Early Religious Zionism and Erudition Concerning the Temple and Sacrifices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article sheds light on an unknown trend in the history of rabbinic literature in modern times.
In the second section it should be noted that although in the 1830s, for  Kalischer, the discussion of the renewal of the work of sacrifice was practical, by the 1860s it was already theoretical. He was aware of the political impossibility of the idea.
On page 5, line 158, the reference is incorrect.
Note 68, on Rabbi Kalischer's late acquaintance with the teachings of the disciples of HaGra, see (Yedidya, Cathedra 167 (2018); Religions 2022).
Sections 4--6, all the authors mentioned must be mapped in terms of ideological-political affiliation (possibly with the help of the Encyclopedia of Religious Zionism) in order to convince that this is indeed a religious Zionist phenomenon. Otherwise an alternative explanation must be provided. Bringing Rabbi Kook's opinion on this issue is also requested.

Author Response

I have addressed all the points raised by the reviewer. Several references to the link between Religious-Zionism and the figures cited have been emphasized. A paragraph on Kook was added, and the corrections and references mentioned have been corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think that the author must add in note 16 that the list of rabbis contain Zinist rabbis from different wings f the Religios zionism in Israel.

Author Response

Done. see end of note 18.

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe the author(s) have made a good beginning for this project but it still needs work. There is a wealth of information in this article but the analysis is watered down and gets lost in the minutia of details. The last two parts of the article seem to be detached, there are details but no real connection to the heart of the article is offered. 

I believe there is significant potential for this article but it does need more work.  

Author Response

While it was difficult to address the reviewers notes directly, due to their general character, I did attempt to clarify my arguments and conclusions. All in all, I strenghtened the arguments and their basis. 

I believe the notes of the first two reviewers were of aid, since they led me to highlight the Religious-Zionist linkage of most of the figures mentioned in the latter part of my paper. I addressed that, and thus I believe my argument is more lucid and clear-cut.

We find in Religious-Zionist circles, both rabbinic and lay, a distinct interest in the Temple and practical questions of its renewal. While within rabbinic figures this interest os more hypothetical, within lay circles it's more blatant.

While I can't prove (and haven't pretended I did) this is all due to Kalisher's ideas, I did cite several cases in which Kalisher had a direct impact on this interest, and I believe it is not only a coincidence.

Reviewer 4 Report

• There is a need for a definitive introduction stating why this topic matters and the implications if the retrieval of this ‘Temple messianism’ is recovered and for who.
• The lists of texts and scholars often read as notes for an article and need to be re-written as continuous prose with clear chronologies, receptions, and evaluations of significance for the argument.
• As the special issue has a sociology and theology focus this needs to be much more central and clearly articulated. So that the ‘lay’ support for this retrieved strand of ‘Temple messianism’ needs some further sociological explanation.
• Currently, there is no substantive conclusion. This is required and should address precisely what has been demonstrated and its differential reception and the implications for our, now revised, understandings of Religious Zionism.

The tentative tone is inappropriate a more definitive tone (13) and (449).

Zionism spelled incorrectly (16)

Beginnings and end of direct quotations are unclear in several places (e.g., 27; 58)

Add liturgical purposes (23)

So “famously” (45) that major studies fail to mention this as indicated by this author.

Question mark needed (69)

Change “More” to “Further” for clarity (77)

Need for consistent referencing style (86-7)

Footnote 5, why use archaic KJV translation of Bible for references,

justification needed or better version.

Statement of author’s purpose should be the first sentence rather than here (108-9)

Precisely what “(the) public discourse” is intended here (117)

Apparently (125) too loose.

Delete second full stop (188)

Unclear as to what is being concluded here (206-8)

“many” is vague (235) as is “much interest” (238), and “central” (322)

 

Author Response

I addressed all of style notes of the reviewer.

Regarding the main criticism - with all due respect, I am restricted when it come to the length of the article. The reviewer requested me to compose a book, in which all of the figures mentioned are included as individuals, with a whole atory behind each and every one of them. My idea was the opposite - this is a school of thinkers and writers. I did, however, according to the notes given by other reviewers, engage in a systematic mentioning of how most of these individuals were, in fact, a part of such a school. Their links to Rabbi Kook's circles, and to a positve attitutde toward the Jewish State and its redemptive nature has been clarified.

Moreover, I have honed my arguments, in the beginning and the end of the paper, and created a better linkage between all of its portions, so the story I am trying to tell will be clearer.

I hope that makes the paper clearer, and the sociological and historical background firmer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

A match should be made between the bibliographic references in the article itself and the bibliographic list at the end.

Author Response

Done

Reviewer 3 Report

N/A

Author Response

no corrections needed

Reviewer 4 Report

The brief clarifications do improve the overall comprehensibility.

In a special issue with sociological and theological foci, there still needs to be some sort of explanation as to why there was seemingly distinctive and independent lay religious zionist support and the legacy, if any, of this. 

Finally, another sentence or two on the implications of the retrieval of this neglected strand of religious zionist concern  - that is, why is this strand important?  

Author Response

The suggestions by the reviewer were implemented in the paper, both in the Conclusions part, and in the beginning of section 6.