dragged on endlessly. Hundreds of teachers in the schools lived in poverty. This continued until Bessarabia was conquered.
What is most interesting is that in spring of 1941 the money finally reached Keren Hayesod in Eretz Israel. The money remained there and was never used for the schools in Bessarabia. The remnants of Tarbut who survived and arrived in Eretz Israel also did not benefit from the money. They had hoped to use it to memorialize the spiritual heritage of the Jews of Bessarabia.
Original footnotes:
|
|
JewishGen, Inc. makes no representations regarding the accuracy of
the translation. The reader may wish to refer to the original material
for verification.
JewishGen is not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in the original work and cannot rewrite or edit the text to correct inaccuracies and/or omissions.
Our mission is to produce a translation of the original work and we cannot verify the accuracy of statements or alter facts cited.
The Jews in Bessarabia
Yizkor Book Project
JewishGen Home Page
Copyright © 1999-2026 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 16 Mar 2026 by JH
