Makhloket: Anti-Polemics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the reading. It was an exciting experience. I also support publication for my own selfish needs, as I would be eager to use and quote this fascinating paper once it becomes public.

Saying that, I would still like to convince the author to make some bibliographic adjustments that will make the overall move even more appealing and convincing.

The most original part of the paper lies in the surprisingly highly relevant connection between Heidegger's interpretation of Heraklit and the Rabbinic-Talmudic tradition. Generally, the author uses a minimal amount of primary and secondary sources. However, when it comes to Heidegger (mostly relying on Fried), Schmitt, and Benjamin, I believe that this methodology is efficient, especially since it will be impossible to deal with the vast literature in such a short paper format.

Yet, even here, the author might consider referring to the enormous discussion of Heidegger's relation to Jewish political universalism (Leviathan), and to the Talmud, especially in the Black Notebooks. Clearly, this is not the issue here under discussion, but it might be relevant to a reader reading a paper that brings together Heidegger and Rabbinic Judaism, especially when referring to works that were composed during the 1930s, when so much literature was (negatively) dedicated to Talmud.

If, as I said, regarding Heidegger, the author relies on a minimal bibliography, when it comes to the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrash, there are no references at all, neither to the different editions of rabbinica nor to some key studies of the discussed topics. Again, I would not like to raise a demand for extensive literature but only to draw the author's attention to the many publications of Menachem Fisch on the nature of Rabbinic Makhloket, analyzed from different philosophic aspects (See especially Fisch\Benbaji, The View from Within: Normativity and the Limits of Self-Criticism). I find it relevant because it offers a Talmudic interpretation of the Classic problem of the theory of controversies developed in the philosophy of science (Dascal, Freudenthal).  

Another philosophical project that might deserve a footnote is Imanuel Levinas's turn toward a critique of Heidegger and philosophic reading in the Talmud.

Author Response

Comment 1: the author might consider referring to the enormous discussion of Heidegger's relation to Jewish political universalism (Leviathan), and to the Talmud, especially in the Black Notebooks. .

Response: I added a reference to my edited volume on Heidegger and Jewish Thought.

Comment 2: when it comes to the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrash, there are no references at all, neither to the different editions of rabbinica nor to some key studies of the discussed topics. 

Response: I added references to existing studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper offers a truly original and enticing interpretation of the rabbinical tradition of interpreting the makhloket confronted with discussion of polemos by Heraclitus, Heidegger and Schmitt. The strength of the paper consists undoubtedly in its compelling argumentation and sublime juxtapositions of ideas. It reads really well, leading the narrative with a firm hand. It is a thought-out work that offers much intellectual pleasure.

Due to the individuality and quality of the paper, I believe that recommendations should be limited and subjected to the Author's decision. First, I would suggest adding some more sources that could make the context more deeply explored. Discussion of Hobbes's Leviathan (and perhaps Schmitt's commentary on it) would cast more light on the ubiquitousness of the war. Addressing Schmitt's Concept of the Political explicitly would also strengthen the argumentation. Finally, perhaps the Author would like to add some considerations on Lyotard's Differend, as the distant echo of Heidegger, and Derrida's concepts of différance  and force de loi (esp. as a comment on Benjamin). These last suggestions, however, remain fully optional given that their inclusion may disturb the logic of the paper. Last but not least, Marlène Zarader's Unthought Debt could be used to cast more light on Heidegger.

Second, given that the paper is addressed at seasoned readers, it may not be fully necessary to distinguish clearly Heraclitus as such from Heidegger's Heraclitus. Nonetheless, while reading I had the impression that the Author assumes some kind of direct comparability between ancient and modern sources, just as if Schmitt's and Heidegger's philosophies were not born out of the modern experience of effective withdrawal of divinity. Perhaps a methodological note on how Author positions themself in relation to historical continuity and comparability would be in place. I very much endorse re-reading Heraclitus through modern sources, but nonetheless a question of method imposes itself. A clearer demarcation of the Author's stance on this issue would definitely dispel readers' doubts.

Finally, there are very tiny editing corrections to be made:

1) repeating the original quotation in lines 273-275 may be reconsidered, as it sounds a bit redundant,

2) line 102: 'has to be' instead of 'has be',

3) line 197: the quotation mark after "Enlightenment" is incorrect,

4) line 270: there is a redundant comma after "περί".

I hope the Author finds these remarks constructive and makes a use of them according to their assessment.

Author Response

Comment 1: I would suggest adding some more sources that could make the context more deeply explored. 

Response 1: I added some sources for context. There are references to my own work that open up context, which were erased for anonymization

Comment 2:  Perhaps a methodological note on how Author positions themself in relation to historical continuity and comparability would be in place.

Response 2: I tried to insert such a note but felt that it is either too concise and therefore superfluous, or it would require a serious discussion that would be too long for this essay. So I decided not to add anything in this regard.

Comment 3: inally, there are very tiny editing corrections to be made.

Response 3: I attended to all the corrections.

Thank you so much