HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:51:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Nov11.225149.17731
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio

In article <memo.743419@cix.compulink.co.uk> stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>Torah true Judaism is THE only path. Anything that rejects its
>legitimacy is not the correct path.


Faith is an axiom system.  What you accept on faith is yours, and
what I accept is mine.

Arguing about faith -- about basic beliefs -- will get us no where.

Living together however, in a world where peoples with different
beliefs whose faiths differ, simply takes recognition of that fact.

...
>Anyone can believe what they like. We have, after all, been given
>free will. I reserve the right, however, not to respect certain
>beliefs.

Sure.  And so do others.  No argument there.  But how we treat
people, whether or not we respect their beliefs, is something that
should make us a light unto the nations.  Our actions speak for us.

>>     4.  How many of you returned your property to its original owner?
>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."

If so, please re-read this question with that in mind.
....
>I really cannot understand your argument. But let me ask you this; if
>there were a Beis Hamikdash today, would the Conservative movement
>take part in its ceremonies (sacrifices, etc.)?

As you surely know, the conservative siddurim have modified the
Amidah prayer, which orthodox siddurim have as Restore the
Bet Hamikdash "where we will once again perform the sacrifices" to
"where the sacrifices were performed."

This change has gotten lots of folks up in a tizzy; it doesn't
deny the possibility of sacrifices.

Considering the reaction in some orthodox quarters to women in a
minyan, reading Torah, becoming rabbis and cantors, permitting
electricity on Shabbat, and even driving to shul on shabbat -- and I
do understand why these actions cause a reaction, I am surprised
the modification of this prayer gets the reaction in orthodox
circles that it does.

Frankly, I do not particularly look forward to performing
sacrifices, but it is not something I need to worry about today.
The last time I looked, the Temple would not be rebuilt until the
Messiah comes, and who knows if he will return to the ways of
sacrifice?  Was it Rav Kook who believed the Messiah will do away
with the need for sacrifices?  If true, conservative Judaism may be
ahead fo the times. 

But you ask a theoretical question, one that cannot truly be
answered.  It's like saying, Tell me, when the resurrection comes,
will wives, who had the (mis)fortune to outlive several husbands, be
permitted to stay with their several husbands?  When the Temple is
rebuilt, will you wear techeilet?  Will you go to the Kohen to
diagnose leprosy (or whatever)?  Will synagogue prayer stop?   I
don't know.  These are theoretical questions.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
From: sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Israel and the diaspora
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:18:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsl.1992Nov9.161835.7315
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <92313.1453122893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:
> In article <dfs.721183164@vash>, dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) says:
> >
> >In <92312.0400382893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
> ><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
> >
> >>Ah yes, the famous "wish you were here" argument. Unfortunately, Israel's
> >>actions often effect us in the diaspora.
> >
> >Oh, please!  We here in Canada are sitting comfortably.  Israel's effects
> >on us are nothing compared to those who actually live there.  Using the
> >argument that "it looks bad to the Gentiles" is a bit of a ghetto
> >mentality.
> >
> >>For example until a few years ago
> >>about 90% of Russian Jewish emigres emigrated to nations other than Israel.
> >>Israel, feeling that the inherent right of these people to travel should only
> >>be extended as far as Israel tried to make it impossible for them to go
> >>elsewhere by arranging direct flights to Jerusalem and getting the U.S. to
> >>impose quotas on the number of Russian Jews entering the country.
> >
> >Hardly.  I think you'll find that the vast majority of the lobbyists
> >were Americans, not Israelis, who were working under a (misguided) sense
> >of Zionism.
> 
> Then why did Natan Sharansky criticise Israel and North american Jews for
> doing just what I claim, this was covered in CJN about two or three years
> ago. That's right, my source is the Canadian Jewish News
> 

This agrees with what all the Soviet immigrants I have worked with
in the last few years say.  In fact many of them are saving up
money now to get their relatives in Israel out to the US also.
Some Jews who can't get refugee status are coming on tourist
visas, and staying illegally getting cash jobs, and putting a drain
on the local Jewish Family Services resources for handling them,
since money is only allocated for those with refugee status.
General services open to the community at large are still available,
but no housing allowances for instance.

Cutting down the options has also caused considerable numbers
of Russian Jews who can't get to the US to go to Germany instead.
Better economics is the only reason.  Given what is happening
there, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging Jews to
emigrate to Germany.


		Seth Rosenthal

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own not my employers'.
From: nraclaw@jade.tufts.edu (Nissan Raclaw)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Movie "Exodus"
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:48:48 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

In article <1992Nov9.203808.2026@col.hp.com> danl@col.hp.com (Daniel Lockhart) writes:
>In the scene, the young boy swears on a book and gun.  The question seems
>easy at first, what book is he swearing on?
>
>A) the Tanach ( is swearing on the Tanach permitted in Jewish culture?
>              ( how available were copies of the Tancah in 1948?
>              ( something seems wrong about the gun and a Tanach!
	

>
>B) Another book other than the Tanach
>
>C) Just another movie stereotype that doesn't really exist.
>
>daniel

Something seems wrong with a Tanach and a gun?  If I am not mistaken,
that is precisely the two things that are given to a paratrooper when he
is sworn into that elite unit.  The Tanach, which represents the wisdom
of Judaism and the history of the Jews, goes along just fine with a
Jewish soldier (the next step in that history), no?

Nissan  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Subject: Was the Holocaust Unique?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 19:48:13 GMT


I would like to know if the Holocaust was unique in Jewish history.

Specifically, according to my understanding, the holocaust was the
first time in history that there was a mass effort to kill the
entire Jewish people ch"v - no if's, and's, or buts. NO matter
whether the Jew was a practicing Jew or not, no matter whether he
even identified himself as a Jew or not, no matter if he had ch"v
"converted to some other religion"  generations back - he
was still a target for Hitler.   Hitler did not plan to stop
until every last Jew was eradicated from the face of the Earth.

Am I correct? Is the holocaust unique in this aspect? Are there
other unique aspects to the holocaust?

Hayim Hendeles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: rmt51@cas.org (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Pierced Ears
Reply-To: rmt51@cas.org
Organization: S.W.I.G.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:41:13 GMT

In article <4441@bimacs.BITNET>, rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg)
writes:
|> 
|> The piercing of ears is permitted as it is not permanent; if one
|> removes the earing and does not put anything in its place, the hole
|> will eventually close up.
|> 
I've heard this before, and it simply isn't true, provided the holes have
completely healed.  My grandmother, a"h, had had her ears pierced when she
was a child in Europe, but hadn't worn earrings for over 20 years.  Once when
getting dressed for some special occasion, she decided to try and insert
earrings into her old holes.  She had only minimal difficulty in getting them
in the first time, and then continued to wear earrings for many years
thereafter.
|> --
|>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Danny Rothenberg            |    ^     Life's a dream-so sleep through it!
|> Bitnet:                     | \-/-\-/ Be'ahavat Chinam (With causeless love)
|> rothberg@bimacs             |  X   X Am Yisra'el       The People of Israel
|> Internet:                   | /-\-/-\Be'Eretz Yisra'el In The Land of Israel
|> rothberg@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il|    V   Im Torat Yisra'el With The Torah of
|> Israel
|>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Rick Turkel           (___  ____ _  _  _  _  _     _  ___   _  _ _  ___
(rmt51@cas.org)           )    |  |  \  )  |/ \     |    |   |  \_)    |
(rmt51@cas.bitnet)       /     | _| __)/   | __)    | ___|_  | _( \    |
			Ein navi be`iro.            |
From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:04:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: umbc3.1992Nov10.200405.16219
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County

In article <92314.212922CARIAN@auvm.american.edu> <CARIAN@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.163429.24770@umbc3.umbc.edu> shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu
>>(Eliot Shimoff) writes:

>
>Conservative rabbis do not and may not, upon risk of expulsion from The
>Rabbinical Assembly, accept as Jewish the child of a non-Jewish woman,
>absent a valid conversion.
>
>Why is this different than the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
>conversions? Because the focus is not on the identity of the rabbi
>supervising the ritual or making the decision but on the ritual or
>decision itself.
>
>A better example would be the Conservative attitude toward Reform conversions.
>Conservative rabbis will accept Reform conversions if they are performed
>according to the proper ritual -- milah, t'vilah, bet din of three. If they
>are not performed halachically they will not be accepted-- but the reason
>is not the identity of the supervising rabbi, it is the problematic
>way in which the conversion was performed.
>
>In contradistinction, the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
>conversions is based not on the form of the conversion but the identity
>of the supervising rabbis, since the procedure and ritual in Conservative
>and Orthodox conversions is identical.

A curious example indeed!  Usually, the Orthodox position is attacked
for being overly ritualistic, and ignoring the "spirit of the law."
Here, the Orthodox position is that the ritual actions (milah, tvilah,
bet din) aren't enough; what is required is kaballat ol mitzvot
(full acceptance of the "yoke of mitzvot), and the acceptance of
the yoke of Orthodox [or Conservative] halakha is presumed absent
in a Reform conversion.

But I remain confused about why a Conservative rabbi would accept a
Reform coversion.  First, it seems likely that Reform rabbis would not
meet [Orthodox] halakhic requirements for a bet din; at the  very least,
they (the rabbis) are likely to be public desecrators of Shabbat.  Wouldn't
that disqualify them from serving on a Conservative-acceptable bet din?
And doesn't the Conservative halakha demand sincere acceptance of
halakha, again presumably absent in a Reform  conversion?




-- 
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.
From: arthur@ivory.bgu.ac.il (Arthur Goldstein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: McDonalds in Israel
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:18:47 GMT
Organization: Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
> Kosher Cheeseburgers?  Their milkshakes don't have any milk anyway so at least
> they won't have a problem there (why do you think they call them "shakes")
: 
: 
***
Not true anymore.  A good 5 years ago (or more) McD's started
using "milkshakes" and even use the "real" symbol trademark.
If you could compare an old "shake" today next to the new
"milkshake" you'd see that the old one is lumpy ice stuff
and the new one looks like whipped cream.: 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: gsm@gsm001.mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson)
Subject: Re: British Royal Family question.
Organization: Mendelson.com
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:11:10 GMT

>Why does (did) the royal family use a mohel instead of a surgeon or some
>other M.D.?

Legend says that they are direct descendants of King David.


-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson 
(215) 242-8712
gsm@mendelson.com     or uunet!gsm001!gsm
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: reingold@cs.uiuc.edu (Edward M. Reingold)
Subject: Re: book title:"Cholent"
Originator: reingold@emr.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:59:22 GMT

In article <92316.183551LMACC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Len Alshan <LMACC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>>   Several months ago a small ad for a book called "Cholent:The Art of Jewish
>>   Stew" (or something very close to that) appeared and I can not find it.  Anyone
>>   have any idea as to the publisher.  Have combed the bookstores and tried
>>   Books In Print with nothing but nothin'.  Any help would be appreciated.


The book is ``Come for Cholent'' by Kay Kantor Pomerantz, Bloch Publishing
Co., New York, 1991.  You can order it from Bloch: (212) 532-3977.  It was
$7.95 plus postage when I bought it last year.

It is a pretty poor book and I DO NOT recommend it!

--

Professor Edward M. Reingold                  Email: reingold@cs.uiuc.edu
Department of Computer Science                Phone: (217) 333-6733
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign    FAX:   (217) 333-3501
1304 W. Springfield Ave.
Urbana, IL 61801-2987  USA
-- 

Professor Edward M. Reingold                  Email: reingold@cs.uiuc.edu
Department of Computer Science                Phone: (217) 333-6733
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign    FAX:   (217) 333-3501
1304 W. Springfield Ave.
Urbana, IL 61801-2987  USA
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: sexism
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:37:09 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: CPLS13@email.mot.com (Steven_Cohn)

In article <CPLS13-061192133449@145.1.92.160>, CPLS13@email (Steven_Cohn) writes:
>> Men should wear at least knee-long pants, two layers of underwear
>> under their shirt which covers at least the middle of their biceps.

>Would you care to elaborate on this?  I don't think I understand what
>you are getting at here.

The two layers of underwear refer to the talis katan and an undershirt.
Other than that, I don't think I'm speaking particularly cryptically.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: victor@watson.ibm.com (Victor Miller)
Subject: Re: ORTHODOX
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:59:12 GMT
Reply-To: victor@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM, T.J. Watson Research Center

I think that Orthodox Judaism is an example of what William Safire
calls a "retronym": a new term used to differentiate a concept A, from
a concept B, where A used to be the only one.  Example: Analog Watch.
His column the Sunday before last was asking for a good retronym for
ordinary mail in light of e-mail, faxes, etc.  Obviously he had never
heard of "snail-mail".

--
		Victor S. Miller
		Bitnet: VICTOR at WATSON
		Internet: victor@watson.ibm.com
		IBM, TJ Watson Research Center
		"Great artists steal; lesser artists borrow" Igor Stravinsky
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 15:49:43 GMT

In article <92309.0349122893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.194247.2535@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake
>Livni) says:

>>Tell me, "Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist", who else would you like to
>>see gone?  How would you like them dealt with?  There are people in
>>this world who could make your dreams come true.  Sheesh.

>Who else would I like to see gone?
>Saddam Hussein, Carlos the Jackal, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, among others

While these people were dictators who have managed to kill many tens
(hundreds?) of thousands of people, you somehow manage to put Meir
Kahane into the same category.  How odd.

>I for one do not advocate killing these people, as I would not have
>advocated killing Kahane, but if G-d in his wisdom allows these folks to
>perish, I would not object for a moment.

Actually, G-d in his wisdom allows all of them to perish so your
objections will not be necessary.  

While the others hide behind murderous bodyguards who will wipe out
entire towns when someone from there raises effective opposition, Meir
Kahane was shot and killed in a meeting room in a Manhattan hotel.
The police, after catching the murderer, watched as a jury let him go.

The silence of your "evenhanded" lack of objection is deafening. 

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Jewish Fundamentalism
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:56:34 GMT

shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:

saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:
>>(Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>>>My guess would be that your definition of fundamentalist is much
>>>like my definition of "meshuga-frum" -- any more than two steps
>>>to the right of my practice. :-)

>>And, of course, anyone more than two steps to the left is
>>assimilationist?

>One step to the right is non-observant.
>Two steps is assimilationist
>Three steps is Unitarian

>Beyond that, they probably program in BASIC, and are thus beyond the pale.

What about two steps forward? 
Two step backward?
A knight move to king's pawn 4?
--
Eli Chiprout                 
Dept. of Electronics, 
Carleton University, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca
From: hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Noachide marriage procedure.
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:24:18 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <1992Nov5.054307.1789@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> EXTDSM@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (MADDISON,David) writes:
>
> ...
>In the ideal scheme of things from the Jewish point of view, there would only
>be Jews and Noachides. Many people are now seriously questioning the very basis
>of Xtianity and would be prepared to change to Noachide teachings but there is
>not a well developed Noachide organisation for them to turn to. Perhaps some 
>effort could be put into helping establish one. 
>


Someone posted the address of a B'nei Noach (Children of Noah) society
about a year ago. I am enclosing a copy of that post.  If you need
some more info, please get back to me.

Good Luck!
Hayim Hendeles
---------------------------------------------------------------------

From: VSLARRY@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Larry Israel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: B'nai Noach
Date: 18 Oct 91 07:14:25 GMT
Organization: Mail to News Gateway


There are several B'nai Noach groups in the U.S. The one for which I have
an address is  Derech B'nai Noach
               P.O. Box 521
               Seymour, Indiana 47274
               Attn: John Hall
From: lmk2@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Jewish Movies on Video?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 03:04:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

>>_Sophie's Choice_, interesting holocaust treatment

Speaking of Sophie's Choice: when it first came out I watched it with a
non-jewish friend of mine, and part way through, during one of the more
horrible Nazi torture scenes, she turned to me and said "Can you imagine
if this ever really happened?"  I dropped my Pepsi and said "What do
you mean, it did."  She replied that she had never heard of such a thing.
She was born a few years after the war and lived in Lebanon, New Hampshire.

Leslie
From: ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: 1st Re: jesus of Nazareth
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:03:06 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <1992Nov11.025827.9168@sco.com> robertc@sco.COM (Robert
Chansky) writes:

>>In <4436@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:

( my argument was:
  A Mesaiah should change humanity , and at least his followers
 from bad to good.
 Hence if followers of a person are bad the person is not a mesaiah.)

>If Gideon Ehrlich believes that his simple if-then logic can actually
>prove metaphysical questions that have stymied the most brilliant of
>minds for thousands of years, I have a great bridge to sell him. :)


My argument is a valid one.

The fact that so many people including briliant ones do follow the
nonsense is but one more proof to the rule that it is hard to cheat a
single person than to cheat an additional one ,
and cheating that next person  is harder than cheating the next million
after you cheated the first million.

Note: Robert Chansky was unable to contradict my argument , he just
     demonstrates who the rule I stated above does work.

Shalom  gideon ehrlich    ERETS YISRAEL






Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:49:44 GMT

In <1992Nov13.194419.10930@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
makowsky@enuxva.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.024447.18923@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg) writes:

>#    Ah, but David, God is on our side! We can force God to cause the
>#    world to work differently from the way it would "naturally." In
>#    short, we force God to perform miracles for us.

>	What you do not seem to realize is that the "natural" workings
>of the world are going to lead it to do things that will be worse than
>whatever will happen if Kach's policies are adopted.

How do you know?  Perhaps you'd care to supply proof of this bold
assertion.

>	That is not the point, although G-d has made certain promises
>that if X happens he will do Y.  Unless you are willing to call G-d a
>liar, we can force Y by seeing to it that X occurs.

Maybe you should spell out exactly what you think "X" and "Y" are,
rather than couching this in abstract language.

--
                     |         | "Step up and shake the hand
David F. Skoll       | ||||||| |  Of someone you can't stand,
|_ _ _  __   __ _ __ |  \\V//  |  You can tolerate him if you try..."
 / |  | |_|   | |  | |  __|__  |  -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
_____|________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish