Abstract
The chapter focuses on the transfer of German science models that affected the newly established Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJ). The chapter traces the preparatory phase and the early decades of the HUJ, examining three constituting parameters of development: German-ness, Jewish-ness, and local-ness—in mathematics, natural sciences, oriental studies, Jewish studies, and medical research.
The present chapter is an expansion of a similar theme presented in an earlier, Hebrew, version Shils and Roberts (2004). My many thank go to Mrs. Ruthie Rossing of Jerusalem for her English copyediting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
There exist an abundance of sources regarding the origin and the nature of
(Wisdom of Israel/Wissenschaft des Judentums/Science of Judaism/Jewish Studies). For an historical perspective and contemporary discussions, see Meyer (1967), in particular the sixth chapter on “Leopold Zunz and the Scientific Ideal” (pp. 144–182); and Goodman et al. (2002). For a comparative outlook on the history of the two seminars mentioned below and similar institutes, and on the origin of the Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, see Schwartz (1997). - 5.
The best example is the Zionist utopia envisaged by Theodor Herzl (1902).
- 6.
Most of the speakers at the Hebrew University’s April 1925 inauguration ceremony, such as ‘national poet’ Chaim N. Bialik, confirmed their vision and hope that the new university would excel in pure science, which they equated with ‘Torah for its own sake’. See Hebrew University, The Inauguration, April 1, 1925, small format. See also Judah L. Magnes on the virtues of “Torah for its own sake […] Torah is not a ‘spade to dig with’ ”, in Magnes (1936b).
- 7.
First President of the State of Israel, 1949–1952.
- 8.
“Report [on] Preparations for the University in Jerusalem (to be submitted to the Annual Conference of the Zionist Organization)” (henceforth, Preparations Report), English version, pp. 1–2, Item 20 34 2998 in the National Library of Israel Catalogue. The possibility that it might be easier to establish not whole faculties but single institutes had already been raised in the 1913 plan for the Hebrew University (Reinharz 1985, concluding chapter).
- 9.
Preparations Report, p. 3.
- 10.
Preparations Report, p. 5; see also Shils and Roberts (2004).
- 11.
The various scholars who have analyzed the university’s organizational structure—and the apportioning of administrative and academic authority on the level of the institution as a whole—and pointed in this context to its ‘German’ qualities were concerned mainly with periods subsequent to that under discussion here. See e.g. Ben-David (1986); see also Ben-David (1991a), a collection of Ben-David’s scientific contributions.
- 12.
Its leading lights would be “the greatest experts in their fields, such as Ehrlich in bacteriology, Bergson in philosophy, Einstein in physics, von Wassermann in serology, Freud in psychiatry and psychology, Oppenheim in neurology, Loeb in biology, and so on” (cited from the Hebrew daily, Do’ar HaYom, March 1, 1922; at that time, Ehrlich had already been deceased for several years).
The members of the first “Academic Council [were] Prof. A. Einstein (chairman), Berlin; Prof. Besredka, Paris; Dr. M. Buber, Happenheim; Prof. Z. Chajes, Vienna; Prof. Ehrmann, Berlin; Prof. J.N. Epstein, Jerusalem; Prof. A. Fodor, Jerusalem; Prof. S. Freud, Vienna; Prof. Hadamard, Paris; Prof. J. Horovitz, Frankfurt and Jerusalem; Prof. J. Klausner, Jerusalem; Prof. S. Klein, Jerusalem; Prof. I. Kligler, Jerusalem; Prof. E. Landau, Göttingen; Prof. L.S. Ornstein, Utrecht; Prof. O. Warburg, Tel Aviv; Dr. Ch. Weizmann, London”; see Hebrew University Yearbook (1925–26, 10).
- 13.
Einstein himself exemplifies this phenomenon. His convoluted relationships with the Hebrew University are studied in depth in Rosenkranz (2011).
- 14.
In 1929, the staff members who had been trained in the German university system included seven of the eight full professors (two of whom had the rank of Visiting Director); none of the associate professors; 11 of the 14 lecturers; and 13 of the 18 instructors or assistants. See the discussion of the Institutes of Oriental Studies and of Jewish Studies below (pp. 117 and 131). For a prosopographic analysis of members of the staff of the Hebrew University at that time and later, see the comprehensive study by Telkes-Klein (2004).
- 15.
In both the Institute of Jewish Studies and the Institute of Oriental Studies, a striking number of academic staff members both held doctorates from German universities and had been trained or active in the German-Jewish academic system; this included two out of three professors and three out of seven lecturers in the Institute of Jewish Studies (three lecturers did not even hold doctorates when they joined the staff, but two of them had been trained in German-Jewish academic institutes). Menachem Milson (1996) has written of the Institute of Oriental Studies, “This founding generation of the Institute [of Oriental Studies] may be characterized by the fact that all of them but [one] were born in Europe; all but [one] were graduates of German universities; and all but [one] had a strong background in Jewish studies”.
- 16.
On institutes and seminaries within the German universities see McClelland (1980, 280–287). On the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft see: Die Gesellschaft (1961). The Hebrew University’s founders were familiar with the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft and others. Einstein was the Director of its Physics Institute in Berlin from 1917 until he left Germany. The institutes of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft were founded, among other things, on the model of the Pasteur Institute, with which Weizmann was closely acquainted. See Reinharz (1985, 379). Of relevance in this context is Weizmann’s initiative, in 1914–1913, to establish an institute for medical research in Palestine, to be funded by Baron Rothschild; see: Reinharz (1985, final chapter).
- 17.
Such as the foundation for scientific research established by King Frederick August in Leipzig, under whose auspices a multi-disciplinary institute concerned with ancient, medieval, and modern history, geography, and art history operated. See Haas (1930). Another example pertains to the research departments of the Naturhistorische Museum (Natural History Museum) in Vienna, which were concerned with disciplines such as mineralogy-petrography, geology-paleontology, and botany; see Wettstein (1930).
- 18.
The actual launching of regular instruction at the Hebrew University, i.e., within the framework of a ‘faculty’, began only in 1928–29. This was a compromise with the initial intention to embark on teaching only after each of the institutes and departments was headed by a world-class scholar, that is, one who had gained the rank of full professor at a prominent Western university. The demand for systematic instruction at Mount Scopus, the Hebrew University’s first campus, came first and foremost from the local lay public whose spokespersons argued for the need to provide a framework of academic studies for the young people in the Jewish community in Palestine (the yishuv) at that time. Their demand was also backed by some of the university’s researchers, eager for an audience from which future research students could be recruited. Further support came from some Board members who, from the outset, had been uneasy with the idea of forming ‘elitist’ research institutes (Heyd 1999).
- 19.
The inclusion of the Institute of Mathematics in the Faculty of Humanities was partly based on the contention that pure mathematics, as Magnes argued, is “preeminently one of the Geisteswissenschaften”. Magnes to Landau, March 8, 1927. HUA, Einstein Institute of Mathematics (EIM) Files, File 16[3].
- 20.
A full—mathematically oriented—biography of Landau has yet to be written. Until then, the reader may consult the nine volumes of his Collected Works (Bateman et al. 1985–87). The planned tenth volume is to include biographical documents, photographs and facsimiles, etc. See http://blms.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/4/342.full.pdf. Landau participated in the university’s opening ceremony in 1925 and was among those who lectured on that occasion. The title of Landau’s paper, delivered in Hebrew, was “Solved and Unsolved Problems in the Elementary Theory of Numbers”—see Landau (1925). See also Corry and Schappacher (2010). Landau also contributed to the volume: Scripta Universitatis Atque Bibliothecae Hierosolymitanarum, Mathematica et Physica, Volumen I (Hierosolymis: MCMXXIII). See Landau (1923).
- 21.
Memorandum on the Institute of Mathematics submitted on Landau’s behalf to Magnes, November 25, 1925, Hebrew University archive, EIM file (Hebrew). A 1930 document on the organization of the university’s academic institutions (institutes, faculties, and Council) stated: “The purposes of the institute fall into two parts: instruction and research. […] With regard to research, staff members of an institute (or department) that has a director are not authorized to determine the institute’s program of research. […] Note: However, the director has a duty to develop the research potential of the staff members, and if there are staff members who are willing and able to undertake independent research according to their own proclivities, the director must facilitate such aspirations within the technical and financial limitations of the institute, on the condition that the comprehensive research program of the institute will not suffer as a result.” See University Archive, Council File, Protocols of the Council 1929–1932 (Hebrew, translated by present author). The Hebrew University did not adopt the rank of the (untenured) Dozent, introducing instead the position of the (tenured) Lecturer. Similarly, it eschewed the German “Dr. Phil.” degree, preferring the “Ph.D.” for its future research students (the first of whom earned his doctoral degree in the second half of the 1930s).
- 22.
- 23.
The field of mathematics became increasingly differentiated and professionalized toward the end of the nineteenth century, and pure mathematics came to prominence as an independent area of research devoid of any connections with practical matters, founded upon staunchly elitist internal norms of research quality. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the ‘seminary’ of pure mathematics at the University of Berlin was recognized as a distinct academic unit, with three full professors—Schmidt, Schur, and Bieberbach—working solely in pure mathematics. During the same period, the Institute of Mathematics at Göttingen had three full professors—Hilbert, Courant, and Landau—while the Mathematical-Physical Seminary was directed by the professors of the Institute of Mathematics, together with eight other professors specializing in other areas of mathematics or in closely related fields. Göttingen also had an Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics. Although two of the three institutes were thus devoted to (relatively) practical areas of mathematics, the Institute of Mathematics, too, was founded upon the concept of a relationship between pure mathematics and extra-mathematical concerns: It was established on the basis of Klein’s plan for the advancement of mathematical sciences and their application to various realms of science and engineering, a plan supported by Courant, who acted as the institute’s head during the period under discussion. In other words, the Institute of Mathematics at Göttingen was not devoted solely to ‘pure’ mathematics. Richard Courant’s attitudes are exemplified by his role as editor, with Wilhelm Blaschke, Max Born, and Carl Runge, of the series Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendungsgebiete (Springer). For the contemporary mathematical composition of various universities’ corresponding faculties see Minerva—Jahrbuch der gelehrten Welt (1923) and 1928; Neugebauer (1927); see also: Pyenson (1979).
- 24.
Fraenkel’s very first mathematical study, undertaken in his youth, was on the Jewish and Muslim calendars; see his autobiography (Fraenkel 1967, 76–77). In the 1930 summer session, Profs. Fraenkel and [Shmuel] Klein taught a seminar on the Jewish calendar (see the Hebrew University Yearbook for 1929–30, p. 103), which was billed as being “For all Students [of the University]”—that is, it was not considered a mathematical subject per se. Fraenkel did not present this as a research topic for others, but he did continue to work and lecture on it from time to time for many years. See Fraenkel (1947).
- 25.
During the period discussed here and beyond, no publication by Fraenkel and only one publication by Fekete was written with students.
- 26.
“After the presentation of Prof. Horovitz’s detailed proposal, a decision was made to open a School of Oriental Studies. Prof. Horovitz was asked to undertake the temporary directorship of this school; further questions regarding the budget and arrangements were referred to Prof. Horovitz and the administration in Palestine” (Hebrew University Archives, “Protocol of the Second Meeting”, September 1926, Decisions of the Board of Governors, p. 19). At the same meeting, it was decided that Professor Benno Landsberger of Leipzig would be appointed Professor of the Hebrew University if he agreed to accept the position (which he did not). Horovitz, like Landau, participated in the university’s opening ceremony in 1925 and was among those who lectured on that occasion. He was also among those who contributed to the volume: Scripta Universitatis Atque Bibliothecae Hierosolymitanarum, Orientalia et Judaica, Volumen I (Hierosolymis: MCMXXIII) [Papers of the University and Library in Jerusalem, in the volume on “Orientalism and Judaism”]. The title of Horovitz’s paper was Das Koranische Paradies. See above, footnote 20 on p. 113.
- 27.
Horovitz was a full professor at the University of Frankfurt, where he also directed the Orientalische Seminar. His appointment at that university was in the field of “Semitic philology with consideration of the literature of the Targum and the Talmud”. Horovitz is mentioned in Fück (1955, 313–14). For more on Horovitz, his relations with Magnes, and his reasons for wanting a special institute of oriental studies, see Lazarus-Yafeh (1999), Milson (1996).
Among Horovitz’s reasons for setting up a specialized institute of oriental studies, separate from the Institute of Jewish Studies, Milson notes that “the attitude of the Islamic-Arabic world toward Zionism” had not yet been determined, and an Institute of Oriental Studies at the Hebrew University might contribute to swaying that world towards Zionism. See Kedar (1967, 25, 30).
- 28.
“Addresses by the Chancellor”, October 12, 1927, p. 40. Other heads of the university shared the view that one of the university’s roles was “to promote an understanding between the Jewish community of Palestine and the Near Eastern countries” (Hebrew University, 1942, p. 31), Hebrew University Yearbook for 1925–26, p. 24. In several other publications by the Hebrew University these ‘sections’ are referred to as ‘departments’.
- 29.
Hebrew University Yearbook for 1925–26, p. 24. In several other publications by the Hebrew University these ‘sections’ are referred to as ‘departments’.
- 30.
Hebrew University Yearbook 1926–27, p. 23.
- 31.
Ibid.
- 32.
Hebrew University Yearbook 1942, pp. 31–32. Following Fück (1955), Hava Lazarus-Yafeh (1999) notes that the Baladhuri project was originally undertaken by the Orientalist Prof. C.H. Becker, but when he decided to enter political life, he suggested that it be carried on by Horovitz and his team of researchers in Jerusalem. The Concordance Project was intended to facilitate the research for Horovitz’s projected book on early Arabic poetry. The Jerusalem team, adds Lazarus-Yafeh (again following Fück (1955)), was engaged in the most technical type of work on the Concordance, the collection of “scraps”.
- 33.
“Addresses by the Chancellor”, October 31, 1928, p. 71. Magnes went on to remark that the research projects Horovitz brought to the Hebrew University had “attracted the attention of the learned world, as is indicated by a commendatory resolution adopted at the recent International Congress of Orientalists at Oxford”, ibid.
- 34.
The list of publications for the staff members of the School of Oriental Studies that appears in the 1926–27 yearbook mentions only two works by L.A. Mayer (p. 38). The list for 1928–29–1929–30 mentions two more publications by L.A. Mayer and one by Y.Y. Rivlin. Rivlin’s book was a reworking of his doctoral dissertation, which was accepted by the University of Frankfurt in 1929.
- 35.
The work of D.Z. Baneth over the course of many years in the area of Judaeo-Arabic studies is a good example of an Orientalist’s redirection towards Jewish materials. Baneth began working in this field while still in Berlin, in the framework of the Academy of Jewish Studies (Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, see below, p. 131) and in the context of his work on the text of the Kuzari by Judah Halevi, which is written in Judaeo-Arabic. From 1925 to 1931, he published nothing at all in Jerusalem, and from then on all his publications rested on Jewish materials, as can be seen from the stenciled list of “Scholarly Works Published by Academic Staff Members of the Hebrew University from Its Opening up to the End of the 1936–37 Academic Year” (May 1938; henceforth “Scholarly Works”), pp. 55–66. For Goitein’s early studies, see ibid., p. 65; and see the articles by Lazarus-Yafeh (1999) and Milson (1996).
- 36.
“Scholarly Works”, pp. 95–98. Mayer specialized in archaeology and in Arabic and Islamic art. Before and after joining the staff of the university, he worked as a supervisor in the Antiquities Department of the Mandate Government (1921–29) and as a librarian and archivist in the Museum of Archaeology (see “The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Its History and Development”, Jerusalem 1948 (3rd edition), p. 178).
- 37.
Most of the German universities of the period had an institute or seminary of oriental studies (see Minerva Jahrbuch 1923). The extent to which they were directed according to the authoritarian model, with no research autonomy for the director’s subordinates, is worthy of investigation in its own right. However this may be, Fück’s depiction of Horovitz’s subordinates in Jerusalem (see above, footnote 27 on p. 118) indicates that Horovitz’s authoritarianism went even beyond what was accepted in Germany. Cf. the criticism of Kligler by the Survey Committee (see Hartog 1934). As Horovitz was surely aware, there was also another approach in the German academic world to cultivating the culture and languages of the peoples of the Near East. The Seminar für orientalische Sprachen at the University of Berlin, an academic institution with an avowedly utilitarian ideology, was directed by the renowned Orientalist Eduard Sachau, who had been Horovitz’s dissertation advisor. See: Fischer (1888) and Sachau (1912).
- 38.
Even earlier, Weizmann had anticipated that Professor Ascoli of Milan would be willing to assume direction of the Institute of Microbiology; see: Weizmann to Ascoli, October 29, 1923, and Weizmann to Ratnoff, October 30, 1923, in Wasserstein (1968) (henceforth the Weizmann Letters, Vol. 10).
- 39.
University of Leeds, Bachelor of Medicine (MB), Bachelor of Surgery (ChB), and Certificate of Vaccination.
- 40.
For a contemporary view on this medical area, see Scott (1942). For an historical perspective, particularly regarding the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, see Power (1998); a central chapter in Power’s book is devoted to the Alfred Lewis Jones Laboratory (pp. 47–77), and Saul Adler is mentioned as well.
- 41.
- 42.
Adler was no doubt aware of the international implications of his scientific work. In a January 1926 memorandum to Magnes he remarked, “if certain results will be achieved due to [our] experiments, then the problem [leishmania], which occupies scientists from India, North Africa, and China will find a kind of solution” (Hebrew University Administration files).
- 43.
Because of his personal experience with self-inoculation, Adler is described as being one of those rare “true scholars […] whose entire lives are devoted, truly devoted, to their work. If need be, they would no doubt take risks in order to achieve their end—their sole end being true scholarship” (Agnon 1989, 553–554).
- 44.
Like others of his generation in Jewish Palestine, Adler saw himself as an engaged scientist. As we shall see, the same may be said of his colleagues at the university’s Institute of Palestine Natural History. However, the latter in a sense followed a reverse process, with many of its researchers progressing from general biological or geological questions to local ones; see publication lists in Hebrew University Yearbook 1925–26, pp. 29–31; and Hebrew University Yearbook, 1926–27, p. 33.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
Of the 18 publications of the Department of Hygiene, nine were published by the head of the department under his sole name, while seven more were published by him jointly with one of the department’s four staff members, and only two were published by staff members under their own names only; see Hebrew University Yearbooks 1926–27 and 1928–29, pp. 74–76. In 1934, Kligler was heavily criticized for his managerial style, mainly because of what was seen as an exploitation of his subordinates; see Hartog (1934). A few months after the presentation of the Survey Committee’s Report to the Board of Governors, Magnes presented his “Reply to the Report of the Survey Committee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem” (July 1934), in which he transmitted Kligler’s objections to the committee’s evaluation and conclusions (ibid., pp. 87–109). Professor Alex Keynan (1921–2012), who studied under both Kligler and Adler, believed that the difference between their respective organizational styles could be attributed, first and foremost, to their different personalities: Kligler was a “scientific organizer”, while both Adler and Aschner were “gentleman scholars”, interested mainly in the study and comprehension of nature (personal interview, March 13, 1997. The transcription of the recorded interview is held by the secretariat of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities).
- 48.
Of the 14 publications of the Department of Parasitology mentioned in the Yearbook for 1927–28 and 1928–29, only two appear under Adler’s sole name; six—that is, nearly half of them—were published jointly by him and Theodor; two list Theodor as the sole author; and four list Wittenberg as the sole author; see Hebrew University Yearbook 1926–27, pp. 72–74.
- 49.
Fodor was at the University of Halle (which in 1933 became the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg) when he first wrote to Weizmann, in October 1921, mentioning a memorandum concerning the establishment of research institutes at the Hebrew University, then in formation. Weizmann, who was familiar with Fodor’s scientific work, responded by inviting him to participate in the founding efforts of such institutes; see Weizmann to Fodor, October 29, 1921, in the Weizmann Letters, Vol. 10, letter 236. Fodor accepted the offer, and two years later he arrived in Jerusalem to supervise the conversion of the already existing Gray Hill mansion on Mount Scopus into a home for the research institutes. The Institute of Chemistry began operation “with great enthusiasm” in the summer of 1924; see Chaim Weizmann (from Jerusalem) to Vera Weizmann, September 27, 1924 (Freundlich (1977), henceforth the Weizmann Letters, Vol. 12), letter 184.
- 50.
The Weizmann Letters, Vol. 10, letters 273 (October 28, 1921) and 303 (December 7, 1921). From the outset of his correspondence with Fodor and others concerning the Chemistry (or Chemistry and Physics) Institute, it is clear that Weizmann intended to come to Jerusalem himself, to take part in the construction of the laboratories, to take an active scientific role in the Hebrew University, and to link the formation of the Chemistry Institute with that of the Institute of Microbiology; see ibid., letter 303 (December 7, 1921). Neither plan was realized; see also Chaim Weizmann (1949) and Jehuda Reinharz (1985). The enthusiasm for Fodor held by Weizmann and others seems to have cooled over time, judging by the criticism voiced against him at the third meeting of the Board of Governors in 1926; see “Decisions of the Board of Governors”, pp. 25–26. Fodor was among the first tenured professors appointed by the Hebrew University; see ibid., p. 31. Weizmann’s vision for combining an institute of chemistry with an institute of microbiology in Palestine/Israel was realized in 1933–34 with the formation of the Daniel Sieff Institute in the town of Rehovot (which he himself headed). Eventually the Daniel Sieff Institute became the Weizmann Institute of Science, opened officially in 1947–49.
- 51.
Weizmann Letters, Vol. 10, letters 281, 286 and 303.
- 52.
Andor Fodor File in the Hebrew University Archive.
- 53.
Ibid. and Beneke (1995, 92).
- 54.
Chaim Weizmann (from Jerusalem) to Vera Weizmann, September 27, 1924, Weizmann Letters, Vol. 12, letter 184.
- 55.
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Inauguration, April 1, 1925, small format. The brochure’s front page is in Hebrew, and it also includes text in Arabic. Cf. the copy of this statement printed in The Jewish Guardian, March 27, 1925, p. 18, in which “chemistry” is replaced with “organic chemistry”. In the Hebrew University Yearbook for 1926–27 (pp. 30–32), the two departments are referred to as the departments of “Analytical and Synthetic Chemistry and Bio-Chemistry (including Colloidal Chemistry)”. In time, with experienced chemists whose specialty was inorganic chemistry and physical chemistry joining as faculty members, the organizational entity of the Institute of Chemistry ceased its formal function.
- 56.
“In the first years of his work there [Jerusalem], the Director set himself the purpose of solving the same problems on which he had been working in Germany […] some of which […] were the heritage of the tradition of Emil Fischer, in which the Director had specialized during his dozen years of working in the Abderhalden Institute in Halle” (from a memorandum written by Fodor in 1935, a photocopy of which is in the present author’s possession; see the description of the institute’s work in the Yearbook for 1925–26, pp. 24–26). The publications of the institute mentioned were in the realm of ‘pure’ research, as evidenced by their appearance in journals specializing in what we would now call ‘basic research’.
- 57.
Hebrew University Yearbook for 1927–28 and 1928–29, pp. 25–27.
- 58.
For patents registered by Emil Fischer and Emil Abderhalden, see http://depatisnet.dpma.de:80/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=einsteiger.
- 59.
Hebrew University Yearbook for 1926–27, p. 30.
- 60.
“The experiments on the fermentation of tobacco […] on Dead Sea salts and Palestinian phosphates and minerals, with the view to working out scientific and practical methods for their exploitation” (Hebrew University Yearbook for 1927–28 and 1928–29, p. 26).
- 61.
In at least one case, in the context of the third meeting of the Board of Governors in 1926, this applied research was criticized by one of the distinguished scholars in the university’s Academic Council, the physicist L.S. Ornstein, who chastised the poor quality of “Expedition to Southern Palestine” by A. Reifenberg and L. Picard, issued as a Hebrew-English brochure bearing the imprint of the Institute of Chemistry directed by Andor Fodor.
- 62.
Between 1911 and 1920, Fodor and Abderhalden published 17 “original works” together; in all of them Abderhalden was the senior and Fodor the second author (see Fodor’s list of publications, Fodor’s personal file, Hebrew University Archives).
- 63.
The best example is Reifenberg’s pioneering terra rossa study, for which Reifenberg eventually was awarded his doctorate by the University of Giessen. Subsequently, he established himself as an expert on Mediterranean soils; see Adolf Reifenberg (1938).
- 64.
Hebrew University Yearbook for 1926–27. That year, 17 articles from the Institute of Chemistry were published in scientific journals in Germany and England. Thirteen of them listed Fodor either as sole author or chief author with one of his staff members as the second author. The remaining four listed three other staff members as sole authors (pp. 49–51).
- 65.
Two historically oriented articles relating to the legacy of Fodor and the Institute of Chemistry have been written; see Nathan Sharon (2000); and Deichmann and Travis (2004). Deichmann and Travis question the introduction of chemistry at the Hebrew University in that it was not based on the three main branches—inorganic, organic, and physical chemistry—usually characteristic of contemporary universities. They are also critical of Fodor on account of his research program, which they describe as outdated, and because of his quarrels with his subordinates and other colleagues. Thus they assess Fodor’s contribution to Israeli biochemistry as a case of “negative founder effect”. The present author disagrees completely with Deichmann and Travis, not least because Fodor was the first scientist to put biochemistry on the biochemical protein-enzymological trajectory, which proved extremely fruitful, as Nathan Sharon has shown. Sharon points out that many of Fodor’s students developed into distinguished biochemists of top-ranking international status. One of them, Ephraim Katchalski-Katzir, the first laureate of the Japan Prize (and Israel’s fourth President), wrote: “Here [in biology at the Hebrew University] my interest was attracted by large molecules, the macromolecules of a cell, which play a critical role in determining life processes. I was fascinated by the lectures of our biochemistry professor, Andor Fodor, who introduced me to the world of biopolymers”; see Katchalski-Katzir (2005). In a recent article Deichmann (2007) analyzes what can be seen as a ’paradigm shift’ by the relevant scientific community, from “colloid chemistry” to macromolecular structures, to explain the specific biological activity of proteins like enzymes and antibodies. Thus we should understand Fodor within the perspective of this process of scientific change. Fodor was a respected and well-known proponent of colloidal biochemistry. Concurrently, at the height of his scientific career, although he may not have been an ‘innovator’ or ‘early adopter’ but rather a ‘late adopter’, he did espouse a relatively new macromolecular scientific outlook; see Fodor (1949). However, if this is the case, perhaps Fodor’s persistent negative’ adherence to colloidal chemistry may turn our attention to an interesting possibility in circumstances similar to those which prevailed in Jerusalem during the second quarter of the twentieth century, a successful process of transference and implantation of scientific tradition: Theories held by the relevant scientific Träger are less important than the accessibility of a good library, which existed on Mount Scopus in Fodor’s day. Equally important are traditions of scientific investigation, such as laboratory techniques, ’tacit knowledge’, exposure to the contemporary scientific forefront, as well as standards of classical scientific inquiry and the passion for excelling in scientific research, all of which are conveyed in laboratory settings or in student training seminars.
- 66.
In Hebrew it was called
, that is, Institute of the Sciences of Judaism. - 67.
- 68.
For a recent scholarly biography of Otto Warburg, see Leimkugel (2005).
- 69.
The claim that the model for the Hebrew University Institute for Palestine Natural History was taken from the German colonial model is based on studying similar research institutes, for example the one at Amani (today in Tanzania, formerly Tanganyika). The latter is an example of those German multi-disciplinary colonial research institutes which Warburg was familiar with, thanks to his role in the German colonial enterprise; see Bald and Bald (1972). For Warburg’s ideas concerning the relationship between basic research and the colonial economy, see Reimer (1903, pp. 193–207); regarding the wider context of contemporary German research interests in extra-European territories, see Pyenson (1985).
- 70.
During the 1930s, the Hebrew University Press sold more than one thousand copies of this publication, probably making it the most popular book within the Jewish community in Palestine after the Hebrew Bible. Evidence for the broad diffusion of binary names for local plants in Israeli culture may be found in the novel Days of Ziklag by S. Yizhar (1958) and in the popular song “A Waltz in Defense of all that Grows” by songwriter Naomi Shemer.
- 71.
One of the early works of the type of flora, produced by Linnaeus and his disciples in 1756, was Flora Palaestina. It listed about 600 distinct plants collected in the territory of Palaestina (which extended from Lebanon to Egypt), ordered by their Linnaean binomial names. In some cases it used two other naming systems: vernacular plant names in Arabic; and (alleged) biblical names in Hebrew (both transcribed in Latin characters). Each of the three plant-naming options in the Flora Palaestina was eventually associated with a defined research program during the nineteenth century and later. The first, following Linnaeus’ floristic-taxonomic program, is exemplified by Post (1896). The second one aimed at the reconstruction of the biblical scenery, manners and habits; ethnographic research of Palestinians’ Arabic dialects, folklore and everyday life was considered an appropriate way of comprehending the literal, i.e., textual meaning of both the Old and New Testaments, and Tristram (1868) is the best example of this scholarly tradition. The third one, the lexicographic program, based on the philological research tradition of Semitic languages, aimed at the reconstruction of ancient Oriental languages; it is exemplified by the classical work of Löw (1924–1934).
- 72.
The claim that the Jerusalem case does not belong to the family of research systems developed under colonialism or other forms of dependency is based on the pertinent research literature. With the publication of the seminal works of Donald Fleming and of George Basalla, a new research area—the comparative history of science outside Europe—was launched. It became clear that even long after political sovereignty had been attained, the scientific activities conducted in ‘provinces’ retained a strong dependence on their respective European scientific metropolitans. The pervasiveness of this phenomenon also characterizes the early (and even not so early) stages of the introduction of Western (mainly British) science to British ex-colonial territories such as the United States and Australia. See Home (1990); see also Reingold and Rothenberg (1986), Petitjean et al. (1991), MacLeod (2000).
- 73.
The most fruitful comparison, however, may well be found by looking at the German-Jewish tradition of Jewish Studies, which reached the United States in the nineteenth century, several decades before it arrived in Jerusalem. It developed at first in the context of the various Jewish movements—that is, outside the university system—but in the twentieth century, and particularly since World War II, it has become integrated into the universities, at first in the United States and more lately in Europe as well (Cohen and Greenstein 1990). To undertake such a study would be to compare several offshoots of the same core—that of the German-Jewish scholarly heritage, which, for its part, is an offshoot of the German scholarly heritage (Wiese 2004).
- 74.
The Hebrew University, The Inauguration, large format; see also footnote 6 (on p. 105) above.
- 75.
- 76.
According to the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Membership Directory, July 2006, of the foreign members that year, 5 were Italian (p. 340), 11 were from Sweden, and 24 were from Switzerland (p. 342).
- 77.
See footnote 65 (on p. 130) above.
(Wisdom of Israel/Wissenschaft des Judentums/Science of Judaism/Jewish Studies). For an historical perspective and contemporary discussions, see Meyer (
, that is, Institute of the Sciences of Judaism.References
Abuhav, O. 2004. Anthropology in Israel: professionals in stormy days. History of Anthropology Newsletter 31: 9–16.
Adelman, H. 1989. Jewish studies: are they ethnic? Explorations in Ethnic Studies 12: 1–18.
Adler, S., and O. Theodor. 1925. The experimental transmission of cutaneous leishmaniasis to man from phlebotomus papatasii. Nature 116: 314–315.
Agnon, S. Y. 1989. Shira. Berlin: Schocken Books (translated from the Hebrew by Zeva Shapiro).
Anonymous. 1915. Bericht über die erste Trachomakonferenz der Jüdischen Ärzte Palästinas. Jerusalem: Jewish Health Bureau (in Hebrew).
Ashbel, R. 1989. As much as we could do: the contribution made by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Jewish doctors and scientists from Palestine during and after World War II. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.
Bald, D., and G. Bald. 1972. Das Forschungsinstitut Amani: Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft in der deutschen Kolonialpolitik Ostafrika 1900–1918. München: Weltforum-Verlag.
Balfour, A., ed. 1912. Fourth report of the Wellcome tropical research laboratories at the Gordon Memorial College, Khartoum, vol. A–B, London: Department of Education, Sudan Government, Khartoum and Bailliere, Tindall and Cox.
Bateman, T., L. Mirsky, H. Montgomery, W. Schaal, I. J. Schoenberg, W. Schwarz, and H. Wefelscheid, eds. 1985–1987. Edmund Landau: collected works, volumes I–IX. Stockholm: Thales.
Begehr, H. 1998. Mathematik in Berlin—Geschichte und Dokumentation, Vol. 1–2. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Ben-David, J. 1986. Universities in Israel: dilemmas of growth, diversification and administration. Studies in Higher Education 11: 105–130.
Ben-David, J. 1991a. Scientific growth: essays on the social organization and ethos of science, by Joseph Ben-David. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ben-David, J., and A. Zloczower. 1962. Universities and academic systems in modern societies. European Journal of Sociology 3: 45–84.
Beneke, K. 1995. Zur Geschichte der Grenzflächenerscheinungen—mit ausgesuchten Beispielen: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kolloidwissenschaften. New York: R. Knopf.
Bentwich, N. 1939. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In The university outside Europe: essays on the development of university institutions in fourteen countries, ed. E. Bradby, 319–332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biermann, K. R. 1988. Die Mathematik und ihre Dozenten an der Berliner Universität, 1810–1933. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Bodenheimer, F. 1935. Animal life in Palestine: an introduction to the problems of animal ecology and zoo-geography. Jerusalem: Mayer.
Brauer, L., A. von Mendelsohn-Bartholdy, A. Meyer-Abich, and J. Lemcke, eds. 1930. Forschungsinstitute: Ihre Geschichte, Organisation und Ziele, Vol. 1–2. Hamburg: Topos Ruggell.
Charpa, U., and U. Deichman, eds. 2007. Jews & sciences in German contexts: case studies from the 19th & 20th centuries. Vol. 72 of Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Institutes. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Cohen, S. J., and E. L. Greenstein, eds. 1990. The state of Jewish studies. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Corry, L., and N. Schappacher. 2010. Zionist internationalism through number theory: Edmund Landau at the opening of the Hebrew University in 1925. Science in Context 23: 427–471.
Deichmann, U. 2007. ‘Molecular’ versus ‘colloidal’: controversies in biology and biochemistry, 1900–1940. Bulletin for the History of Chemistry 32: 105–118.
Deichmann, U., and A. S. Travis. 2004. A German influence on science in mandate Palestine and Israel: chemistry and biochemistry. Israel Studies 9: 34–70.
Die Gesellschaft. 1961. 50 Jahre Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft und Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, 1911–1961 Beiträge und Dokumente. Göttingen: Hubert & Co.
Eig, A., M. Zohani, and N. Feinbrun, eds. 1931. The plants of Palestine: an analytical key. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press (in Hebrew).
Feiner, S. 2003. The Jewish enlightenment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Fischer, J. 1888. Das orientalische Seminar in Berlin. Zeitschrift für Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaften 3: 94–97.
Fodor, A. 1925. Die Grundlagen der Dispersoidchemie. Dresden–Leipzig: Theodor Steinkopff.
Fodor, A. 1926. Report of an expedition to southern Palestine. In Publications on the scientific investigation of Palestine, ed. A. Fodor. Jerusalem: Chemical Institute of the Hebrew University (in Hebrew and English).
Fodor, A. 1949. The specifity of enzyme action. In Trends in modern science: a symposium held at Rehovot, on the occasion of laying of the cornerstone for the Institute of Physics and Physical Chemistry, 69–76. Rehovot: Weizmann Institute of Science.
Fraenkel, A. H. 1947. Mathematical and astronomical research among the Jews. Tel Aviv (in Hebrew).
Fraenkel, A. H. 1967. Lebenskreise: Aus den Erinnerungen eines Jüdischen Mathematikers. München: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
Freundlich, J., ed. 1977. The letters and papers of Chaim Weizman: Aug, Vol. 12. Jerusalem: Israel University Press.
Fück, J. 1955. Die arabischen Studien in Europa bis in den Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz.
Gavron, D. 1997. Saul Adler, pioneer of tropical medicine: a biography. Rehovot: Balaban Publishers.
Goitein, S. 1934. Jemenica: Sprichwörter und Redensarten aus Zentral-Jemen. Mit zahlreichen Sach- und Worterläuterungen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Goodman, M., J. Cohen, and D. Sorkin, eds. 2002. The Oxford handbook of Jewish studies. In Oxford handbooks in religion and theology, London: Oxford University Press.
Haas, H. König Friedrich August Stiftung für wissenschaftliche Forschung zu Leipzig (Sächsische Staatliche Forschungsinstitute). In Brauer et al. (1930), 374–386.
Hartog, P., ed. 1934. Report of the survey committee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Hebrew University Yearbook. 1926. Hebrew University Yearbook 1925–26. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Herzl, T. 1902. Altneuland, 1st edn. Leipzig: Hermann Seemann Nachfolger.
Heyd, M. 1999. The early history of the Hebrew University: between research and teaching. In Education and history, cultural and political contexts, eds. E. Etkes, and R. Feldhay, 335–376. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History.
Home, R. W., ed. 1990. Australian science in the making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katchalski-Katzir, E. February 17, 2005. My contributions to science and society. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 280: 16529–16541.
Katz, S. 1978. Quantity and quality in Israeli science. In Scientific information transfer: the editor’s role—Proceedings of the first international conference of scientific editors, ed. M. Balaban, 445–455. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Katz, S. 1985. The Israeli teacher-guide: the emergence and perpetuation of a role. Annals of Tourism Research 12: 42–75.
Katz, S. 1997. ‘Pure science’ in a National University: the Einstein Institute of Mathematics and other Research Institutes at the Hebrew University during its formative years. In Katz and Heyd (1997), 397–456 (in Hebrew).
Katz, S. 2004. Berlin roots—zionist incarnation: the ethos of pure mathematics and the beginnings of the Einstein Institute of Mathematics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Science in Context 17: 199–234.
Katz, S. 2005. Gershom Scholem’s early years at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Katharsis 3: 145–163 (in Hebrew with English abstract).
Katz, S., and J. Ben-David. 1975. Scientific research and agricultural innovation in Israel. Minerva 13(2): 152–182.
Katz, S., and M. Heyd, eds. 1997. The history of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: roots and beginnings, Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Katzir, A. 1968. Professor Saul Adler—in memoriam. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 4: 1050–1052.
Kedar, A. 1967. The Brit Shalom Association, 1925–1933, Master’s thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Kiryat Sefer 1924. Kiryat Sefer, A bibliographical quarterly—the organ of the Library of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem I. Istanbul: Spring (in Hebrew).
Kligler, I. J. 1930. The epidemiology and control of Malaria in Palestine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kligler, I. J., and M. Ashner. 1928. Observation on the physical and biological characteristics of leptospira. Journal of Bacteriology 16: 79–96.
Landau, E. 1923. Über diophantische Approximationen, Scripta Universitatis atque Bibliothecae Hierosolymitanarum. Matematica et Physica I.
Landau, E. Solved and unsolved problems in elementory theory of numbers. In The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Inauguration 1925. 40–45 (in Hebrew).
Lazarus-Yafeh, H. 1999. The transplantation of Islamic studies from Europe to Palestine-Israel: J. Horovitz, S.D. Goitein and D.Z. Baneth. In Jewish discovery of Islam: studies in honor of Bernard Lewis, ed. M. S. Kramer. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Leimkugel, F. 2005. Botanischer Zionismus: Otto Warburg (1859–1938) und die Anfänge institutionalisierter Naturwissenschaften in Erez Israel. Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem.
Löw, I. 1924–1934. Die Flora der Juden. volumes 1–4, R. Löwit.
MacLeod, R., ed. 2000. Nature and empire. Vol. 15 of Osiris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Magnes, J. L. 1936a. Addresses of the chancellor. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Magnes, J. L. 1936b. The opening of the Institute of Jewish Studies. In Magnes (1936a), 1–8.
McClelland, C. E. 1980. State, society, and university in Germany, 1700–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Métraux, A. 2007. Opening remarks on the history of science in Yiddish. Science in Context 20: 145–162.
Meyer, M. A. 1967. The origins of the modern Jew: Jewish identity and European culture in Germany, 1749–1824. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Milson, M. 1996. The beginnings of Arabic and Islamic studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Judaism 45: 168–183.
Mühlens, P. 1913. Bericht über eine Malariaexpedition nach Jerusalem. Vol. 69 of Centralblatt für Bakteriologie (Separatdruck). Jena: Gustav Fischer.
Neugebauer, O. 1927. Über die Einrichtung des mathematischen Institutes der Universität Göttingen. Minerva Zeitschrift 107–111.
OECD, ed. 2002. Frascati manual 2002: the measurement of scientific and technological activities, proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD Publications.
Olitzki, L. 1944. In memory of Israel Kligler. Harefuah 27: 185–189 (in Hebrew).
Parzen, H. 1974. The Hebrew University, 1925–1935. Jersey City: Ktav Publishing House.
Petitjean, P., C. Jami, and A. Moulin, eds. 1991. Science and empires: historical studies about scientific development and European expansion, Vol. 136 of Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science. Berlin: Springer.
Pfetsch, F. 1970. Scientific organisation and science policy in imperial Germany, 1871–1914: the foundation of the imperial institute of physics and technology. Minerva 8: 557–580.
Post, G. E. 1896. Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai: from the Taurus to Ras Muhammad, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Syrian Desert. Syrian Protestant College, Beirut.
Power, H. J. 1998. Tropical medicine in the twentieth century: a history of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, 1898–1990. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pyenson, L. 1979. Mathematics, education and the Göttingen approach to physical reality, 1890–1914. Europa II: 91–127.
Pyenson, L. 1983. Neohumanism and the persistence of pure mathematics in Wilhelmian Germany. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Pyenson, L. 1985. Cultural imperialism and exact sciences: German expansion overseas, 1900–1930. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.
Reichert, I. 1939. Alexander Eig as a plant geographer. Palestine Journal of Botany II: 153–170.
Reifenberg, A. 1938. The soils of Palestine: studies in soil formation and land utilisation in the Mediterranean. Glasgow: T. Murby & Co.
Reimer, D., ed. 1903. Verhandlungen des Deutschen Kolonialkongresses 1902 zu Berlin am 10. und 11. Oktober 1902. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Rein, A. History and Jewish history: together or separate? The definition of historical studies at the Hebrew University. In Katz and Heyd (1997), 516–540 (in Hebrew).
Reingold, N., and M. Rothenberg, eds. 1986. Scientific colonialism: a cross-cultural comparison. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Reinharz, J. 1985. Chaim Weizmann: the making of a Zionist leader, Vol. 1. London: Oxford University Press.
Richarz, M. 1974. Der Eintritt der Juden in die akademischen Berufe. Vol. 28 of Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Institutes. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Rosenkranz, Z. 2011. Einstein before Israel: Zionist icon or iconoclast? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rowe, D. E. 1986. ‘Jewish Mathematics’ at Göttingen in the Era of Felix Klein. Isis 77: 422–449.
Sachau, E. 1912. Denkschrift über das Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen an der Königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin 1887 bis 1912, Berlin.
Schwartz, D. R. From Rabbinical seminars to the Institute of Jewish Studies. In Katz and Heyd (1997), 457–475.
Schwinges, R. C., ed. 2001. Humboldt International: Der Export des deutschen Universiätsmodells im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Vol. 3 of Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Basel: Schwabe & Co.
Scott, H. H. 1942. A history of tropical medicine: based on the Fitzpatrick lectures delivered before the Royal College of Physicians of London, 1937–38, 2nd edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Sharon, N. 2000. The early history of biochemistry in Israel. In A history of biochemistry, selected topics in the history of biochemistry: personal recollections VI, eds. G. Semenza, and R. Jaenicke. Vol. 41, 707–748. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shavit, Y., and J. Reinharz. 2011. The scientific god. Popular science in Hebrew in Eastern Europe in the second half of the 19th century: between knowledge and a new image of the universe. Hakibbutz Hameuchad (in Hebrew).
Sheba, C. 1968. Saul Adler—the scientist as consultant to the clinician: highlights of 30 years’ association. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 4: 1053–1056.
Shils, E., and J. Roberts. 2004. The diffusion of European models outside Europe. In A history of the university in Europe: universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (1800–1945), ed. W. Rüegg, Vol. III, 163–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6.
Shortt, H. 1967. Saul Adler, 1895–1966. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 13: 1–34.
Shvarts, S., and Z. Shehory-Rubin. 2012. Hadassah for the health of the people: the health education mission of hadassah—the American Zionist women in the Holy Land. Monterey: Samuel Wachtman’s Sons, Inc.
Soffer, O. 2004. Anti-Semitism, statistics, and scientization of Hebrew political discourse: the case study of Ha-Tzefira. Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture and Society 10: 55–79.
Sorkin, D. 1987. The transformation of German Jewry, 1780–1840. London: Oxford University Press.
Sufian, S. M. 2007. Healing the land and the nation: Malaria and the Zionist project in Palestine, 1920–1947. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Telkes-Klein, E. 2004. L’université hébraïque de Jérusalem à travers ses acteurs: La première génération de professeurs (1925–1948). Vol. 21 of Bibliothèque d’Études Juives Paris: Honoré Champion.
Tristram, H. B. 1868. The natural history of the Bible, being a review of the physical geography, geology, and meteorology of the holy land. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Wasserstein, B., ed. 1968. The letters and papers of Chaim Weizmann. Vol. 10 of A: Letters. London: Oxford University Press.
Weizmann, C. 1949. Trail and error: the autobiography of Chaim Weizmann. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Wettstein, R. Die naturwissenschaftlichen Forschungsinstitute in Österreich. In Brauer et al. (1930).
Wiese, C. 2004. Challenging colonial discourse: Jewish studies and Protestant theology. In Wilhelmine Germany, Vol. 10 of Studies in European Judaism. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.
Yizhar, S. 1958. Days of Ziklag. Tel Aviv: Am Oved (in Hebrew).
Zalkin, M. 2005. Scientific literature and cultural transformation in nineteenth-century East European Jewish Society. Aleph.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Katz, S. (2014). The Scion and Its Tree: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Its German Epistemological and Organizational Origins. In: Herbst, M. (eds) The Institution of Science and the Science of Institutions. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 302. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7407-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7407-0_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7406-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7407-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)