HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Theme bar/batmitzvahs
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:06:17 GMT
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County

In article <BuL3vw.GzE@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (A.J.S. Nusbacher) writes:

... responding to my dissatisfaction with the practice of Bar Mitzva
    boys reading the entire Sedrah ...

>
>I take the greatest exception to this.  Having the bar mizvah read only the
>haftarah and the maftir is barely sufficient training to enable him to go on
>and function as a competent ba'al koreh in the community.  Learning to read
>an entire sedrah, on the other hand, provides a good grounding in reading,
>and provides an opportunity to learn a great deal more about the art and
>science of reading the Torah.  Having read an entire sedrah, the bar mitzvah
>can look upon the job of the ba'al koreh as a chore which requires a good
>deal of hard work, but which provides a great deal of satisfaction and service
>to the community, instead of as a job that is only taken by one or two
>people who have somehow gained the mysterious skill of preparing seven aliyot
>instead of one.
>
>Also, if displaying the skills of the ba'al koreh is "ostentation", then let
>them indulge their ostentation!  This is the kind of ostentation the Jewish
>community needs more of!

In my experience, the vast majority of kids will never again "lain."
A kid who learns only maftir will still be able to lain if he wants to
put in the effort, so the skill is transmitted.  But consider the investment
(in time, effort, anxiety, sheer panic) that laining the entire Sedrah
involves!  I therefore still believe that finishing a Seder of mishnayot
is more meaningful and realistic.

So we disagree; not that uncommon on scj. :-)

>
>Aryk Nusbacher
><who wishes there were more ba'alei keriah around to share the work>

There are already too many ba'alei keri.  Oh.  Ba'al keriah.  Sorry.

>
>PS:  If you want ostentation, both I and Sandy Bodzin (who occasionally posts
>to this net) read our haftarot from a scroll!  Ha!
> 

Yeah?!  Big deal.  For my bar mitzvah, we served cholov yisrael
from cows that had never eaten chodosh!  And every member followed
from a haftarah scroll.  But we did it tzniusdikly, so there
wasn't too much ostentation.



-- 
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: gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)
Subject: Re:  Not a Charm?
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:25:37 GMT

MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>murray.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu  brings:
>>   The mezuza is not a charm or amulet  and should not be considered as
>>one.  Yet it does  offer protection. As  explained in the  Kabbala, the
>>mezuza provides  G- d's  protection from  the time we  leave the  house
>>until the time we return home.

>I wonder  why this  function of the  mezuza does not  make it  what is
>commonly called a  charm or amulet? Where is the  difference? Is it in
>that one believes that it is a charm which invokes God?

My understanding of an amulet or charm is that the "power" exists in,
and emanates from, the item itself.  My understanding of the mezuza
is different, though from the quote above, one could certainly infer
otherwise.  The mezuza itself has no inherent power.  Similarly, a
talit, shofar, sukka or any other "prop" of halakha is an impotent,
inanimate object.  Each is necessary for proper performance of the
associated mitzva, but it has no magical powers of its own.  Performance
of the mitzva has its effects, both in the individual and in one's
relationship with G-d, perhaps even "persuading" G-d to protect us
somehow.  But the objects themselves, IMHO, are inert.  Otherwise
we may have to revisit the classic midrashim on Avraham Avinu's
argument against avoda zara.

-Don Gertler
From: s1137020@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Mariusz Prokopczyk)
Subject: Re: The Mitzva of Rabbi Weiss
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:36:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.175813.26391@sarah.albany.edu> pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.114219.29619@walter.cray.com>, aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur) writes:
>>[...]
>>
>>A. Mazur
>>
>
>  I would like to advice all the participants to avoid further discussion
>with Aleksander Mazur.  His contributions are consistently narrow-minded
>and intolerant.  What's even more important his views are not particularly
>englighting (unless somebody likes to be insulted) and he clearly
>enjoys all kinds of flames.  So please, spare us and simply ignore
>his postings - it seems to be the only way to bring people like him
>to their senses ....
>
>                                         Pawel Penczek
>
>  I speek for myself, not for my employee.

I have got to make almost the same remarks in regard to your role in
this newsgroup. The only difference is that I do not believe that
anything can bring you to your senses. Just no hope!

Mariusz

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Ba'al Tashchis & Electricity on Shabbos?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 01:13:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <9209141426.AA01910@ptms_dev.sbi.com> <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)> writes:

>
>It's interesting, but there are plenty of places where observance of
>Shabbat will require "wasting" some resource.  As a striking example,
>look at what happens when a building is on fire, and where there is
>no potential danger to life.  The building should be left to burn.
>
Is this where the practice of running into a burning building
originated?

:-)

David
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Torah In A Torah Context (was Re: more of ...can of worms....)
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:01:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <9209041451.AA14035@ptms_dev.sbi.com> <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)> writes:
>hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>...If we assume
>>that the Written Torah is the literal word of God, we should be able
>>to assume that every word is literally correct.  Here we have two
>>extensively described rivers, which we cannot find, and two barely
>>described rivers, which "everybody" knows.  Now I have no problem with
>>accepting that the extensive description is there because good geography
>>books did not exist in those days, but the description should fit SOME
>>rivers arising in those mountains of southeastern Turkey.

>This is an interesting discussion.  But let's take the converse.
>If we assume that the Torah was written by man (chas veshalom),
>why would something so easily verified be falsified?  Several
>possibilities exist.  Here are a couple:

Travel was not that easy in those days.  I doubt that the headwaters of
the Tigris and Euphrates were even known then.  In fact, I doubt that the
writers of the Torah knew very much except what they had heard.  So legend
was incorporated freely.

>Rivers have been known to dry up.  This is certainly one possibility.

Rivers do dry up.  But not without leaving better traces than we can 
find in that region.

>Another is -- still working on our assumption -- that the individuals
>writing were unaware of the real geography.  But they were clearly
>aware of the other two rivers.  Even assuming they wrote it based on
>hearsay, someone must have known the facts.  It would certainly not
>have detracted from the story to have listed only the two extant rivers.
>Why make them up?  It's certainly not a focal point of the account.

More likely it is that they tried too hard.  Some have interpreted one
of the rivers as the Nile, of which they certainly knew, and they might
have put this major river as arising in Eden.  

The sources of these rivers were not reasonably well known, if indeed 
they were known at all, until the 19th century.  

>I think, even if I accepted the above-mentioned assumption, I would
>probably still believe that all four rivers existed at the time the
>Torah was written.  This is not to say I would accept everything in
>the Torah at face value.  Crucial points, where I may suspect ulterior
>motives, may raise my suspicions.  But this one seems so innocuous,
>it just doesn't seem worthwhile to lie about it.

On this last statement I agree.  This is why I think it was in the
nature of legend.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: goldberg@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Yom Kippur and Tu b'Av
Organization: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:45:12 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Well, I can't say anything about Tu b'Av, because I don't know much
>about it, but I have an idea why there would be festivities on Yom
>Kippur.

>On the 10 days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, God is judging us,
>and placing us in either the book of Life or the book of Death.  At
>the end of Yom Kippur, He has decided.  It is a time that we know that
>the decision has been made.  Just like when you finish that final
>exam, not knowing whether you passed or failed, you feel good just
>knowing that the ordeal is over and a decision has been made.

>Of course, I can't imagine how anyone can celebrate after a 24 hour
>fast!
 Depends. If you only know that you finished the exam, not that you 
passed, then you may be right.
 But Rabbi Itzhak Meir Alter of Gora-Kalwarya (Gerrer Rebbe #1, just in
case) thus explained why we immediately recite "SELACH LANU KI CHATANU"
on the daily evening service immediately following Kippur:  just in case
we even considered in our minds that perhaps we were not passed, is
enough of a sin to warrant this prayer. 
 
 How can one celebrate after a 24 hours fast? At least as easily as one
celebrates  Israel's independence right after 24 hours of remembrance
of those who paid for it with their lives. Which, for a Jew, is no problem
since we just do not yield (except to The King of all kings): when sorrow
as well as happiness come from understanding, switching by command becomes
natural. This Shiur was given to me by one of the settlers in Nov, Golan
heights, on the night of Yom Ha'Azmauth a couple of years after the Kippur
war. He paid a visit to the troops guarding his area, found me sad thinking
of my friends and students who were gone, talked about the Jewish people.
Following him, couldn't I ask if it is not a FORMIDABLE reason of feeling
happy and celebrating after Kippur, that ALL OF ISRAEL passed the exam?
Those who did just enough, those who didn't, those who achived more than
required for themselves. Or, in other words, just a tiny little microbit
of Faith.

 Yaaqov "Kol Israel Hassidim"  Goldberg
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: On Qadish
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:50:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.163859.28264@shearson.com> esafern@shearson.com writes:
>In article 2509@israel.nysernet.org, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:
>>Likewise, there are two minhagim about what people whose parents are
>>alive do during Yizkor.  In some shuls they walk out and in others
>>they don't.
>	Are these the only two possible minhagim???
>	What about the ever-popular *third* minhag?
>	Don't walk out - that would be disrespectful to the Kehilla
>	Don't say Yizkor - that would be disrespectful to one's parents
>	So -- stay - but talk with your friends!   ;-)
   How about staying and saying the martyrs section?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Ask Michael Lerner
Organization: liver ---> spleen
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:47:16 GMT
Keywords: pro-Jewish?  Hardly.

Next weekend I may be in a position to hear Michael Lerner, the editor of
"Tikkun" magazine, speak.  There will probably be a question and answer
session, as well.

Frankly, he and much of what he's written turn my stomach so I'm not sure
I even want to go.  However, if I do, I'd certainly want to be prepared.
Does anyone have any really good, pointed (even leading) questions they
can recommend?  I wouldn't mind baiting or cornering him.

I am _not_ looking for the "when did you stop beating your wife" type
of question, nor am I looking for questions about his personal life.  I'm
looking for questions that will show his attitude towards Israel, Judaism,
and so on.  Also, if the question can reference a specific article he's
written, that would be best.  I'd like to be able to phrase my question(s)
"in magazine article X on date T you wrote Y.  What does that mean to...?"
In other words, these must be ironclad informed questions.  I'll present
them tactfully, but forcefully.

So far, the main question I'm thinking about asking is his opinion of
Dennis Prager's views on him. Whether he thinks they're accurate, fair,
etc.

Please send email; I may consider posting the source/questions I receive
and I'll certainly post the question/response I get to any I use.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The Location of Eden (Re: Torah In A Torah Context)
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:10:01 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Sam Saal writes:

>In article <BuHr3A.97A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
>hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Rubin Herman) writes:
>
>>God can keep us from seeing Eden.  But then why tell us so much about it,
>>and why have it guarded by winged creatures instead of just putting up
>>a force field?  Or even just remove it from earth?
>
>How do we know that winged angels are not a metaphor for a force field?

Why stretch so far?  Since angels are by nature spiritual beings who
manifest physically only under special circumstances, why not just
accept the p'shat (plain meaning):

	The Garden of Eden is in a spiritual domain and under most
	circumstances is inaccessible to us here in the physical
	world.

Herman Rubin may not acknowledge the existence of spiritual domains
and entities, but Torah sure does.

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Mac David
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:52:39 GMT

In <1992Sep3.212057.4763@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg) writes:

>  In Essen, I saw a
>  place that had both gyros and schwarma in the sign, over a logo of a
>  greek hand shaking a turkish hand (as identified by flags.)

I suddenly feel this craving to post insults and 500 lines of
Professor Shaw on how every nation in the world has wronged Turkish
cuisine, but I can't find the box of Manechevitz TamTams.

					Avoid bus station food wherever
					you find it as it is a danger
					to the wasteline and it drips
					all over your clothes.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       The entire hall		Jerusalem
 |__/__/_/     is a very crowned theft.
 |warren@      But the Kibo
/ nysernet.org is not all that paranoid.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: ayf@pruxp.att.com (Avi Feldblum)
Subject: Re: On Qadish
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:10:26 GMT

In article <goldberg.715550419@techunix.technion.ac.il> goldberg@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Phillips) writes:
>
>>I've just returned from a visit to Schenectady N.Y. and the Rabbi of
>>the Orthodox Shul (Congegation Beth Israel) told me that he was asked
>>by his members to say Kaddish if no-one else was saying it. He balked
>>at this as, Boruch Hashem, both his parents are still alive, and one
>>should not say Kaddish in such circumstances without one's parents'
>>express permission.
>
>>BTW, the Art Scroll Siddur quotes the Halochoh that someone should
>>say Kaddish after Oleinu, even if there are no Aveilim.
>
>GREAT, now it begins to be really interesting.
>1-Have you any way to ask the Beth Israel Rabbi in Schenectady where his
>statement is taken from? I am **NOT** asking ironically but very seriously,
>we begin to reach the root of the issue. 
>2-About the Art Scroll Siddur, same question. Is there any reference to the
>Halachah which you quote? What is the source?

As was mentioned, the source for the Art Scroll statement is found in
the Shulchan Aruch. I don't have my sefarim currently available, but I
looked at this question some time ago, and spoke shortly with the Rosh
Yeshiva from RJJ as well.

What the Shulchan Aruch says is that even if there are no mourners
present, the Qadish following Aleinu is still said. This is from
memory, and I think that not much mor is said. What is clear is that
this Qadish is part of the Tfillah. If a mourner is present, then the
mourners recitation of the Qadish is sufficient. In the absence of a
mourner, the Chazan (Reader) should say Qadish. If he does not then
anyone else should say the Qadish.

What is unclear, is the status of all the other times that the mourner
usually says Qadish. The majority opinion, based on my discussions with
R' Busell, is that all the other Qadish's are not a required part of
the Tfillah, so in the absence of the mourner, they are just skipped.

However, it is possible to understand the Shulchan Aruch that all
Qadish's are required part of the Tfillah. You may have thought that
the Qadish after Aleinu, which is most closely associated with the
mourner, is not included in this rule, so that one is explicitly stated
in the Shulchan Aruch that it is always said, but it applies to all
other Qadish's as well.

Avi Feldblum
avi.feldblum@att.com
From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: Hate and Gov't
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 22:39:24 GMT

rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:

> thought I'd be making my first post in a different newsgroup but some of the
> threads on scj have been gnawing at me and I'd like to comment.  I've only been
> on the net for a few weeks so forgive me if I'm out of line.

> All of us as Jews, practicing or non, have had to put up with some sort of
> anti-Jewish sentiment.  It may have been as minor as a sneer, a physical
> assault, or as serious as the camps.  But sometimes when reading the posts here,
> I get the feeling that some folks are just trying to debate the
> existence/non-existence of antisemitism, or trying to prove which segment of our
> population  has had to put up with the most.
>    
>    Anti-Jewish sentiment, just as anti-any group sentiment, will never be
>    legislated out of existence.  It can be swept under the rug for awhile, but no
>    government will ever be able to eradicate such stupidity.

>    Making laws called "Hate Crimes" is  also foolish.  If my WASP neighbor is
>    mugged without being called names, he is no less mugged than I am even if I'm
>    being called a kike during the attack.  The crime of assault is the same in both
>    cases.  A smashed face and broken ribs are no more, or less, serious because of
>    an attacker's ethno-centric motives.

>    Jewish ethics hold, "that which is hateful to you, don't do to your neighhbor."
>    Libertarian principals say it is immoral to initiate the use of force or fraud.
>    I am committed to both of those principals because I see them as saying the same
>    thing.  Let's not look to government for relief from hatred.  Let us instead be
>    strong enough as individuals and as a group to make the haters think better of
>    initiating any violence.

>    Thanks for letting me vent.

>    Peace and liberty to all.

>    Richard B. Schwartzman

Amen!  Thank G-d, there is finally a correct opinion.

Ed Shnekendorf
eshneken@uiuc.edu


>       
>	  
>	     

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: On the SUPERIOR Role of Women
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:52:18 GMT

In <1992Sep08.173448.614955@locus.com> hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles) writes:

>I have no idea who this author is, nor what he says in the book. But -
>your comments scare me. You say "nor does it *entirely* reject tradition".

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovitz, alav hashalom, was an Orthodox Rabbi who
recently passed away.  I invite you to read some of his works rather
than to rely on my brief summary.

>INMHO, this statement is totally meaningless.

>Either you reject tradition or you don't. If you accept 99% -
>then you have rejected the other 1%, and you have rejected tradition.
>It's as simple as that. Anything else is simple rationalization.

I don't observe tradition, I observe Halacha.  Tradition is believing
that "nashim daatan kalot" is connected to X chromosomes rather than
the society in which the women were raised.  Traditions like this
scare me.  Resposes like this scare me more.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       Amar Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak:
 |__/__/_/     "P'amim sheadam ba b'sharav
 |warren@      v'rochetz afilu b'mai mishrah"
/ nysernet.org 			Jerusalem
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Orthodox Monopoly
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:01:33 GMT

In article <9209142057.AA06115@robocop.NYU.EDU> baker@ROBOCOP.NYU.EDU (Jonathan Baker) writes:
>1. About Conservative rabbis & niddah.  I don't know what rationale they 
>have.  There is no obstacle to a Conservative rabbi observing niddah, as
>Robert Gordis (o"h) says -- in all but the right-wing Orthodox communities,
>there is no complete social segregation between men and women because of
>niddah.  In his own Orthodox shul, he has not seen a woman refuse to shake
>a man's proffered hand.
   Is shaking of hands between unrelated men and women a matter of
   niddah or tzniut? As a data point, I've had all sorts of right-
   wing Orthodox women hand me things directly over the course of
   a 4 week period. (This would be contrary to niddah restrictions
   if niddah mattered.) Simultaneously, none of them ever offered
   to shake my hand.

   Or not. When I ate at a Bobover chassid's house I almost handed
   my plate to one of the daughters who was clearing up, but
   thought better of it and replaced it in front of me. After the
   soup, the wife grabbed my bowl away from me before I had a chance
   to be polite.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:15475 soc.culture.polish:2417