HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Valid Interpretation Flamefest Resumes
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:50:20 GMT


   It seems to me that there are two competing ideas at work here, and
   both may be valid according to traditional halacha. Some people may 
   remember my little essay on "valid interpretations," which I
   suggested was the use of outside sources to try and determine what
   the "true" halacha is. This has arisen recently as "is bee honey
   kosher?" and also in the article about R. Schwab's revised halachic
   time line wherein he tacitly acknowledges that the non-Jewish
   dating cannot simply be dismissed.

   I wrote "true" in quotation marks, because there is another idea,
   that halacha is what is determined to be halacha. This is the
   idea of the "bat kol" story, as well as the classic example of
   meat found on the street outside several kosher butcher shops.
   (It can be considered kosher, and _is_ kosher, even if it is
   later determined to be pork.) According to this approach,
   there is no such thing as objective halacha. (I know what
   you're going to object. You know what I mean. Sheesh.)

   Conservative Judaism has sometimes been described as an attempt
   to strip away the Rabbinic glosses on the orginal law. I've
   always thought that could mean trying to follow the first approach,
   discovering an "objective" Halacha.

   I wonder what the traditional thought is on this issue of
   "objective halacha?"
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:20667 soc.culture.turkish:11884 talk.politics.mideast:22375 talk.politics.soviet:9068 soc.culture.greek:10795 soc.culture.europe:9729 soc.culture.soviet:10144 soc.rights.human:4268 soc.culture.yugoslavia:9647
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: What _is_ the procedure for conversion to Judaism?
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:11:54 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <199211130148.AA07686@yfn.ysu.edu> <aa324@yfn.ysu.edu (Marlene Miller)> writes:
>
>The three steps are: 
  
[...]

>   Circumcision.
> 
>The only difference is that only the men are required to be circumcised.

What a relief ...

God *is* merciful ... :D
From: rmt51@cas.org (Rick Turkel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Square Kippot (was: Re: Tzitzit on ordinary garments)
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:11:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: cas.1992Nov16.021109.15846
Reply-To: rmt51@cas.org
Organization: S.W.I.G.

In article <1992Nov15.201508.28866@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
friedenb@silver.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
|> 
|> If one were to wear a square kippah, would it require tzitzit?
|> (is a kippah considered a garment?)
|> 
No.  There is a certain minimum size for a 4-cornered garment to require
tzitzit, and a kippah is too small by far.
|> 
|> Gedaliah Friedenberg
|> -=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
|> -=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
|> -=-Michigan State University
|> 
|> 
|>                    

-- 
Rick Turkel           (___  ____ _  _  _  _  _     _  ___   _  _ _  ___
(rmt51@cas.org)           )    |  |  \  )  |/ \     |    |   |  \_)    |
(rmt51@cas.bitnet)       /     | _| __)/   | __)    | ___|_  | _( \    |
			Ein navi be`iro.            |
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,bit.listserv.catholic
From: jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: "Feminazis" and the "abortion holocaust"
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:33:03 GMT

In article <92324.0237122893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>The thing is, when the Christian Right uses the term Holocaust to refer to
>abortion they don't just use the word but they refer specifically and make
>direct comparison to the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis in World War II
>thus they are not just using a word but deliberately invoking a historical
>analogy and for Jews, a painful memory. We are not just talking about words
>we are talking about incidents in history. As well the word "feminazi" is
>meant to deliberately evoke the Holocaust by comparing Pro-Choice feminists
>to Nazis, a flippant and frivolous comparison which I find deeply offensive,
>as would anyone familiar with the horror of the real Nazis.

Perhaps the difference is that the unborn victims of abortion generally have
no survivors to tell us of the horrors that are being perpetrated against them
because the majority of the human society in which they live have decided to
exclude them from the communion of persons whose life is held to be inviolable.
Peace,
John
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Kosher pork in the diabetic?
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:45:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov19.195613.3558@shearson.com> esafern@shearson.com writes:
>As I understand it, you can take the gelatin encapsulated pills even if other
>sources are available.  It just doesn't matter.
>This is not because of life threatening issues, but because pills are not food.
>
>Kashrut laws apply only to items consumed as food.  Anything which is a 'refuah'
>(a 'cure')  is completely exempt from Kashrut laws.

No, anything that you eat or drink is subject to the rules of kashrut.  That
includes medicines.  However, since medicine is frequently needed to preserve
life or health, the dietary restrictions may be overridden; this depends on
the details of the particular case.

What you may be thinking of is that *injections* of pig-dervied insulin are
unproblematic; the dietary rules only apply to things one eats or drinks, not
things that get into the body other ways.

   Robert
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky)
Subject: Re: Vatican Recognition of Israel - Who Needs It?
Organization: Somewhere East or Somewhere West
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:58:18 GMT

In article <98855@netnews.upenn.edu>, rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov22.165131.27516@cs.brown.edu> hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky) writes:
|> >[...] The Vatican only this
|> >year, after a decade or two of investigation, finally acquiesced to
|> >the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun. Galileo has been ex - ex -
|> >communicated.
|> 
|> This is not correct.  The Vatican has accepted the geo-centric model of the
|> solar system for centuries.  Furthermore, Galileo's conviction was motivated
|> not by the scientific issues but by the fact that he deliberately insulted the
|> Pope; the charges were arranged as retaliation for the insult.  (The Roman
|> Catholic Church also explicitly accepts evolution, by the way.)
|> 
|>    Robert

For centuries? Hmmm....

Are you sure the Galileo deal had NOTHING to do with the fact that
what Galileo proposed was blatantly in opposition to the teachings of
the Church? Seems to me that the Vatican is always bitterly reluctant
to change - and this is in today's "enlightened" world. I can not
imagine how much more rigid the Roman Catholic church must have been
centuries ago, when it was essentially the sole "educated" institution
in a society which was for the most part highly striated and highly
illiterate. I would venture to guess that the Church was kind of
scared of havings its unquestionables put to the test - and thus the
ex-communication.

Of course, I am hardly a scholar in this area. So if what I have said
is indeed historically inaccurate, I stand corrected. However, it
seems that what I have said is not too far from the way things really
happened.

Harry.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:36:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.97703
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET (Yaakov Kayman)

In article <92318.120107YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, YZKCU@CUNYVM (Yaakov Kayman) writes:
>It appears that only one of us, i.e., you, was talking about witnesses.
>I was referring to who would be allowed to sit as a dayyan (rabbinical
>judge) in a beit din performing an actual conversion. Unobservant wit-
>nesses, btw, can also prove problematical, but that's a different matter.

Both of us were talking about a conversion.  That meant qualifications
for a witness, not a judge, were the issue.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Prayer shawls
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 07:44:35 GMT

In <9211150344.AA14346@host0.COLBY.EDU> jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU (Nice Young Lady(tm)) writes:

>How can the plural of tallis be talitot? It's not a feminine noun,

Nouns ending with tav are feminine (talit ends with tav), as a rule,
as are those ending in kamatz-heh.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			    Jerusalem
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: NO WAY! (Re: A message from Kach to the Arabs?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:46:44 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <92322.135608YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET (Yaakov Kayman) writes:
>
>immoral. THis, after all, is MURDER, hardly anything ***RABBI*** Kahane
>might ever have given his approval to!

Are you positive about this?

>Yaakov K., supporter of Rav Meir Kahane, Hashem Yiqqom Dammo
>           (may G-d avenge his blood!)

Against those "Arab dogs", right?

Wa salam ... 
asinA
From: rlk@think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Oral sex
Date: 18 Nov 1992 08:47:36 -0500
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation

In article <1992Nov18.032715.283@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg) writes:

      Not to mention that according to (Yivamot? it was daf yomi in August)
      there is no possibility of pregnancy from a woman's first relations
      which would mean that one could never get started.
      (I wonder why the Amoraim excluded Lot's daughters. Anybody know?)

I certainly hope that no one takes THIS old chestnut seriously!
Whatever the source, there are plenty of recorded examples of getting
pregnant "the first time".
-- 
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: goy
Organization: Smiley Abolition Front
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:16:22 GMT

In article <9211191645.AA28619@tequila.lanl.gov> <rena@tequila.LANL.GOV (Rena Whiteson)> writes:
>>FYI: In case you're wondering, the word "goy" (pl. "goyim") is
>>not at all derogatory; it is just the Talmudic word for non-Jew.
>
>Actually goy means nation.  Goyim means nations. Because of the context
>of much of its usage it has come to mean 'all the other nations'. 

In Biblical Hebrew "goy" means "nation", to be sure. But in
post-Biblical Hebrew it means "non-Jew". That is how (e.g.) the
Talmud uses the word.

-- 
Andrew Michael Solovay    

"When angry, count four. When very angry, swear."
                --Mark Twain
From: aplebaum@irs01.cs.huji.ac.il (Hillel Applebaum)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: nothing to do with jesus of Nazareth
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:48:39 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew U. of Jerusalem, Computer Science Dep.
NNTP-Posting-Host: irs01.cs.huji.ac.il

In article <2817@israel.nysernet.org>, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:
|> In <4443@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:
|> 
|> >The slogen:  " Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh "  means:
|> 
|> >    "It is better to expel Jews
|> >        than to fight ( the  Arabs  who want Jews  to disappear) . "
|> 
|> Gideon is not entirely incorrect, although, as in many translations,
|> the translator's interpretation has been added, at the expense of
|> accurately conveying the intent of the person who said it.
|> 
|> Maybe this does have something to do with the original title, after
|> all - compare translations of the Tanach.

Did u both know that rightists are fater then leftists ?
where 400,000 leftist stood - only 100,000 rightits can stand !
(after the HAFGANA last night in TA for peace with the Golan. 

-- 

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
/ Hillel P. Applebaum  |> ISRAEL - where all
/ Jerusalem,   Israel  |  jews should live !
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Re: Baby Ruth O-U - When?
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:18:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.151452.4579@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> er@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Elie Rosenfeld) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.203039.5645@umbc3.umbc.edu>, shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>|> cholent.  Now I LOVE chocolate (wanted to say haTov v'ha'Metiv
>|> when Baby Ruth's got the OU)
>
>Eliott, you mentioned these candy bars getting the O-U a few weeks ago.  I
>haven't been able to find them in stores with the O-U yet.  Two questions:
>
>1) When are the O-U marked ones supposed to be coming out?
>2) Can we eat them currently, before the ones marked with an O-U appear?  I.e.,
>are they already considered O-U supervised even without the markings?
>
>Please post reply - I'm sure many other candy-lovers want to know!

I am pleased to inform you that, according to the Baltimore Vaad
haKashrut, all Baby Ruth bars are now kosher, even though the
labels do not yet bear the OU.  Apparently old labels are still
being used, but all the pre-OU stock "in the distribution pipeline"
has been used up.

So GO FOR IT!

(Incidentally, the Baltimore Vaad maintains a kashrut hotline, and
anyone can call for information about particular products.  Their
number is 410 484-4110.)



-- 
Eliot Shimoff                  |    n   n   n
   shimoff@umbc3.umbc.edu      |   X + Y = Z .  Easy to prove no solutions
Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu ...  |   for n greater than 2.  Darn.  Can't fit
Better luck next year!         |   it into this little .sig file.  Oh well.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Belief and science (Einstein)
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:04:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.011214.2351@eng.umd.edu> cema@eng.umd.edu (Simon Hawkin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.174400.4716@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>>In article <emc.721579695@tomalak> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>>In <BxJ4y8.5Bs@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>>Putting on my professional hat, when one examines the process of inference
>>>>carefully, what is being done is using data to update beliefs.  That we do
>>>>not carry this out explicitly, and in fact cannot, is due the the sheer
>>>>size of the problem--massively larger than the size of the universe.
>>>
>>>>God knows His laws of the operation of the universe, but we are commanded
>>>>to work at getting approximations to them.  It is only in this way that we
>>>>can have mastery over haaretz.
>>>
>>>But you have come to this conclusion using the process of inference that
>>>is incomplete, as you have mentioned.  So how do you stand above that 
>>>incompleteness to propose the above as a fact rather than as a theory?
>>>
>>>I submit as well, that any being that knows the universe in its totality
>>>would have to contain more information than the universe: MUCH, MUCH more.
>>>But then we have just expanded the universe by that statement.
>>
>>It is mathematically provable that the class of all true sentences in
>>a reasonable language is impossible to define in that language
>>(Tarski's Paradox). 
>
>	<...>
>
>>	The solution to the paradox in its normal form (which does not
>>mention God!) is as follows: an adequate language will be able to
>>express the idea of a concept (by talking about sentences in the
>>language and substituting names in the language for the variable x)
>>and thus the only ingredient of the argument which is open to
>>challenge is the idea that we can define truth for sentences of a
>>given language in that language (which blocks the definition of C).
>>This solution seems unsatisfactory for the theological form of the
>>paradox.  God must know the truth or falsehood of any proposition.
>>
>>	Any suggestions?
>
>May it happen that G-d does not *know*, but *believes* ?

If God believes something, it must be true, and if it is true, He must
believe it.  The paradox can then be restated in terms of belief
instead of knowledge, and has the same force.

>
>Since I am no religious, this is nothing more but a joke. However,
>what do the theologists think about that ?
>
>Thanks for enlightening in advance.
>-- 
>---
>This is Simon Hawkin from Merry Land.


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
From: rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 15 Nov 92 13:35:58 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <1992Nov11.225149.17731@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:

>>I have, especially at my kids school where I often find some kid's
>>school bag laying on the ground, left and forgotten about.
>
>I'm not sure if "property" means "real property" as in "real estate."
                                   ^^^^                  ^^^^

I thought that 'real' in this sense is a corruption of 'royal' (as in
'real' mayonnaise).

