Jewish Women and Positive Time-bound Commandments: Reconsidering the Rabbinic Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The starting point of this article is that Jewish law defined the difference between the sexes and created a gender hierarchy through a broad generalization (accompanied by a long list of exceptions) which created a link between halakhic obligation, gender and time. It argues that there is no coincidence that the halakhic starting point on this issue depends on a time-bound definition. From its inception, Judaism has dealt with the formation of a uniquely Jewish conception of time, different from that of its surroundings, including both linear and circular characteristics, a concept of time widely expressed already in the Bible. After the destruction of the second Temple this Jewish concept of time had an additional challenge to deal with – the structuring of Jewish time as a central component of Jewish identity, which both preserves and protects it. Women were perceived as both belonging and not belonging, capable and incapable, only partial partners in the great cultural and spiritual Jewish challenge. The definition of women’s partial partnership through time is therefore well suited to the place and importance of time in the Jewish concept of the world in general, and the rabbinical one in particular.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".