Julie-Marthe Cohen & Felicitas Heimann-Jelinek:
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
In the context of the attempted extermination of European Jewry, Nazi bodies and accomplices wanted to annihilate the living culture. In the wake of this aim, they looted or destroyed the objects that gave expression to this living culture. Right after the war, when survivors of the Holocaust started looking for their looted properties, theywere often not successful in recovering them. There were several reasons forthat: private households were plundered, objects destroyed, looted, brought to the market, stored in unknown Nazi repositories, or sold to foreign countries.In case Jews did recover them, there were a number of complicating matters: the time slots for claims were limited; different national export prohibition laws prevented the return of properties to Jews who had fled Europe; attorneys specialized in these issues were costly; cold and rejective reactions from officials to claims kept survivors from further pursuing; Jews had to proof their prewar ownership by showing photographs or other documentary material, which they did not possess.
Generally, ownership was easier to proof in the case of immobile and economic assets, than it was in the case of looted cultural property. This was moved often from storage to storage, not only during but even after the war. As a result, the recovery of cultural properties became more and more complicated over time.
In order to settle enduring injustices, anew auxiliary science emerged: provenance research. It developed in the 1990s, after parallel initiatives of the U.S. government and the World Jewish Congress – in the context of the fall of the Iron Curtain, of the discovery of the dormant Swiss bank accounts of Holocaust victims in Switzerland and of the seizure of two paintings lent to a New York institution – led to renewed major, worldwide research efforts into Holocaust-era assets. These developments made people aware that justice had long been suppressed and that the restitution of cultural objects was not a finished chapter. Ever since provenance research has developed as a special field in art historical and historical research. It must be understood as “a new paradigm […] in the cultural sciences and humanities, which has the potential to become a guiding category and point of reference for work in cultural studies.”
This article will discuss Judaica, i.e.objects of Jewish ritual use, in the framework of provenance research related to the Nazi period. Since the1990s, provenance research on Fine Art has received most attention. Provenance research on books, library and archives started somewhat later and as is the case with Fine Art, resulted in a considerable number of publications. Least effort has been made regarding provenance research on Judaica objects. What were the reasons of Judaica not being considered earlier as worthy of provenance research and possible restitution?
The first guidelines for provenance research in the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art were laid down in December 1998 by forty-four governments. The focus on Fine Art was a result of the growing number of claims that were related to its increasing monetary value. Two years later, the EU took over responsibility and shifted the focus to cultural assets in general, as formulated explicitly in the Declaration of the Vilnius International Forum onHolocaust-Era Looted Cultural Assets in October 2000.Thirty-eight governments agreed “to undertake every reasonable effort to achieve the restitution of cultural assets looted during the Holocaust era to the original owners or their heirs” – the term “cultural assets” was not specified.
The Washington and Vilna declarations had made Jewish museums aware that they too had acquired objects of unknown provenance. In November 2006 theAssociation of European Jewish Museums (AEJM), founded in 1989, issued are solution regarding looted art in their holdings.Looted art meant: “unlawfully appropriated objects”, “unconsciously acquired objects of dubious provenance”, and “inherited holdings of not identified provenance”. AEJM recommended its members to sign the resolution to the effect of taking up responsibility and start doing provenance research. At the time many Jewish museums had not seen themselves in the role of profiteers of the expropriation, expulsion, and murder of European Jewry. According to their self-image, they were on the "right" side and were not contaminated by so-called "aryanized" objects. Only a tiny fraction of AEJM members actually signed this resolution. However, the topic of provenance research has been on the agenda of AEJM meetings regularly ever since.
Finally, when in 2009 the Holocaust-EraAssets Conference took place in Prague, looted Judaica was for the first time a topic of discussion separately from looted art and other property. The resulting Terezín Declaration, approved by forty-seven countries, integrated a paragraph on “Judaica and Jewish Cultural Property” as a category in its own right in the provenance research and restitution ofHolocaust-era assets.
In the hierarchy of interest for Fine Art, books, libraries and archives, and Judaica, one might claim that, from areligious, scholarly, economic, social and universalistic point of view,Judaica has generally been least appreciated. The explanation lies in the religious character of the objects.
Judaism is in principle more text oriented than object oriented and therefore texts are held in higher esteem. Religious, halachic, and interpretive texts form the essence of traditional Judaism and as such they are indispensable. In contrast, with the exception of the Torah scroll and very few other items, Judaica objects used in the synagogue or in the private household, are not needed to perform Jewish ritual and were only developed long after the process of transforming the sacrificial service in the JerusalemTemple into a service of the word in the synagogue. Judaica objects only serve to beautify the Torah and to support servants in their religious expressions.
In addition, in general communities worldwide appreciate the same fundamental religious or cultural texts, although there are variants. In contrast, as Judaica objects of the modern era are mostly linked to donors and/or specific events in singular communities, these communities have a personal relationship with these objects. The individuality of ritual objects makes them important for a specific and local congregation setting or for family members, but not for congregation members in a supra-regional context.
The Wissenschaft des Judentums, which was an outcome of the Enlightenment, was founded at the beginning of the nineteenth century and first focused on texts as source for the different scholarly disciplines. In the context of the Wissenschaft, books were no longer guarantors of traditional contents, but became triggers for discourse about traditionalJudaism and nationalism, about foreign and self-image, and a response to anti-Judaism. Only later in the process of differentiation, also art-historical, folkloric, musical, and ethnographic topics came into focus, using other media as source than texts only. Parallel to a general interest in ethnographies, Jews started to collect and study Judaica objects and to establish scholarly societies and museums. Thus, in the course of the nineteenth century, Judaica became collectables in non-traditional Jewish contexts. In 1878, they were presented, for the first time beyond their functional significance, as objets d’art in the World exhibition in Paris. From then on, the question ‘is there a “Jewish Art”?’ was also extended to Jewish ritual art.
Besides the inner Jewish perception ofJudaica objects, the international community first and foremost ignored the destruction of Jewish cultural properties in the framework of the genocide ofEuropean Jewry. This too, may explain why Judaica, and cultural goods in general, came into scholarly focus so late.
In August 1941, the year of the systematic establishment of the Nazi extermination camps, Winston Churchill reacted disturbed in the face of the beginning mass murder of the European Jews with the words: "We are in the presence of a crime without a name." The man who was to give the crime a name and ensure its future punishment by theInternational Criminal Court was Raphael Lemkin.
Born in 1900, in a village in the Vilnius area, on the territory of present-day Belarus, Lemkin was awarded a doctorate in law from the University of Lviv. His choice of studies was prompted by the self-imposed question of why the Turkish massacre of a million Armenian women, children and men was not a crime, but the killing of a single person was very much a crime under universal law. Lemkin drafted a proposal that would define the extermination of national, "racial," and religious groups as crimes internationally and sent it to an international conference. But it found little support, even as anti-Semitism became Germany's national policy. The fascist frenzy that had gripped much of the world, left many blind and deaf.
Lemkin managed to escape to the UnitedStates where he searched feverishly for a term that would do justice to the crime that took place before the eyes of the world. The term mass murder, he argued, was not adequate for the murder of European Jews because it did noti nclude the national, ethnic, or religious motivation of the crime. Nor, he argued, did denationalization capture the crime, since it was aimed at cultural, but not necessarily biological, extermination. His reflections eventually led him to the creation of a neologism: genocide. The word is composed of the ancient Greek genos (clan, race, offspring, gender) and the Latin caedere (to kill). However, the conceptualization was only the prerequisite for the actual goal. Lemkin did everything he could to ensure that genocide would be treated and condemned as an internationally justiciable crime. He was bitterly disappointed by the Nuremberg trials, in which little happened to codify genocide as an international crime - and nothing to prevent it in the future. But he did not give up, corresponding, lobbying, drafting, and revising the text for a genocide convention. And indeed, after a tireless struggle, he was successful. On December 9, 1948, the United NationsOrganization adopted his proposal for a genocide convention. At the time of his death in 1959, one of the most important countries had not signed: The UnitedStates. They endorsed the convention only in 1988.
The Genocide Convention formulates: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Cultural destruction was not mentioned. However, actually, as early as 14 October 1933, Lemkin had presented a proposal to declare “the destruction of racial, religious or social collectivities a crime under the law of nations” and create two new international offenses: the act of barbarity, i.e. “acts of extermination” and “all sorts of brutalities which attack the dignity of the individual”, and that of vandalism, i.e. “the destruction of the culture and works of art.” Lemkin’s definition of genocide had been published in his 1944 volume AxisRule in Occupied Europe. Here, “a rigid control of all cultural activities” was designed to “prevent the expression of the national spirit through artistic media”, while the population were to also be “deprived of inspiration from the existing cultural and artistic values” through the destruction of libraries, archives, museums and the removal of galleries of art.This meant, in his definition of genocide, Lemkin presented cultural annihilation as an integral part of the assailants’ attempt to obliterate the existence of a community.
The Genocide Convention of 1948 did not include cultural genocide because of legal restraints and political reasons. “When the draft convention was being discussed, it was opposed by the Soviet Union and its supporters in the Eastern European ‘People's Republics’ (citing the right of the state to put down armed uprisings) opposed the proposal to include political groups, while Great Britain and France thwarted the inclusion of ‘cultural’ genocide (because that could have affected their colonial policies).Consequently, neither political nor cultural extermination was included in the definition.”And this despite of the fact that in Lemkin's concept of genocide, cultural genocide was one of the three main “methods and techniques” that constituted the crime of genocide.
But the acceptance of cultural genocide would have damaged the consensus necessary for the adoption of the convention and seemed to make its exclusion necessary. Had the concept of cultural genocide been accepted in 1948, the Nazi looting of Jewish cultural property might have been looked at differently in an earlier stage by the international community. But, it was only in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict that a comprehensive and detailed definition of cultural property was formulated for the first time, irrespective of origin or ownership: “movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above”. However, to date there is no law or convention that recognizes cultural genocide as such, which may additionally account for the delay of dealing with cultural expropriations at large.
On the other hand, the increasing preoccupation with cultural property protection by international organizations such as UNESCO, as well as the immediate accessibility to visually stunning events of destruction of what we understand to be world cultural heritage, may also have contributed to our awareness of the issue of European Jewish cultural heritage. In general, we might say that, as our attention to worldwide forced assimilation, forcible re-education or marginalization of ethnic groups, and linguicides has increased, so has our awareness of the importance of tangible and intangible cultural property.
The turning point in the consideration of Judaica objects specifically from innocent inheritance or from history-less trade goods to looted goods occurred – still with considerable delay - after the declaration of the Washington Principles. Since everyone focused on the object group of “serious” art, and here mainly initially on such works of art that are valuable by today's standards and sometimes fetch dizzying prices on the market, Jewish cultural assets including books, archives and ceremonial property was much slower to find its way into the consciousness of those concerned with these object holdings.
In recent years, the willingness of active provenance research on Judaica objects in Jewish museums has fortunately increased. Individual scholars have dedicated serious research into the subject.Some European museums have been able to employ their own provenance researchers, e.g., the Jewish Museum Berlin, the Jewish Historical Museum Amsterdam, theJewish Museum in Prague, the Jewish Museum Frankfurt a/M, and the Jewish Museum of the City of Vienna. This is an important step forward. Provenance research in museums is closely linked to the urban, national, and cultural history of the respective place and every collection is embedded in its own historical collection process. Therefore, provenance research of individual museums is a first step in understanding the larger contexts.
These larger contexts have not always been looked at. From the end of the nineteenth century, when Jewish ritual objects were perceived as artifacts with an intrinsic beauty, scholars have researched these objects as primary sources for studying artistic, social and cultural aspects of Jewish life. The first publications mainly focused on descriptive features –such as form, style, and traditional and symbolic imagery – linking these to biblical or post-biblical sources. Later studies described specific Jewish customs linked to ceremonial objects, investigated the artistic development of types of objects, or addressed social historical issues, looking at commissioners or donors and their social status. Judaica objects have also been treated in the context of general considerations of a distinctiveJewish art history. Int he last decades, scholarship has shifted its attention from the actual object towards written sources that may reveal information that cannot be grasped from the objects themselves.
In other words, objects have multi-layered dimensions: they are material things which may carry religious, historical, art-historical, functional, personal, symbolical, economic, and social value. With the expulsion, persecution and murder of European Jewry, an additional layer of injustice and violence has to be ascribed to Judaica objects.
Looted European Judaica objects encountered different fates after 1945. These depended on the military and national authorities that took custody of the objects. Heirless, and not heirless ritual objects discovered by the American military government in the American occupied zone of Germany, were handed over to Jewish Cultural Reconstruction, Inc., an international Jewish organization that acted as trustee for the Jewish people. This organization distributed the objects to museums and Jewish congregations, mostly in Israel and the United States, to receive a new life in a new context.Other objects, found elsewhere, had very different fates, depending on national policies and sometimes individual decisions. Thus,European Judaica were dispersed worldwide. The receiving institutions in general did not have the opportunity, interest and means, to question the provenance of these objects. Seventy years later, at least the museum professional who either encounters gaps in historical holdings or is confronted with objects of unknown provenance, is challenged to research their specific historical dimensions. To reconstruct the personal life and culture of the prewar owners, the social contexts the objects were used in, and the migration paths during and after the war, a provenance research methodology for Judaica objects was developed, which was published online in 2018.
Judaica of the pre-war period could have belonged to different legal bodies: A Jewish community, a family, an individual, a collector, a regional or a Jewish museum. To identify the origin of an object, one has to study the object itself and look for printed and archival sources and for visual material. In order to place the identified object in its prewar context, cooperation with colleagues is needed. After all, the history of looted Judaica is interconnected: an object missing in one collection may be found in another collection; also, an object missing in one family may be found in a museum collection; and an object missing from one congregation may too be found in a museum. From the 1980s onwards, when Jewish museums in Europe were reestablished or founded anew, they have been purchasing objects without questioning their provenances. In addition, they may have come into possession of a number of objects that in the 1930s and 1940s were deposited elsewhere for safeguarding. Therefore, real progress in researching the provenance of Judaica collections, of sub-collections or even of individual objects can only be achieved through a centralized database that brings together lost and found objects. At present, such a database is being developed.
Every cultural object consists of multiple layers. Cultural objects which were looted carry in them the history of their looting.They carry in them the history of violence. They carry in them the absence of their previous context. The story of their expropriation becomes an inherent part of their being. Provenance research may bring to the surface their untold stories. In the case of European Judaica, these objects carry the unique history of the attempted total extermination of Jews by the Nazis and the related massive destruction of Jewish culture. Both in museum collections as well as in postwarJewish communities the surviving objects bear witness of a striving prewarEuropean Jewish life, its destruction and, simultaneously, of an envisioned reconstruction. In other words, it is only through provenance research that these objects testify to the “Zivilisationsbruch“, the rupture in civilization, that sheds a new light, and a new perspective on the layers of these objects. If we agree with theAristotle’s quote “The whole is more than the sum of its parts” so too this is true for Judaica: a reconstruction of their histories through provenance research, might enable to do justice to the people and their culture to whicht he objects once belonged. This makes it more than the sum of its traits.
 Aristotle, Metaphysics,VII 17, 1041b.
 The SwissInstitute for Art Research defines provenance research as an independent discipline: “Reconstructing the history of art works has evolved recently from an auxiliary science serving museums, auction houses, and basic art history research to become a discipline in its own right:provenance research. The catalyst was the Washington Conference on HolocaustEra Assets in December 1998. If the sole focus there was art stolen by theNazis, provenance research has since shifted its sights to colonial expropriation and the looting of cultural heritage.” See Conference Provenance Research: Debating a Practical Science. https://www.artmarketstudies.org/conf-provenance-research-debating-a-practical-science-provenienzforschung-eine-wissenschaftspraxis-in-der-diskussion-swiss-institute-for-art-research-online-3-4-june-2021/.
Greg Bradsher, Turning History into Justice: Holocaust-Era Assets Records,Research, and Restitution (War and Civilization Lecture University of NorthCaroline-Wilmington, North Carolina, April 19, 2001), see https://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/articles-and-papers/turning-history-into-justice.html(accessed 3 August 2021); Markus Stumpf, Rückgabe vonNS-Raubgut – 20 Jahre auf der Suche nach „gerechten und fairen Lösungen“, see
https://blog.univie.ac.at/rueckgabe-von-ns-raubgut-20-jahre-auf-der-suche-nach-gerechten-und-fairen-loesungen/ (accessed 3 August 2021).
 Christoph Zuschlag, ‘Vom Iconic Turn zum Provenential Turn? Ein Beitrag zur Methodendiskussion in derKunstwissenschaft’, in Maria Effinger (ed. et al.), Von Analogen undDigitalen Zugängen zur Kunst. Festschrift für Hubertus Kohle zum 60. Geburtstag(Heidelberg, 2019), https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/arthistoricum/reader/download/493/493-17-85239-1-10-20190605.pdf
 For a definition of Judaica, see Julie-Marthe Cohen, Felicitas Heimann-Jelinek and Ruth Jolanda Weinberger, Handbook on JudaicaProvenance Research: Ceremonial Objects, see http://art.claimscon.org/our-work/about/judaica/handbook-judaica-provenance-research-ceremonial-objects/, p. 77.
 See, for instance, Gerard Aalders, NaziLooting: The Plunder of Dutch Jewry During the Second World War (BloomsburyPublishing PLC, Oxford, New York, 2004); Sophie Lillie, Was einmal war. Handbuch der enteigneten Kunstsammlungen Wiens (Czernin Verlag, Wien, 2006). Inka Bertzand Michael Dorrmann (eds), Raub und Restitution. Kulturgut aus jüdischemBesitz von 1933 bis heute (exhibition catalogue, Jüdisches Museum Berlinund Jüdisches Museum Frankfurt, Berlin, 2008). Isabelle Le Masne de Chermontet Laurence Sigal-Klagsbald (red.), À qui appartenaient ces tableaux? La politique française de recherche de provenance, de garde et de restitution des œuvres d’art pillées Durant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (Paris, 2008). Shlomit Steinberg (ed.) OrphanedArt: Looted Art from the Holocaust in the Israel Museum (Jerusalem, 2008).Johannes Gramlich, Begehrt, Beschwiegen, Belastend: Die Kunst der NS-Elite, die Alliierten, und dieBayerischen Staatsgemälde-Sammlungen (Böhlau, Göttingen, 2021).
 See, for instance the publications on books, libraries and archives by Patricia K. Grimsted, https://iisg.amsterdam/files/2019-05/Bibliography_Displaced_Cultural_Treasures_as_a_Result_of_World_War_II_and_Restitution_Issues_0.pdf and Felicitas Heimann-Jelinek, Lothar Hölbling and Ingo Zechner (eds), Ordnung muss sein.Das Archiv derIsraelitischen Kultusgemeinde Wien (Vienna, 2007).
 Felicitas Heimann-Jelinek & Georg Heuberger (eds), Was ÜbrigBlieb. DasMuseum jüdischer Altertümer in Frankfurt, 1921-1938 (Frankfurt am Main, 1988). Magda Veselská, Defying the Beast. The Jewish Museum in Prague, 1906-1940 (Prague, 2006). Julie-Marthe Cohen, with Felicitas Heimann-Jelinek, Neglected Witnesses.The Fate of Jewish Ceremonial Objects During the Second World War and After(Institute of Art and Law, Crickadarn, 2011). Julie-Marthe Cohen, Felicitas Heimann-Jelinek and Ruth Jolanda Weinberger, Handbook on Judaica ProvenanceResearch: Ceremonial Objects, see http://art.claimscon.org/our-work/about/judaica/handbook-judaica-provenance-research-ceremonial-objects/ and Handbuch zur Judaika Provenienzforschung: Zeremonialobjekte, see http://art.claimscon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FINAL-Judaica-Hanbook-DEUTSCH-March-15-2019.pdf.
 Neglected Witnesses, p. 345-346.
 IsmarS chorsch, From Text to Context. The Turn to History in Modern Judaism(Hanover, University Press of New England, 1994; Ismar Schorsch, Leopold Zunz: Creativity in Adversity (University of Pensylvania Press, Philadelphia,2016). Henri C. Soussan, The „Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentum“ in its Historical Context (= Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts, 75). (Mohr Siebeck,Tübingen, 2013).
 Georges Stenne, Collection de M.Strauss. Description des objets d’art religieux hébraïques. Exposés dans les galeries du Trocadéro, à l’Exposition universelle de 1878. Tabernacle en bois sculpté, objets d’orfévrerie, bijoux, manuscrits, étoffes brodées (Paris, 1878).
 Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s Broadcast to theWorld about the Meeting with President Roosevelt, 24 August 1941, available at https://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410824awp.html.
 John Cooper, Raphael Lemkin and theStruggle fort he Genocide Convention (Palgrave McMillan, London 2008). Philippe Sands, East West Street.On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanities (Orion PublishingGroup, London, 2016).
 Bianca Gaudenzi, ‘Crimes against Culture: From Plunder toPostwar Restitution politics’, in S. Gigliotti and H. Earl (eds), The WileyCompanion to the Holocaust (John Wiley & Sons, London, 2020), p.191-208.
 Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in OccupiedEurope: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals forRedress (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC, 1944), p.84.
 See Gaudenzi, ‘Crimes against Culture’, op. cit, p. 1.The other two “methods and techniques” are physical and biological.
 See e.g. Bernhard Purin, ‚Das Tora-Schild aus Gunzenhausen‘, in: Ulf Häder (Konzeption und Bearbeitung), Beiträge öffentlicher Einrichtungen derBundesrepublik Deutschland zum Umgang mit Kulturgütern aus ehemaligem jüdischenBesitz (Koordinierungsstelle für Kulturgutverluste, Magdeburg 2001), p. 107-117; id., Samsons Leuchter. Ein Chanukka-Leuchter aus dem Besitz der Familie Wertheimer (JüdischesMuseum München, München, 2013).
 E.g.,RudolphHallo, Jüdische Kunst aus Hessen und Nassau (Berlin, 1939); HeinrichFrauberger, Über alte Kultusgegenstände inSynagoge und Haus (Frankfurt am Main:Gesellschaft zur Erforschung Jüdischer Kunstdenkmäler, 1903); ElisabethMoses/ Adolph Kober, Jüdische Kult- und Kunstdenkmäler in den Rheinlanden, in Zeitschrift des Rheinischen Vereins für Denkmahlpflege undHeimatschutz, jg. 24, 1931, p. 99-201. Rachel Wischnitzer-Bernstein, Symbole und Gestalten der Jüdischen Kunst (S. Scholem, Berlin-Schöneberg, 1935).
 E.g., Stephen S. Kayser (ed.), Jewish Ceremonial Art(The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1959); JosephGutmann, The Jewish Life Cycle, Iconography of Religions XXIII, 4,Institute of Religious Iconography State University Groningen (E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1987).
 E.g. Karl Schwarz, Die Juden in der Kunst (Welt-Verlag, Berlin, 1928); Cecil Roth (ed.), Jewish Art. An Illustrated History (Peli-P.E.C. Printing Works Ltd. Ramat Gan, 1961); Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, L’Art Juif, Orient et Occident (Flammarion, Paris, 1975).
 E.g., Vivian B. Mann, JewishTexts on the Visual Arts (Cambridge University Press, UK, USA, Australia,2000); Julie-Marthe Cohen, ‘Donation as a Social Phenomenon: Synagogue Textiles of the Ashkenazi Community of Amsterdam in the Eighteenth and NineteenthCenturies’, Studia Rosenthaliana, 32, 1 (1998), 24-42; Shalom Sabar, Emile Schrijver, Falk Wiesemann(eds), Windows on Jewish Worlds. Essays in honor of William Gross Collector of Judaica on the occasion of his eightieth birthday (Walburg Pers, Zutphen, 2019).
 See Neglected Witnesses, op. cit.
 Dana Herman, Hashavat Avedah: a history of Jewish CulturalReconstruction, Inc. (Thesis(Ph. D.)--McGill University, 2008).
KerstinDembsky (red.), „Sieben Kisten mit jüdischem Material“. Von Raub und Wiederentdeckung 1938 bis heute (Hentrich & Hentrich Verlag, Berlin Leipzig, 2018).Bernhard Purin & Ayleen Winkler (eds), Im Labyrinth der Zeiten. MitMordechai W. Bernstein durch 1700 Jahre deutsch-jüdische Geschichte (Hentrich& Hentrich Verlag, Berlin Leipzig, 2021).
 See http://art.claimscon.org/our-work/about/judaica/handbook-judaica-provenance-research-ceremonial-objects/ and http://art.claimscon.org/our-work/about/judaica/handbook-judaica-provenance-research-ceremonial-objects/online-handbook-german-edition/ (German edition).
 Dan Diner (Hg.), Zivilisationsbruch.Denken nach Auschwitz (FischerTaschenbuch, Frankfurt a/M, 1988).