Jewish Presence in the Land of Israel in the 19th Century: Insights from the Montefiore Censuses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

you paper offers an importat contribution and I would like to see it published, but I would also like to suggest some issues:

1. Line 41: I think you might better use "diasporic" (an adjective) than "diaspora" (a noun).
2. Lines 43-50: please consider for reference publications of Dulska, A.K., 2015 & 2017. In the former there is a map showing the distribution of the Jews in the Middle East in the 12th century. 
3. Line 116: where is Leghorn?
4. Line 153: it is the first time you mention aliya. It is adviceable to exmplain this term here so that a reader who doesn't know it gets this information.
5. Lines 308-309: please make sure whether counting people is forbidden by the Jewish law or it is an interpretation.
6. Figure 3 + Table A2: the usage of a contemporary map just because "the borders changed dramatically in the last 150 years" in not acceptable and distorts your conclusions. Please use a map of 1875, or any between the 1815 and 1945. You should combine a political with an ethnic and linguistic map, there are plenty of them given the racial interests of scholars of that time. Please adjust the conclusios accordingly. It's not justified to say that Ukraine was the main country of birth of HH, because Ukraine had not existed, and to give as an example the city of Kolomyya, which was a mainly Polish city, ethnically speaking, and within Poland before the end of 18th cent. and between 1918-1945. Otherwise, if you limit th analysis to the ¨official" polities, most data should be classified as "Russia"... Same applies to Lithuania (especially Vilnius, which was Polish until the interwar period and even afterwards inhabited mainly by Poles and Jews), Belarus and the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. 

I am looking forward to reading the published paper.

Thank you and all the best,

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A detailed and careful study that analyzes previously insufficiently examined census data and provides a clear picture of what that data tells us about the evolving Jewish community in the land of Israel in the 19th century. The Montefiore data is handled with care and both where it can be trusted and its limitations are clearly set out. This work will be foundational for all future study of the emergence of the Jewish community in the land of Israel in this period. 

I find no areas that require substantive correction or rethinking, and I saw only a few issues with writing and presentation, all of which in any event would be caught in final proofreading. Specifically, in a few places, references to charts should be carefully checked. There are also a few places where extraneous commas separate a subject and verb (e.g., lines 511 and 891).  In line 509, the word "censused" should read "census", and in 641, I believe that "ever married" should be "never married". All of this is extremely minor in an article that overall is so carefully and accessibly written.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion this article offers an exceptionally valuable and meticulously researched analysis of the Jewish population in Palestine during the 19th century, drawing upon the unique resource of the Sir Moses Montefiore censuses. It is a highly significant contribution to historical demography and Jewish studies, and we find it ready for publication in its current form. The authors' decision to integrate and re-evaluate all five Montefiore censuses (1839–1875) into a single, comprehensive database is a methodological triumph. This novel approach allows for an unprecedented depth of insight into the evolving demographic, social, and economic landscape of the Jewish community. This article excels in its rigorous and transparent methodology, clearly outlining how data was handled, classified (e.g., Ashkenazi and Sephardi, age categories, occupations, socio-economic status), and analysed. The careful consideration of data limitations, such as missing information or varying reporting practices, enhances the study's credibility. The article's foundation rests on a primary source that has been historically underutilized, and the authors skillfully extract, harmonize, and interpret this rich dataset. The presentation of concrete numbers, statistical analyses, and the effective use of tables and maps (e.g., Figure 1, Table 1) is exemplary; these elements not only support the narrative but also make complex demographic trends accessible and understandable. The detailed breakdown of recorded Jewish populations by city across different censuses (Table 1) provides invaluable empirical evidence. The study moves beyond mere data presentation, offering sophisticated analyses of population changes, immigration patterns (well before the formal start of Aliyah), and the socio-economic stratification within the Jewish community. The authors' ability to track changes over time at both aggregate and individual/household levels is particularly commendable. The article thoughtfully discusses the challenges of working with historical census data, such as inconsistencies in reporting (e.g., surnames for Ashkenazim, economic status), and acknowledges the limitations in certain extrapolations made by previous studies, which further strengthens the findings. Moreover, the introduction effectively sets the stage by providing a concise yet comprehensive overview of Jewish population patterns in the region, broader global Jewish migrations, and the socio-political context of the Ottoman Empire, including insights from contemporary travelers like Marx. While the article is overwhelmingly strong, a minor point that could be considered for future extensions (beyond the scope of this already complete paper) might be a more in-depth qualitative discussion of the motivations behind the reported "reluctance" of some religious Jews to be censused, beyond the basic legal interpretation. However, this does not diminish the current article's academic rigor or its significant findings. Sum up: according to me this article is a masterful piece of scholarly work. Its methodology, excellent use of primary sources, detailed statistical analysis, and clear presentation make it an indispensable resource for anyone studying 19th-century Jewish history, demography, or the history of the Land of Israel. I recommend it for publication.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf