Gershom Scholem

Front matter

From Berlin to Jerusalem and Back

GERSHOM SCHOLEM

The Tauber Institute Series for the Study of European Jewry

Part I “continuity Of The Crisis” Hope And Disillusion (1923-1938) I

1 Cultural Contexts 3 2 A Political Circle: Brit Shalom 38 3 Religious Contexts 60

PART II THE UNPARALLELED CATASTROPHE DESPAIR (1939-1948) 73 4 Responses to the Holocaust 75 5 The Journey to Salvage Looted Books and Manuscripts 95 6 The Heart of Odysseus 142

Part III Ein Tiefes Heimweh Nostalgia (1949-1982) 155

7 Eranos 157 8 Between Israel and Germany 189 9 Berlin, Again: The Finale 222

Afterword: From Berlin to Jerusalem 251

Notes 259 References 295

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank the teachers, friends, and colleagues who helped me in the different phases of writing this book. To Moshe Zimmermann, Michael Brenner, Itta Shedletzky, Matthias Schmidt, Ada Rapoport-Albert, Rachel Elior, Moshe Idel, David Ruderman, Dan Laor, Jacob Barnai, Richard Cohen, David Myers, John Efron, Jens Malte Fischer, Tilo Schabert, Shaul Magid, Malachi Hacohen, and Eric Jacobson, thank you for discussing different aspects of Gershom Scholem’s life and work with me, and for helping me sharpen my observations on the complexities of his life.

Iam grateful to the friends, colleagues, and students of Scholem who shared with me their memories and insights, especially Jürgen Habermas, Hartmut von Hentig, Mayer Abramowitz, and Avraham Shapira. My gratitude goes also to the archives that opened their doors to me and allowed me to search their collections: the Archives Department at the National Library of Israel, the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem archive and Oral History Division, and the archive of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin.

I would also like to thank Ernst Peter Wieckenberg for the friendly way he opened for me a window into the intellectual world in Germany after World War II. My parents, Diana and Efraim Zadoff, and my parents-in-law, Huberta and Richard Triendl, were always ready to help with matters concerning the book.

The English publication of the book was made possible thanks to generous support from the Israel Institute in Washington and the Borns Jewish Studies Program and the History Department at Indiana University. Special thanks go to Jeffrey Green for his accurate and attentive translation, which shows the strong personal interest he took in the book; to Jeanne Ferris for editing the book meticulously and patiently; and to Sylvia Fuks Fried and Eugene Sheppard at Brandeis University Press and Phyllis Deutsch and Ann Brash at University Press of New England for their advice and support.

Finally, my thanks to my dearest ofall, Mirjam, Amos, and Emilia, whose support and patience made the writing of this book possible.

xiii

INTRODUCTION THE METAPHYSICAL CLOWN

“| call myself a metaphysical clown,” Scholem says; “a clown hides himself in a theater.” ... How much of Professor Scholem is theater? Scholem: “Ask Mrs. Scholem.” Mrs. Scholem: “One hundred percent.”

wi

CYNTHIA OZICK, “THE FOURTH SPARROW

When the young Jew from Berlin, Gerhard Arthur Scholem—the fourth and youngest son of Arthur Scholem, the owner of a printing house, and his wife, Betty—decided to change his name to Gershom Shalom, he sought to express two great changes in his life. First, by omitting his middle name? (which was also his father’s name), he was turning his back on the past and on the bourgeois German Jewish culture that his father represented. And second, by changing the remaining names to Hebrew ones, he was facing the future, both the rebirth of the Jewish people and that of Hebrew culture, first in Berlin and later in the Land of Israel. The first time the young man who would become one of the beacons of modern Jewish studies used the Hebrew name Gershom in his writings was in his signature at the end ofa letter to his friend Harry Heymann in early 1917, beneath which he wrote: “P.S. Now everyone is changing their name, now I’m Gershom.”? Taking the name Gershom connected the young Gerhard to the son of Moses in the Bible, who was born while his father was exiled in Midian. He was given that name because “I have been a sojourner [ger in Hebrew] in a foreign land” (Ex. 2:22). Evidently the adoption of that name, aside from the similarity in sound to his German name, expressed Scholem’s feelings about the country of his birth. In choosing to take a Hebrew name, he was not alone. He belonged to a generation in which many young people were motivated by Zionism to emigrate to Palestine. Half a year later Scholem signed a letter to his friend Aharon Heller with his full Hebrew name: “Gershom Shalom.”? (When his last name is transliterated into German or English, it retains the German spelling, Scholem.)

XV

A few years ago I bought a used copy of the German volume of Scholem’s correspondence with Walter Benjamin, a friend of his youth. This book was published in 1980, and the copy came from the estate of Hedi Strauss, who had immigrated to Palestine from Germany in 1938 and worked in Jerusalem as an editor in German and English.’ On the first page of the book there is a short dedication in Scholem’s handwriting: “For Hedi Strauss, with heartfelt thanks and good memories (Für Hedi Strauss, mit herzlichem Dank und zur guten Erinnerung).” The fact that in the 1980s, so many years after the turning point in Scholem’s life, he wrote this dedication in German in a book that he gave to a woman from his homeland in the State of Israel made me think that perhaps the step he took was, after all, not as final and decisive as he had presented it.

In his old age, after having received international recognition as the founder of the academic field of study of Kabbalah, Scholem wrote his memoirs. From Berlin to Jerusalem — published first in German in 1977, around his eightieth birthday, and then in an expanded Hebrew edition in 1982, a few weeks after his death —describes in detail his understanding of his Zionist immigration. In the very title of the book we find the unidirectional movement that Scholem ascribed to his life between two poles: Berlin and Jerusalem. Scholem’s life story creates a contrast for the reader between origin and destination, past and future. Hence, Scholem chose to end the book in 1925, when at the age of twenty-eight he was appointed a lecturer at the recently established Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The movement proclaimed in the title of the book and described throughout it is Scholem’s personal narrative, the story of “the life of a young Jew whose path took him from Berlin ofhis childhood and youth to Jerusalem and Israel.” ° However, despite the eloquent writing, which describes a lost world with great literary power, the book leaves the reader with many questions: Why did Scholem choose to end the story when he had halfa century of scholarly and public activity still to recall? Why did he choose to shed light on this chapter of his life in particular, and to leave the later chapters, which were no less fascinating, shrouded in darkness? Why did Scholem publish the book in German first? These questions were the point of departure for the present study. Between Scholem’s account of his move from Berlin to Jerusalem in his book and his description of it on various public occasions yawns a great gap, indicating that the course of his life was far more complex than the way he presented it. The aim of this book is to explore the ambivalence that attended his emigration and his life in Israel, and to analyze that ambivalence in its historical context.

No one who reads the vast autobiographical material found in print and in his archives can avoid the impression that Scholem planned his posthumous legacy very carefully. Like many other men of his generation, as a young man xvi Introduction he wrote hundreds of pages in multiple diaries. Together with numerous letters, he brought these diaries with him to Palestine and carefully preserved them throughout his life. Writing the diaries and keeping them safe for many years shows that he was highly cognizant of his role as a scholar and a writer and suggests that he kept the personal records as valuable legacy for generations to come.’

Working for many hours in Scholem’s private archive at the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem often gave me the feeling of searching a pharaoh’s tomb, filled with unknown invaluable treasures and hidden clues that can shed light on episodes in his life. Indeed, I often had the impression that Scholem designed biographical decoy chambers, in the same way that a pharaoh’s tomb is structured. By sometimes providing complex and contradictory biographical information, Scholem apparently wished to distract the biographer seeking the historical person from grasping his true essence, by hiding behind an abundance of historical details.

Reading Scholem’s published and unpublished writings in a historical context, looking carefully for hidden intentions, and comparing personal documents with the impressions he left on his contemporaries are key to the effort of drawing a new portrait of Scholem.

In the summer of 2006, at the beginning of my research, I interviewed Jürgen Habermas in Munich. I had been looking for friends and acquaintances of Scholem who could shed light on the way he was perceived in Germany, and I wrote a letter to the famous philosopher. Several weeks later the phone rang in my apartment, and to my astonishment Habermas was on the line, offering to meet me at the café of the famous Munich Literaturhaus. As a young Israeli who had grown up outside of the German context, I was at the time not fully aware of Habermas’s position in the German intellectual world, so I was quite surprised that when I entered the café with Habermas, complete strangers at nearby tables smiled at me with recognition and appreciation. In what turned out to be a vivid and friendly conversation, Habermas told me about his first meeting with Scholem, how he and Scholem had become close friends, and about their friendship over the years. That same afternoon Habermas wondered aloud why all the beacons of the German intellectual world treated Scholem with so much respect and humility, and what the world leaders in Jewish studies saw in him.®

As the conversation went on, I noticed a growing dissonance regarding the person we were talking about. Habermas described a nice and attentive person with a keen sense of humor, who was a loyal friend and whose only human weakness was an uncontrollable love for sweets. The portrait of Scholem I had brought with me to Munich from Jerusalem was that of a formidable tyrant,

Introduction xvii who was deeply admired yet tremendously feared. Scholem was portrayed by many in Israel as a grim gatekeeper of the academic world of Jewish studies, who ruled the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with an iron hand. That Scholem decided single-handedly who would be accepted to the small community of elite scholars on Mount Scopus and who would be condemned to an academic life of mediocrity in the purgatory of the one of the other Israeli universities. Yet in the Munich café, right in front of my eyes, a second Scholem was born and took shape, whose temperament and essence contradicted those of the man I thought I knew. How could the two opposing Scholems exist at the same time?

Given that Scholem was probably the most prominent scholar of Jewish studies in the twentieth century, his biography took on a quasi-mythic meaning. Many scholars in Israel and around the world sought to understand his German Zionism according to their own ideological and emotional needs, some to fortify their own Zionist convictions and some to criticize Jewish nationalism and Israeli politics. For both groups, Scholem’s authoritative figure and his research on Kabbalah was a symbol of the Zionist enterprise. The consistencies and continuities in his life story were emphasized, whereas the doubts, disappointments, and interruptions—which were less evident and did not befit the image ofa towering scholar—were downplayed.

Other scholars, some of them from the circles of Scholem’s students and their students, chose to concentrate mainly on interpretative readings of his daunting scholarly work, on new readings of the sources he had interpreted, or on the topics he chose not to touch in his Kabbalah research. The tendency of some of these scholars was to distinguish between the person and the scholar and to refrain from looking for the relevance of Scholem’s life story to his work.

The story told in this book falls in the gap between the two images of Scholem and the wish to understand their relationship. My research brought me to the conclusion that the difference between these images lies in the geographical and temporal aspects of Scholem’s life. These aspects underlie the different roles he played in different contexts: Scholem was at the same time an Israeli scholar and a German writer, with the social and intellectual aspects that accompany the two roles. This book tells the story of the parallel existence of these two images of Scholem that he and others had, how they came into being, and how they motivated Scholem’s positions and actions while he stood at central points of Jewish and European intellectual life. The tension between Israel and Germany and between the scholar and the writer were formative forces during his participation in different social networks in Israel and in Europe after World War II, including his place at the Hebrew University, in the Eranos conferences, and among the circles formed in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s around the Suhrkamp pubxviii Introduction lishing house. Scholem was always aware ofthe role he was playing, yethe chose to omit this from the life story he told in his autobiographical work.

Scholem is considered one ofthe most prominent intellectuals ofthe twentieth century, and his work and intellectual life are the subjects ofincreasing examination. This book is the first biography of Scholem since his death and the first comprehensive effort to present him as a man who acted in historical and social circumstances and interacted with them, and it sheds new light on one of the towering figures of Jewish scholarship and intellectual life.° This study shows how Scholem navigated the challenges of Jewish life and the Jewish worlds of his time, from his aliyah through the riots between Arabs and Jews in 1929, the Holocaust and its aftermath, and the political developments in Israel during the 1970s. Scholem’s writings and presentation of his life do not reveal its whole historical context to the reader, and this book aims to offers insights and nuanced understandings that enable a deeper and fresh interpretation of his life’s work.

This book is divided into three parts, the first of which deals with the years between Scholem’s immigration to Palestine and World War II. The second part treats his attitude toward the Holocaust, covering the period of the war and his trip to Europe in its aftermath. The third part discusses his connection with the German-speaking intellectual world during the postwar decades.

The first part of the book presents Scholem in the framework of the great cultural project that characterized Jewish national rebirth, the Zionist project of kinus. In this context, I examine Scholem’s relation to the Hebrew University, the Hebrew language, and two of the central Hebrew writers of his day, whom he knew: Hayim Nahman Bialik and Shmuel Yosef Agnon. The part also examines Scholem’s place and participation in the Jewish cultural rebirth in Berlin during the 1920s and the demise of that world in the 1930s. At that time, Scholem published much of his scholarship in Jewish venues in Germany and in German. The first part of the book goes on to discuss Scholem’s role in Brit Shalom, the political circle in which he took part during the 1920s. His participation in this circle, which was largely composed of German-speaking Zionists and which conducted a large part of its activities in German, left him disappointed with the path of the Yishuv and its attitude toward the question of the Arabs of Palestine. This part of the book also discusses Scholem’s attitude toward the religious dimension of Judaism, as it took shape at that time: on the one hand, through his understanding of Kabbalah, his field of research, and, on the other hand, through his conception of the independent religious person, who is not subject to any religious authority.

The second part of the book is devoted to two central aspects of Scholem’s attitude to the Holocaust. First, it treats Scholem’s response to the Holocaust

Introduction xix while it was taking place in the context ofthe general response of the Yishuv— for example, by analyzing his 1944 essay, “Reflections on Modern Jewish Studies.”1 Second, this part examines in detail Scholem’s search between February and August 1946 for Jewish books that had been stolen by the Nazis and were located in the American-occupied sector of Germany. During this journey Scholem was forced to confront directly the results of the Holocaust and World War I. The journey had an important symbolic meaning for Scholem and made a deep impression on him, which can be understood as a turning point in his life—in his relationship both to Zionism and to Germany.

The third part of the book examines Scholem’s increasing activity in Germany and in the German language after the war. Here I discuss the Eranos conferences, which were held in Ascona, Switzerland, and which Scholem attended frequently between 1949 and 1979. Scholem’s place at these conferences, mainly during the 1950s, and his relations with his colleagues are examined against the background of his relationship to German culture. The discussion then focuses on three episodes central to Scholem’s intellectual activity in the 1960s: his dispute with Hannah Arendt about her book Eichmann in Jerusalem; the discussion about the existence of a Jewish-German dialogue before the Holocaust; and his part in the reception of the writings of his late friend, Walter Benjamin, in Germany. Here the discussion focuses on the two volumes of Benjamin’s correspondence, edited by Scholem and Theodor Adorno, that were published in 1966. The editors’ collaboration on Benjamin’s correspondence was also the basis of an important collaboration with the Institut fiir Sozialforschung and with the Suhrkamp publishing house in Frankfurt, which became a decisive factor in Scholem’s entry into the German intellectual world. The final chapter of this part of the book deals with Scholem’s reception in Germany during the 1970s and up to its peak in 1981, when he was appointed a fellow of the new Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin and which was also the last year of his life.

The afterword of the book discusses Scholem’s autobiography, which he wrote in the autumn of his life. Examining this book as a document that moves on two different axes of time—the present, when it was written, and the past, which it describes in the light of all the events that took place in between—brings us back to the central questions raised at the beginning. By analyzing Scholem’s life story as that of a man standing between his country of origin and an ideological destination, an important chapter in Jewish spiritual life in the twentieth century is recounted: the history of Zionism and its realization in Palestine and the State of Israel. In this context we come to understand the way personal utopias play out after they are achieved.

Although this biographical study picks up the thread of Scholem’s life story xx Introduction at the time and place where he decided to set it aside, unlike his autobiography, it does not seek to present a complete and rounded picture. The biographer’s knowledge of the subject of Scholem’s research and the guiding principles of the dialectic between the visible and the invisible in his writing is entirely different from that of the man who wrote the story of his own life. The dialectic between the aspiration to discover as much as possible and the awareness of the limitations of time and the abstract and elusive essence of human nature and interpersonal relations guides the way this life story develops and is one of the many plotlines in Gershom Scholem’s life.

Introduction xxi

$ “CONTINUITY OF THE CRISIS”

Zionism is the encircling of that crisis point where nationalism gleamed in our lives. The continuity of the crisis is what threatens us.

GERSHOM SCHOLEM, OD DAVAR

(1923-1938)

Chapter 1

Indifference, on the one hand, and, on the other, unlimited glorification of the form, of spoken Hebrew, without any connection to the content of traditional Hebrew culture, even though it was what gave meaning to every word in Hebrew — these are the characteristics of the new Jewish settlement, the yishuv, in this matter, which is of supreme importance. There is apprehension, lest the younger generation of Hebrew speakers, growing up in this atmosphere, might perhaps be Hebraic in an extreme manner, but far less Jewish than its parallels in Germany and America, where outstanding teachers are at work. Though they do not speak and write in Hebrew, they are much closer to the sources of Judaism.

wi

SHMUEL HUGO BERGMANN, "GEISTIGES LEBEN

Beginnings in Palestine

A Young German Jewish Man Arrives in Palestine

On the morning of September 20, 1923, Yom Kippur, a coastal steamer slowly approached the port of Jaffa in Palestine. The ship, “which bore freight and a few passengers and anchored in various ports between Alexandria and Istanbul,” was arriving from Egypt one day late, after being unexpectedly delayed in Port Said.* Among the few passengers on deck were two young men who had been born in Germany, each of whom was to become, in his respective field, a pathfinder in the history of twentieth-century Jewish studies. One of them, the Orientalist Shlomo Dov Goitein, remained on the anchored ship and sailed on to Haifa, the next port. The other, Gershom Scholem—whose fiancée, Escha Burchhardt, had come to greet him—disembarked and arrived, for the first time in his twenty-six years, at his desired destination, in Zion. After spending ten days in Tel Aviv and Ein-Ganim, near Petach-Tikvah, where he spent the Sukkot holiday with friends from his Zionist youth movement in Berlin who had come to Palestine a short time before him, Scholem reached Jerusalem, where he lived until his death. Professionally speaking, Scholem’s absorption into Palestine was easy and rapid. In his first week in Jerusalem he had two job offers. The first was to serve as a mathematics teacher in the teachers’ college in Jerusalem, and the second was to become a librarian in the Hebrew Department of the National and University Library. The library’s director, Shmuel Hugo Bergmann, was to become a close friend of Scholem. The two had already met in Bern, and Scholem lived in Bergmann’s house immediately after his arrival in Jerusalem. After some hesitation, Scholem chose the librarian’s job, though the salary was lower. In the library he could deal solely with topics that interested him, whereas he had some trepidation about being a teacher: “As a teacher I would have to correct papers in the afternoon as well, and who could say whether my pupils would not laugh at my Berlin-accent Hebrew?” he wrote in his memoirs.? Scholem worked in the National Library for about four years, until he received a full-time appointment as a lecturer in Kabbalah at the new Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

From a personal point of view as well it appears that Scholem’s highly successful adaption to life in the Land of Israel took only a short time. On December 5, his birthday, he married his fiancée, Escha Burchhardt, on the roof of the Mizrachi teachers’ seminary in the center of town. Rabbi Simcha Assaf—who later became a professor of Talmud, the rector of the Hebrew University, and a member of the Israeli Supreme Court— officiated at the wedding. (Gershom and Escha’s marriage lasted twelve years. In 1936 they divorced, and Gershom married Fania Freud, his student—a marriage that lasted for the rest of his life.) In December 1924 Gershom and Escha lived in a rented apartment on Ethiopia Street, at the edge of the Meah Shearim neighborhood. At that time Meah Shearim was full of old Hebrew books, including works of Kabbalah, for which there was almost no demand, and they were sold very cheaply. Thus, Scholem, an enthusiastic book collector, was able to explore that “dialectical Paradise,” as he called it, and enlarge his library without interference, at least until other book collectors arrived and expressed interest in esoteric Hebrew literature.‘

In other ways as well, Scholem adjusted without significant difficulty. His body became used to the local climate without succumbing to any of the many diseases that ordinarily afflicted immigrants,° and in his memoirs he described his arrival in Palestine as entering a new social network that lasted for many years. He made friends with immigrants of longer standing, most of whom had come from Eastern Europe, and renewed old friendships, mainly with members of the Zionist youth movement in Germany who were working in agricultural settlements.

Thus Scholem’s immigration and the beginning of his life in the Land of Israel was (at least as he described it retrospectively) a success story from the personal, social, and ideological points of view. Scholem wrote to his friend Werner Kraft

FIGURE 1 Escha and Gershom Scholem, Jerusalem 1924. From the collection ofthe National Library of Israel, Jerusalem.

in Germany about his impressions of the Land of Israel and life there about a year after his arrival. In his autobiography, Scholem quotes a Hebrew translation of a portion of this letter (without mentioning that it was addressed to Kraft). There he describes Palestine as an ambiguous place, but one that mainly inspired and excited him. In the second part of the letter, which was published only after his death, Scholem describes the local cultural life in a different tone, and far less enthusiastically:

The waters of my life flow slowly here. I cannot speak at length about the conditions that determine my attitude toward the country. Without doubt I am among those who tend toward the most apocalyptic opinions with regard to the fate of the Zionist movement here. There is no way you can imagine the worlds that meet here. Life here is an open invitation to thinking people to go out of their minds, and in any event it is inevitably necessary to assume that there is a theological background for even the most ridiculous forms of life, if you don’t want “to stand out”—standing out happens here openly, sometimes in the form of the messiah, and sometimes in the form ofa labor leader, and sometimes in much more frightening disguises. Indeed one may say everything about the new Land of Israel, if you want to understand me correctly, especially bad things—and how could this not be otherwise—in the indescribable collisions of unrestrained powers of creativity from six continents including the upper world? However, it seems necessary to me to admit one thing, that more things are happening here than in other corners of the universe.° I personally suffer in the most catastrophic possible way from the attitudes toward the language [Sprachverhältnisse], about which it is impossible to write in a sober way. IfI ever write an essay on this, I won’t hide it from you.

The intellectuals in this country are as bad as anywhere, as [bad as] Jewish intellectuals can be, but they aren’t enigmatic like the ghosts you describe to me! In this country (a phenomenon that only developed completely at the Zionist stage) they are only one thing: stupid. Stupid in a surprising way, I tell you. The phenomenon of primitive, true (not to say original) stupidity of the Jews is apparently completely unknown in the Diaspora. This is one of the strongest impressions of the country. I don’t say this as a joke. In this apocalyptic country, indeed only here, it is possible to encounter Gartenlaube figures in Hebrew,’ a most exciting phenomenon. One can also meet the last of the kabbalists here.®

Along with the ambivalent feelings of wonder and amazement that his new city and its atmosphere aroused in Scholem, here he presents the cultural situation of the Yishuv (the prestate Jewish community in the Land of Israel) in unequivocally negative terms. In the latter part of the letter—which, as noted above, he chose to omit from his autobiography—one senses Scholem’s disappointment with his encounter with the cultural and intellectual side of the Land of Israel. This disappointment is understandable and natural if we examine the place of Palestine in the world of Jewish culture at that time, especially in comparison to the situation that prevailed in Berlin, where Scholem came from. If the Land of Israel of the 1920s can be placed on the margin of Jewish intellectual life, Berlin can be called its omphalos. Scholem’s passage from this vital center to the margin, even with the purpose of making the latter central, certainly entailed many difficulties and was neither unequivocal nor ideal, as Scholem depicted it years afterward. This process, with the disillusion inherent in it (as expressed in his letter to Kraft), can be better understood by examining Scholem’s Zionist expectations of the Land of Israel, which had taken shape in the circles of Hebrew culture in which he had been involved in his youth. These circles fashioned the Hebrew cultural ideal that he brought with him when he immigrated and made a deep mark on the way he envisioned Zionist achievements in the land of his choice.

Bialik and Agnon

The Germany of Scholem’s youth, during World War I and under the Weimar Republic, saw the renewal and flourishing of Jewish culture. The awakening and organization in the Jewish communities and the immigration of Zionist Jewish intellectuals from Eastern Europe who became active in Germany made a deep impression on cultural life there and made cities like Berlin, Frankfurt, and Bad-Homburg into vibrant centers of Jewish culture.’

For Scholem, as for many German Jews of his generation, the encounter with Jews from Eastern Europe was one of the formative experiences of his youth and had a deep influence on his path in Zionism. These encounters, both through the writings of Martin Buber, which Scholem both admired and criticized, and through his personal acquaintance with Buber, played a critical role in Scholem’s progress on the path that led him to the Land of Israel. Indeed, if one traces the movement of Hebrew Zionist cultural centers from their origins in Eastern Europe through Germany on their way to the Land of Israel, one may say that the time of their flourishing in Germany, especially in Berlin, overlapped with the years when Scholem’s Zionist consciousness was formed. This flourishing was accompanied, mainly among Zionist youth, by a strong feeling of nostalgia for Eastern Europe and its Jews.!" Years later Scholem explained the essence of the attractive power of the Judaism and Jews of Eastern Europe as part of the process of forming an independent Jewish identity and part of the resistance to the assimilated German identity of his parents’ generation, which was generally representative of German Jewry at that time: