Review: <i>Trans Talmud: Androgynes and Eunuchs in Rabbinic Literature</i>, by Max K. Strassfeld
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| May 01 2024 Review: Trans Talmud: Androgynes and Eunuchs in Rabbinic Literature, by Max K. Strassfeld Max K. Strassfeld, Trans Talmud: Androgynes and Eunuchs in Rabbinic Literature. Oakland: University of California Press, 2023. 262 pp. ISBN: 9780520382053 (hardcover), ISBN: 9780520397392 (softcover), ISBN: 9780520382060 (ebook). $95.00, $29.95. Gregg E. Gardner Gregg E. Gardner University of British Columbia Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Studies in Late Antiquity (2024) 8 (2): 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1525/sla.2024.8.2.281 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Gregg E. Gardner; Review: Trans Talmud: Androgynes and Eunuchs in Rabbinic Literature, by Max K. Strassfeld. Studies in Late Antiquity 1 May 2024; 8 (2): 281–285. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/sla.2024.8.2.281 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentStudies in Late Antiquity Search Centering androgynes and eunuchs when we read ancient rabbinic texts can transform our understanding of late antique and Jewish approaches to sex and gender. In this book, the author argues that eunuchs and androgynes were central to discussions of sex and gender by the rabbis who authored and redacted classical rabbinic literature (e.g., Mishnah, Talmuds, and other writings in Roman Palestine and Sasanian Babylonia), even if their importance has been minimized by modern scholars and other parties. Rabbinic interest in the changeability of sex indeed establishes the rabbis as experts on interpreting the body, and, as the author holds, related discussions are neither inevitable derivations of biblical interpretation nor marginal asides. This excellent book, consequently, is positioned to contribute to and engage with two audiences that scholars rarely address simultaneously: both scholars and graduate students in fields of rabbinic literature / ancient Judaism and those who approach the study of... You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".