Laws of Succession Ordinances by the Religious Leadership of Sephardi and Moroccan Jewish Communities and Their Economic, Social and Gender Implications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article offers an extensive discussion of Jewish inheritance law in the Iberian Peninsula and Morocco, and makes a strong argument about the transfer of ideas and cultural concepts from the Iberian Peninsula to Morocco due to the Sephardi exile in the wake of the Expulsion from Spain. This is a valuable contribution to the field of Jewish law and of women's status in the medieval world, and makes important connections between medieval Iberia, Morocco, and the modern state of Israel.

However, there are a number of areas in which I would suggest revisions, some relatively small and some more extensive.

First, I find the framing of the article messy and confusing at times. In particular, it is not clear to me why the author begins with the discussion of theory around leadership; they do not meaningfully return to these ideas throughout the paper. Moreover, were the author to offer a discussion of leadership, I would suggest one more specifically rooted in understandings of Jewish communal leadership and rabbinic authority, and how these transform from the medieval/early modern era to more recent contexts.   

Second, the author pays insufficient attention to distinctions within the Iberian Peninsula. Although there were certainly connections between the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon, they are also culturally distinct - and the same can be said of those kingdoms' Jewish communities and of rabbinic culture. Yes, there are points of contact, but Aragon also similarly has points of contact with southern France. The author outlines a number of important changes in inheritance law that benefit women and describes these as part of the cultural landscape of "Spain," but offers no specific examples that indicate any of these changes extended from the kingdom of Castile into the separate kingdom of Aragon. Moreover, the author seems almost unaware of the fact that "Spain" was not after all a meaningful political entity until very shortly before the 1492 Expulsion. Ideally, the author would look into the extent to which any of this applies to Aragon; at the very least, they should change references to "Spain" to "Castile." 

Third - some of the author's optimism about the benefits for women seems unwarranted. Part of this has to do with personal opinion and a choice in framing, but it also has to do with the author overstating the argument. Even under the new regulations in Castile, wives and husbands still do not have fully equivalent inheritance rights, nor do sons and daughters. The author also makes the claim that "Women in Spain generally enjoyed a more advanced status compared to the women of Ashkenaz," which seems a very dramatic claim to make based on a very specific and narrow discussion of source material. It also contradicts most scholarship on the subject, which leads into my next point.

Fourth, I find the author's engagement with relevant scholarship insufficient. Especially if the author plans to make an argument about the status of women in Ashkenaz vs. Sepharad that contradicts the vast majority of scholarship on the subject - scholarship based on a wider array of sources, including a broader exploration of the responsa literature as well as other kinds of documentary source material - they need to actually engage with that scholarship. They also might benefit from more directly engaging with the immense amount of scholarship on the Jewish communities of medieval Iberia and their concerns about rabbinic authority and communal autonomy. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There is too much going on here, and much of it is far too general to be of any scholarly merit. If the author wishes to talk about the impact and development of the Tulitula ordinance from late medieval Spain to early modern Morocco, that would be fine. But the long (and often inaccurate) historical discussions and the attempt to connect these ordinances to contemporary Israel need to be dropped completely. The paper would need an actual introduction that presents the author's thesis, and a more clear, focused analysis of the texts. Improvements would also have to be made to the English syntax used in the piece.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A. The article is very Important, because it is introducing a new subject, that almost was not researched . Only a little was written in the Hebrew literature on this matter. The writer doesn’t accept the regular opinion of lower status of the women in the Islam countries, and brings examples that shows other situations. B. The discussions around the Hebrew law among the Sages in Morocco on the Issue of inheritance is very large, and the article deals with one Issue and exposes it to the research world, which will invite other researchers to explore other issues in the subject of Inheritance.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Many thanks for your kind review of the paper. The paper has now been somewhat shortened, and a further round of proofreading was done to correct minor errors. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article  is excellently written and well-researched. However, I think that it is too long (includign the abstract). It has to be rewritten and must be trimmed by at least a third because its length obscures the article's key message. Lines 93 to 105 on page 3, for instance, can be removed from the article. There are many more instances. Using words like "courages" is another thing I would avoid. I also wonder why no Spanish-language sources were used for this study. Given these remarks, I think the article should be published following these minor changes. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind review and valuable remarks. 

The paper was previously extended in its length following former rounds of review that requested more historical background. It has now been shortened as much as possible, and a further round of proofreading was done to correct minor errors. As to Spanish sources, please note that there are none, as all the sources belong to Jewish religious law and were originally written in Hebrew. Finally, I have revised the use of the word "courage" in the abstract and a number of other places, instead describing the action as "advanced". 

Many thanks again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have found the article to be significantly improved, with a couple exceptions where the author makes large claims without sufficient justification: 

- In section 5, I still would find helpful a clearer distinction between Iberian kingdoms. Until the mention of Mallorca & Valencia at the end of the section, all the author's examples come from Castile - leading me to think this is really a specifically Castilian development, with the possible exception of Mallorca.  On p. 12, the author claims that the Toledo ordinance "had spread throughout most cities," but does not provide a citation for this claim, which is a quite substantial one - especially since, as noted above, Mallorca is the sole example provided of an adoption outside Castile. In general, I also still think that this section would benefit immensely from more engagement with the extensive scholarship on the medieval Iberian Peninsula - the absence of any citations of the work of Jonathan Ray, in particular, seems a strange omission. 
- on p. 21, the use of the phrase "equal inheritance rights" to describe women's inheritance remains incorrect: the improvements described by the author still do not result in women & men being treated equally in matters of inheritance. I would suggest switching the word "equal" to "expanded." 
- On p. 23, the author writes "Women in Spain generally enjoyed a more advanced status compared to the women of Ashkenaz." The author makes a valid argument that Castilian inheritance ordinances offered more options for women than Ashkenazi ones, but the sentence makes a huge claim - with no citations - that is not borne out by the very rich scholarship on Jewish women in the medieval world, which almost universally argues the opposite. This, too, is an area of scholarship the author does not engage with at all. Even the basic survey of Avraham Grossman would be helpful here, to name but a single book. It would perhaps be more interesting and nuanced for the author to state specifically here that the inheritance ordinances offered more options for women despite women in Ashkenaz in fact arguably having a wider spectrum of options in terms of working & managing financial resources - and speculate as to why that is. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review and further valuable comments. I have revised relevant sections of the paper according to your suggestions (most of these are marked in yellow for your convenience). In addition, I have added a number of references including Abraham Grossman and Jonathan Ray.

Finally, the concluding Israeli section is now focused specifically on the status of the Tulitula inheritance ordinance in current Israeli religious law. I hope that the paper now meets the requirements for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The English is still clunky and grammatically incorrect in many places. More importantly though, the overall scope of the work is just not coherent. The attempt to connect medieval Spain, Early Modern Morocco and contemporary Israel is ultimately unsuccessful.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review and comments. The paper has now been edited by a second professional editor – whose corrections are marked as tracked-changes. I hope that the paper now meets the requirements for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The author's adjustment of some of the language and inclusion of additional works of scholarship is appreciated, although more in-depth engagement with the substantial fields of Jewish women and gender studies and of medieval Sephardic studies would still be appreciated.

I will note at this stage that the abstract still includes some of the more forceful language of "equality" as well as the "courage" of the rabbinic authorities that they tempered somewhat in the actual text of the article. In addition to there now being something of a mismatch, the abstract in particular now seems to present medieval rabbinic authorities as deeply committed to gender equality, which a more holistic study of rabbinic responsa from Sepharad indicates is hardly the case - the inheritance ordinances are to some degree a special case. 

There are several typos and minor English language errors throughout but these can be corrected in the editing process. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, I wish to thank you for your constructive critique. I have rewritten the abstract and also revised the title of the chapter pointing to a comparison to Ashkenazi sages, so as to focus the comparison on a more specific historical period.

I hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that you would now see fit to recommend the paper for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Author