The Complex Ritual Dynamics of Individual and Group Experience in the Temple, as Imagined in the Mishnah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the mishnaic authors narrated the Temple rituals of the past, they made choices in how to imagine the nuanced dynamics of actors, spaces, objects, and actions that make up the ritual enactments. These choices point to their understanding of how Temple ritual worked and what it accomplished. Taking an unusual feature of many of the Mishnah's Temple-ritual narratives—the shifting back and forth between singular and plural, or, between individual and group—as a starting point, this article argues that for the rabbis of the Mishnah, Temple ritual bound together every Israelite with the collective whole, while simultaneously allowing for individuality. Moreover, it created a sense of solidarity and belonging within multiple levels of Jewish collective life—the whole people, the local city or town, and the lineal groupings of Israelite, Levite, and priest. Similarities to mishnaic rules about prayer-centered rituals, moreover, suggest that the rabbis believed these functions of ritual continued even in the absence of the Temple.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".