>--
>Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus


--
Be'ahavat chinam (with causeless love)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg             |     ^
Bitnet:                      |  \-/-\-/  "He's not the messaiah.  He's a
rothberg@bimacs              |   X   X    very naughty boy."
Internet:                    |  /-\-/-\                        - Brian's Mum
rothberg@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il |     V
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen)
Subject: Interest, Mortgages, Commodity Markets and Baba Metzia
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:04:06 GMT
Organization: Geophysical Laboratory, CIW


I am studying Baba Metzia and wonder what current thoughts and
practice are regarding interest.  According to the Talmud, both
paying and receiving interest from Jews is forbidden.  It is
permitted to lend and borrow from non-Jews, but a Jew cannot
borrow money from a non-Jew that was lent to the non-Jew by
another Jew.  Furthermore, indirect interest is also forbidden, so
that commodity markets would also be forbidden.  Is there a
commodity market in Israel?  What about mortgages?  What is the
situation in Israel?  I would appreciate any
comments/clarifications/corrections.  Thanks,
-- 
Ronald Cohen
Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington
5251 Broad Branch Rd., N.W.,  Washington, D.C. 20015
From: yair@pita.cs.huji.ac.il (Yair Friedman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: G-d or G*d?
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:24:20 GMT
Reply-To: yair@cs.huji.ac.il
Organization: The Hebrew U. of Jerusalem, Computer Science Dep.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pita.cs.huji.ac.il

In article <emc.721944213@keiko>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
|> I have long been interested in the repect shown to God by
|> not spelling out His name in full.


|> 
|> 1. Suppose you happened to stumble on a desert island,
|>    and you found a lost Jewish community that had been that had been
|>    stranded on that island for 500 years and was keeping many
|>    Jewish traditions without knowing why.  They commonly
|>    referred to God as "G-d" (or the equivalent in their language).
|>    Would you go about changing another vowel or consonant of the
|>    now commonly used name to show your repect?  That is would you
|>    use "G-b" instead of "G-d" (remember "G-d" is being used liberaly
|>    by everybody on the island).
|> 

Somthing link this did happend in Hebrew.  God's name used to be replaced
by h' (Hei and a quote) , but now this also has some holyness in it
and it sometimes replaced by d' (Dalet and a quote)


|> 3. Considering your answer to questions 1 and 2, and considering that
|>    the common name for God on SCJ is G-d,  should we begin to use
|>    a more respectful name?  In other words, I know what you mean
|>    by G-d, and you know what you mean by G-d, so whenever we see
|>    G-d we automatically know that it refers to God?  Should we
|>    use an even more respecful term that is not commonly used?
|> 

How about HQBH ? (Ha-Qadosh Barukh Hu)

|> 5. Should we have an equivalent to "G-d" in speech?  Should we say
|>    Hashem ("the name" literally in Hebrew) instead of saying God?
|>    Is it more respectful to completely bypass saying the name of
|>    God.  So instead we should say Hashem said this, or Hashem
|>    did that?  When it becomes commonly used, should we delete a
|>    vowel?  For instance "Hash-m"? Or two, "H-sh-m"?

I remember reading a long time ago about this subject (God's name
in foreign languages) I remember reading that God name in other
languages hasn't got the same status a the name in Hebrew, and
can be sayd almost freely. However, It has some holiness in it
and therefor should not be said in disrespecful places.

Written words has even lower status. The question was about taking
US$ in the lavatory because the have "In God we trust" on them.  I thnk the
answer was that it is allowed.

Computer data is even less than writing, One can write holy names on computer
and arase them later since "writing" on a terminal is not actually writing - 
There is no permenant letter shape anyware.

|> Eli Chiprout
|> Dept. of Electronics,
|> Carleton University, Canada
|> emc@doe.carleton.ca

-- 
					Yair Friedman.
yair@cs.huji.ac.il
yair%cs@hujivms.BITNET
From: bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Brian E. Foont)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Religious freedom in Spain
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:48:32 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <By5FE0.1vq@nic.umass.edu> urena@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Richard Urena) writes:
>>In article <34eiuB2w165w@valpso.hanse.de> tichauer@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo Tichauer) writes:
>>>  But there is something much more interesting than this. A Jewish friend
>>>  from Bolivia told me that in Bolivia there was a  JEWISH PRESIDENT
>>>  who governed from 1947-1949, and whose name was Enrique Hertzog.If this
>>>  would be true, than I think he would have been the only Jewish president
>>>  of a country (and a Catholic one!) that is not Israel.
>
>The previous president of Panama, Eric Arturo Delvalle, is jewish.
>(He was president in name only.  The real power was in Noriega's hands)
>
Was Benjamin Disraeli Jewish?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish