HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hlevene@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Howard Levene)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Kaddish for pets?
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:12:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct8.232928.27379@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.190149.11311@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jweber@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (jodi.weber) writes:

>>Is there a rule/ruling on whether one may say Kaddish for a pet?

>Hmmm... is the pet Jewish?
>-- 
>Andrew M. Solovay       "Work is the curse of the drinking class."

Well, I have a pet mouse.  I'm very sure that it is under 13, but I know it
did not attend Yom Kippur Services and I've never seen it collect a Minyan
in my room (Baruch Hashem!).  Also, I am sure it is not circumcised.
(And if it were, I'd love to meet the master Mohel who did the job!)

Therefore, I conclude that my mouse is not Jewish.  And if things go well, it
will soon be eaten by my neighbor's snake (also not Jewish--the snake and the
neighbor that is.)

I hope everybody had an easy fast an was inscribed for a happy and healthy 
year.

--
 Howard B. Levene              |    "I'll call you the next time I pass
   You'd think I'd use someone |         through your star system."
      else's opinions?         |          -- Commander Wil Riker, ST:TNG
 hlevene@eniac.seas.upenn.edu  |  Data is a Mechanical Engineer, too.
From: backon@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Hebrew origin of some English words
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:31:43 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

In article <Pine.3.05.9210110920.A3579-9100000@alsys1>, somer@aecom.yu.edu (Bradley Somer) writes:
> Perhaps Niddah comes from Nidation (implantation of the zygote on the
> uterine lining). It is this uterine lining that falls off if fertilization
> doesn't take place which renders a woman a niddah.  If this is far fetched
> let me know.       Good Yom Tov
>             Brad Somer


You beat me to it. I had thought of this yesterday. Nidus in Latin means nest
or breeding place so it is certainly *not* far fetched to assume a Hebrew
source especially as NIDAH appears in the Torah (and is not a late,
Talmudic-era  word).

Josh
backon@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL
From: allen@golem.ssc.gov (Michael Allen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Humor in the Bible (was: Heroes in the Bible)
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:37:01 GMT
	<2939@ceylon.gte.com>
Reply-To: allen@ssc.gov
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX

In article <2939@ceylon.gte.com> sg04@ploni.gte.com (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund) writes:

   A non-religous Israeli once challenged me to give examples
   of humor in the Bible (by this he meant Tanach, and specifically
[...]
   But can anyone give explicit examples of humor in T'Nach?

Well, the closest I can come is dark sarcasm, when the B'nei Yisrael
were fleeing Egypt, they turned to Moshe Rabbeinu and cried:
"Nu?  There weren't enough graves in Egypt?!?"
--
Mo'adim L'Simchah!

===================================================
But those who toiled knew nothing of the dreams of 
        Those Who Planned;                         
And the minds who planned the Tower of Babel       
        Cared nothing for the workers who built it.

	-Metropolis
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Heroes in the Hebrew Bible
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:03:27 GMT

miriah@loro-next.Stanford.EDU (Claire Bacher) writes:

#The heroes and heroines of the Hebrew Bible (eg., Abraham, Moses, Samuel,  
#David, Ruth, Deborah) although noble in various ways, are also flawed.   
#What does this suggest about the moral values of the Hebrews and their  
#concept of heroes ?

I just love these innocent questions... seriously now, I think it
suggests that all humans have flaws, and that the Bible didn't make
an attempt to whitewash the leaders and heroes of the Hebrews, but
gave an authentic report of how they were. Other religions have not
followed that pattern, but instead "cosmeticized" their heroes.

-Danny Keren.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor on SNL
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 07:15:52 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

abilenko@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Arkady Bilenko) writes:

> 	Dear netters, 
> If any of you were as geeky as I to watch SNL on Sat, Oct 3, I was wondering
> whether anyone else but me noticed the "Star of David" pendant on Sinead 
> O'Connor.  If so, what could it mean?  I am aware that that particular Jewish
> symbol became such only sometime last century, so perhaps, some Gaelic or Iri
> ethnic groups would claim it as their own.  Anyway, just random thoughts and 
> questions.

There was a Celtic "Wiccan" sect that used an upright triangle to
designate the masculine principle and an inverted triangle to designate
the feminine.  These two were used in combination to symbolize sexual
union or marriage.  But I think their leader was ethnically jewish.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: sexism
Organization: liver ---> spleen
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:15:36 GMT

In article <1bi5uiINN5ka@agate.berkeley.edu> lmk2@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:

>just a question:  How many men who defend the sex roles in 
>orthodox practice would switch places?  That is, stay home,
>have babies, look after the house, ask your wife when you want
>to go somewhere if she can drive you, and never have any time
>to study Torah (or very little)?  the obvious answer would be
>that women just naturally don't have to study Torah or that
>they don't want to.  Let's hear some non-obvious answers.

I'm not sure I understand the question (fopr example, what is a
"non-obvious" answer), but I'll try to answer it.

If I believe the Torah is G-d given - something implicit in the
question's target of Orthodox practice, I think - then I come to the
following conclusions:

- Judaism is not sexist except, possibly by some measure based on current
society's definition.  This definition is not only new, it is still
changing.

- As a G-d based system, I would have no problem following that which G-d
said as interpreted in Halachic writings.  This applies to me whether
male or female.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: COBOL (was Re: Intermarriage)
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:17:51
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<9210122129.AA00645@robocop.NYU.EDU>
	<GRABINER.92Oct13193833@boucher.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: grabiner@math.harvard.edu's message of 13 Oct 92 23:44:27 GMT

In article <GRABINER.92Oct13193833@boucher.harvard.edu> grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:

   In article <9210122129.AA00645@robocop.NYU.EDU>, Jonathan Baker writes:

   > Andrew Solovay writes:

   >> The Torah clearly forbids writing in COBOL.

   > Where does it say that?  What proof can you bring?  Where do we learn over
   > that COBOL is assur?

   Mishnah Fortran 2:5:

   Computer programming is work, and must be done without any waste.  Thus
   it is permissible to program in efficient languages, but not in COBOL.
   Rav Watson says: Assembly language is the most efficient language, and
   is thus the only proper language.  But the Sages say: It is not
   efficient to program if there are too many errors.  If one can program
   in assembler, he should, but it is permissible to program in Lisp or C.
   For him, this is not wasteful.

   Would anyone like to add some Gemara?

Another group of sages agrees that APL is a proper language, but I
understood that Rav Watson claimed that APL is a form of idol worship,
as it does not use the ASCII character set.
--
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 league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Subject: Re: Sukkah at work?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:27:26 GMT

In article <memo.684838@cix.compulink.co.uk> stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>In-Reply-To: <CPLS13-141092092818@145.1.92.160> CPLS13@email.mot.com (Steven_Cohn)
>
>> TITLE: Sukkah at work?
>
> ...
>A lawyer I know used to turn his car into a Sukkah. The car had a
>sliding roof which was large enough to meet the halachic requirements
>for a Sukkah and he put some S'chach on top and a curtain in the car
>to make a wall and would eat his lunch in it.
>
>

There's a better solution - but consult your LOR before you do this:

Assuming your car is less than approx. 6 feet wide, you could
open 2 doors on the same side of the car, and place kosher schach
on top of the doors. 

The only problem is the height of the doors above the ground. If it is
less than approx 11 inches (3 tefachim), there is no problem.
Otherwise, you may have to add a curtain or something to the bottom of
the door. Also, the doors should be at least approx. 28 inches (7 tefachim)
wide.

Then the area under that schach (I maintain) is a kosher sucha. It has
3 walls, 2 of them being the 2 doors, the 3rd wall being the far
end of the car and the car-roof which is considered part of the wall
(i.e. dofon akuma, provided it is less than 4 amos == approx. 6 feet).


Hayim Hendeles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:57:08 GMT

aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur) writes:
#
#dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:

# I do not think that this detail changes anything. Instead of
# that I would like to get answer on question like that : If Polish
# lawmakers would throw away Jewish owners from their houses, how
# would you call it ?

I fail to understand your reasoning, as the law you suggested exists
in Israel does not exist. So why make this analogy?

##Photograph of pairlament members laying dynamite? Of *anyone*
##laying dynamite? Eh?

#Clearly it was seen. However still I do not see much difference
#even if it wouldn't be - perpetrators were armed. 

Every Jew that moves around in the territories is armed. A necessary
precaution, as I have come to learn myself a few years ago.

##Oh so WW2 and what is going on today in Bosnia and Germany is
##a "bloody incident"?

##Well there must be a few hundred thousands homes in Poland that
##belonged to Jews. Who lives in them now? Suppose my grandfather
##was a Polish Jew who died in Auschwitz. Can I go now and claim
##his house??

#Certainly you can go there and claim. But I wouldn't go there with
#arms and try to throw away because one can end up in jail.

Ok, I will come with an olive branch and a big smile. Do I get
the house then?

##Again, what's your point? What percentage of Israeli/US Jews
##did Kahane stand for?

#We don't know because he did not take part in election. But if you
#want to compare with Duke or Pen, it would be good to compare their
#statements and their programs.

Actually Kahane did take part in an election (beofre he was banned).
He got one seat out of the 120 in the Knesset, much less than
Duke and La-Pen. I don't know too much about La-Pen, maybe you
can elaborate. As for Duke, up to a few years ago he was a Hitler
admirer, a Holocaust denier, he participated in distributing 
cassets with songs like "Some Niggers never die", and was a "Grand
Wizard" of the KKK. He still makes racist remarks. Nontheless he
got 40 percent of the Luisiana vote.

-Danny Keren.
From: egw@utkvx2.utk.edu (Wolpert, Edward Greenwal)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: sexism
Summary: preponderance of male responses
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:20:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1b7sucINNhtj@agate.berkeley.edu>, lmk2@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes...
> 
>Why is it always predominantly men who invoke the argument of
>the word of G-d and the argument that they see nothing unfair
>to women in Orthodox tradition?
> 
>Leslie
> 
	Unfortunately, that is true.  However, one must understand where the
sexism is comming from.  Because of the age of Judaism, customs were developed
before equality.  Although one can not change the Hebrew text of the Torah,
from the appeared sexism, we can modify our Translations.  (Please, I don't 
mean change the meaning of the text, just the sexism.)  I remember when I first
learned the blessings in the Sidur where at one point men say (shortened)
"Bless G-d who hath not made me a woman" and woman say "Bless G-d who hath
made me according to his will."  In a conservative Prayer Book, (By Ben Zion
Bokser) these are not said, but are replaced by less controversial phrases.
(I may be wrong about it being a conservative Prayer Book.  I assumed it wasn't
Ortho. simply because it was not the Sidur.)
	The Tanach isn't too sexist, in my humble male view.  Just look at the
book of Ruth and Ester.  (The story of Ester may put her in a sexist role, but
again, remember the time period.)  IMHO, most of the sexism comes from the
traditional phrases.  Many will argue that we can not break tradition, but I
don't suggest breaking tradition, only modifying our perception of what is
important.  It is not important for men to say "Bless G-d  who hath not made
me a woman," as it is important for people to praise G-d.
	This post was my feeble attempt to avert a flame war that will probably
develope anyway, as well as to remind those who may feel alienated by the
sexism in many of our traditions that we are still Jews.  One cannot just
ignore a problem, or abandon attempts to solve it, such as the woman who left
the Ortho. branch of Judasim.  There must be a way to solve this problem.  If
all Jews, female and male, work together, then a solution will be found.
	Humbly, edward wolpert
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The I-can't-believe-they-got-a-hescher-on-this thread
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:12:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Oct8.205324.18322@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>1. If you really believe that the wafer has become the flesh of
>   Jesus, then you are performing an action which you believe is
>   cannibalism. If you are a Jew, this is definitely sinful. I'm
>   not sure if cannibalism is forbidden to goyin. In any event,
>   the sin would be in the intent to perform cannibilism, not is
>   the eating itself (because it's still bread, even if you think
>   it's flesh).

I don't think cannibilism is illegal to goyim, as long as the poor
victim isn't alive at the time.  As for intent, I know of no sins that
you get from intention.  You have to take an action to be guilty of
it.  Sin-by-intent is not Jewish.  When someone on the highway cuts me
off during rush hour, I think about doing horrible things to him, but
God doesn't count it as a sin or inflict punnishment unless I act on
these feelings.

>2. According to Catholic belief, a sanctified communion wafer is
>   God. Eating it is thus a form of worship of a physical object;
>   this is idolatrous for a Jew or a goy. Even if a Jew doesn't
>   believe the wafer is God, he is performing an idolatrous
>   ritual; this is forbidden whether he believes in it or not.

This is definitely true.  If you consider Jesus to be an idol.  The
Christians don't claim to believe in polytheism - they claim that the
trinity is one, and that this one is the same as the Jewish God.  I
have a hard time accepting that, but it may be enough to count
Christianity as non-idolatry.

Of course, it's still wrong, since you can make others believe you're
participating in Christian ritual.  Which is wrong because you might
convince others to actually participate if you were seen.  This would
only make sense if you ate it in a Church with the rituals.  If you
just had a box of sanctified wafers and were munching them in your
living room with a can of beer while watching a football game, I don't
think anyone would consider you practicing Christianity.  Of course,
some Christians would probably get offended!  :-)

>And BTW: When I kept kosher, it used to really bug me that Easter
>candy was never kosher-certified. Y'see, right after Easter it
>went on sale...

Some of it is.  But much of this candy is marshmellow-derived, and
contains gelatin.  I think Cadbury Creme Eggs are certified, but I'll
have to check the wrapper in the Spring just to be sure.
-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: Larry Israel <VSLARRY@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL>
Subject:      Re: The I-can't-believe-they-got-a-hescher-on-this thread
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <Larry Israel <VSLARRY@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL>>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:18:39 GMT

I believe that if an idolator either worships some object, or consecrates
it in some way to idolatry, or uses it in an idolatrous ceremony, the
item becomes prohibited to Jews in every way - a Jew may no longer derive
benefit from it.

Therefore, if what the priest does with the matzo is considered idolatrous,
then the matzo is prohibited to Jews. I don't know, and I am deliberately
avoiding, the question of whether it is idolatrous or not; note the "if"
in the preceding sentence.

On the other hand, if the matzo is not in the priest's possession, the
words he says over it would have no effect on its permissibility.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: sexism
Organization: liver ---> spleen
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:11:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.002501.11405@ils.nwu.edu> allender@ils.nwu.edu
(Laura Allender) writes:

>                                             or modern-egalitarian 
>orthodox schul.

I find this hard to picture.  Where do you find this congregation?  Is it
your description or theirs.  I suppose I've seen "traditional"
Conservative that appear Orthodox (on the basis of the prayer book,
liturgy, and even style) that allow women's participation, but
"egalitarian"-Orthodox seems like an oxymoron.

>KAM Isaiah Israel in Chicago, has two male rabbi's and one female
>rabbi.  We are Reform to the Conservative side -- more Hebrew, etc.
>Rabbi Wolf is adamant about refering to G-d as either G-d or she,
>and he finds  plenty of evidence to support this claim.  We also
>have an excellent woman scholar who teaches several classes for
>adults and children that present a feminist & Jewish interpretation
>of the bible.  There are places where liberal views coexist with
>Judaism -- the difficult task is to find the right place for you.

While I have no problem emphasizing G-d's feminine aspects (both
masculine and feminine attributes exist - and probably must given that
we can't limit G-d to a single gender), I consider it just as sexist to
ignore the masculine ones.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: sexism
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:29:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Oct16.182903.23740
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <2677@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>I suppose that one could go through this thread and tally the number
>of men vs. women who stated that they found nothing unfair to women in
>O.
>
>People who criticize Judaism as sexist or agree that it needs to
>change or say that non-O solves the problems
>M/F = 5/4
>
>People who defend O
>M/F = 9/0
>    David Charlap

I resent this grouping.  You talk about comparing one statistic (men
vs. women that found nothing unfair to women in O), then you provide
numbers for another (those who criticise Judaism as sexist or want to
change it) and then for the other side, you give a third set of
statistics (people who defend O).

There's a big difference between defending Orthodoxy and claiming that
it is not sexist here.  Your two groups are quite disjoint.  Of course
Judaism is sexist - there are enforced differences between the sexes.
Just as it's unfair that a woman can't be called to the Torah, I find
it unfair that I must get up and go to shul every Saturday morning no
matter what the weather's like.

Sure, I can stay home and she can find a shul that will call her, but
this doesn't change the unfairness in the system.

But this doesn't mean that Orthodoxy and this separation is without
value.  There are enforced differences.  And neither is superior to
the other.  A woman's role in the home is every bit as important (if
not more so) than a man's role in the workplace, and any Jew who
doesn't think so should go and study some more.

In summary, I fit into all three groups.  Yes, Judaism is unfair.
It's unfair to men as well as to women.  Yes, it is sexist - if the
sexes are not treated exactly the same, it'd have to be.  I know of no
culture in existance (including women's rights movements) that are not
sexist.  And no, things don't need to change.  And non-Orthodoxy isn't
a solution to the problem.

-- 
David Charlap         |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jbaltz@hebrew.cc.columbia.edu (Jerry B Altzman)
Subject: Re: * Yeshu ? *
Summary: NO NO not another punfest!
Keywords: pun
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:18:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.013640.8221@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>In article <2682@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>>dg = gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)
>>dg: There is no n+1 "coming" for n not equal to zero.
>>me: must n be an integer?
>>dg: No.  But it must be real.
>>Perhaps imaginary values of n are for occasions that the mashiach
>>almost came but didn't?
>You raise a very complex issue, indeed.
You can't imagine the magnitude of it. 

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

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman       Relax, it's all just 1's and 0's       +1 212 854 2057 
jbaltz@columbia.edu                                      jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)                    ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: Intermarriage
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:44:19 GMT

solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:

>This is a bad example. The Torah clearly forbids programming in
>COBOL.

Yes, but the COBOLLAH allows it.

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish