HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:09:58 GMT

In article <2845@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:

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

# >	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.
 
# I would be interested in knowing what promises God has made.  Has he
# promised, for example, that if Israel adopts a particular policy (if
# so, which?) that a particular result is guaranteed?
 
# No doubt if we all were tzaddikim (I mean in the sense of fulfilling
# the Torah, not in the sense that was used in the discussion in SCJ of
# the concept of Rebbe-Tzaddik some time back) no end of good things
# would happen (but while we can decide to adopt a particular policy, we
# cannot decide that everyone will be a tzaddik - we might
# hypothetically force them to act like tzaddikim while the police are
# watching, but they still could commit trangressions in private which
# would make us no longer worthy of divine intervention).  Is this what
# you refer to, or do you know of detailed promises which are not
# contingent on the spiritual level of the people?

	I did not want to get specific.  I do not think that we should eve
try to force G-d's hand unless someone who has a lot more knowledge in
these things than us (or at least me) tells us how to.  I was merely
talking about a hypothetical which is possible.  It is unfortunate
that the orignal claim I made this reply to is not around.  That
implicitly makes me look like some sort of "weirdo" since the correct
context is not being given.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: d_ellis@ricks.enet.dec.com (David Ellis  20-Nov-1992 0858)
Subject: Re: Conservative vs. Orthodox Halacha (was Conversion Question)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 05:58:25 PST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA20683; Fri, 20 Nov 92 05:58:26 -0800
X-Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA21328; Fri, 20 Nov 92 05:58:25 -0800
X-Received: from ricks.enet; by decwrl.enet; Fri, 20 Nov 92 05:58:25 PST
X-To: soc.culture.jewish.usenet
X-Apparently-To: soc.culture.jewish.usenet

friedenb@birch.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:

> Let's face it, the only minyanim that hold to C halacha is at JTS.
> Individual synagogues have "Ritual Comittees" of laymen making
> halachic decisions.

As someone who has chaired the ritual committee at a Conservative congregation,
I must correct this misstatement.

The Conservative movement recognizes Halachic decisions made by its Committee 
on Law and Standards, whose members are Rabbis affiliated with the JTS 
[Jewish Theological Seminary].  Some of these decisions allow for choices
to be made by individual congregations on how they will follow Halachah, 
for example whether they will offer Aliyot to women.  

A ritual committee, in consultation with the congregational Rabbi, may decide 
congregational practice within the framework of Halachic decisions ratified 
by the Conservative movement.  Ritual committes do not make Halachic 
decisions on their own.

----
David  J  Ellis
Digital Equipment Corporation, Semiconductor Engineering Group 
Mailstop HLO2-3/D11 
77 Reed Road, Hudson MA 01749  
(508) 568-4393 
Internet: d_ellis@ricks.enet.dec.com
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:31:20 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies WASTE BANDWIDTH
 <92322.1419442893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Nov18.004605.6160@ennews.eas.asu.edu>

In article <1992Nov18.004605.6160@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) says:
>
>In article <92322.1419442893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
># In article <1992Nov17.022910.24924@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
># makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) says:
>
># >In article <emc.721961733@ro> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>
># ># >>>>>>>>>Herman said:
># ># >>>>>>>>>Kach is racist
># ># >>>>>>>>Isaac said:
># ># >>>>>>>>no they are not
># ># >>>>>>>Israel said:
># ># >>>>>>>yes they are
># ># >>>>>>Shlomo said
># ># >>>>>>they are not
># ># >>>>>Moishe said:
># ># >>>>>but they are
># ># >>>>Haimi said:
># ># >>>>define racist
># ># >>>Yaacov said:
># ># >>>Kach is racist
># ># >>Shmuel said:
># ># >>no they are not
># ># >Mikhael said:
># ># >yes they are
>
># ># A racist will never admit to being one.  He/she will admit to
># ># the existence of racists, but his/her policies will never
># ># be racist, by definition.  Save your breath and our bandwith
># ># ladies and gentlemen.
>
># >        Funny, but almost the same can be said about people who engage in
># >smear tactics by calling others racist.
>
>        I would like to thank Andy for posting this since it gives me an
>opourtunity to say something else about Eli's post.  It would seem,
>according to what he wrote above, that anyone who denies they are a
>racist is one.  Well, I will not do it, but I wonder what would be if
>I called Eli a racist?

False logic. Saying that a racist will never admit to being a racist is not the
same as saying that all people who deny being a racist are racist.

If all male Jews are circumcised does that mean that all circumcised males are
Jews?


>
># ># Let's just make sure these people never get their hands on real
># ># power or influence.
>
># >        Whom?  The racists or Kach?
>
># Cheap, infantile joke. Obviously eli thinks Kach is racist.
>
>        If you knew it was a joke, how come you did not realize that it
>was obvious I knew what he meant?  Why did you even reply?
>--
>        There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
>at math and those that are not.
>
>makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
From: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: My interpretation and yours
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:34:42 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ

Matthew P Wiener writes:

>>If you want to call my interpretation illegitimate,
>>give me a reason...

>Look bozo.  The "legitimate interpretation" flame is the creation
>of Stan Krieger.  No one else knows what it means.

Actually, a lot of us know what it means.  It means that the way in
which we Jews are supposed to be observing Judaism, as taught by the
Conservative or Reform Movements,  is consistent with the Law that God
gave to us.  It also means that we do not have to reconcile such a
consistent interpretation with the Orthodox interpretation for it to
be part of a valid observance of Judaism.
-- 
Stan Krieger                 All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories     if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
smk@usl.com
From: danl@col.hp.com (Daniel Lockhart)
Subject: Re: Movie "Exodus"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:30:09 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

> In <1992Nov16.175740.7967@col.hp.com> danl@col.hp.com (Daniel Lockhart) writes:
> 
> >Now days I don't see much value being placed upon one's word, whether
> >in be a broken marriage vow or one to defend one's country.
> 
> Judiasm doesn't have marriage vows.  Nowhere in the marriage ceremony
> do either of the parties promise to confine their affections to their
> spouse.  What we do have is prohibitions that arise from the fact of
> the marriage.
> 
> But whether the reason for fidelity is a vow or the fact of the
> marriage, desire for someone who is not one's spouse can hardly be
> compared to an enemy soldier placing a gun to one's head.

My original statement is still that I don't see much evidence of people 
standing upon their word now days.  (Please over look the stereo-typing
in this following example) The clearest example of anyone who stands by 
their word that I can remember is a special on PBS about the Diamond
busness.  While the bartering may be against some people beliefs, the 
end of the deal was sealed with a handshake.  No one changes what was
agreed upon later, there is trust and honor involved in the business.

As for me, I value G-ds judgement upon me far more that judgement of men.
If it would come to me breaking a vow to G-d or with G-d vs loosing my
life to man, I will loose my life.  (Easy to say while still breathing) -)-)


daniel

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Oral sex
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:14:03 GMT

In article <2872@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>In <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?)
>Rashi (Ber. 20:36  after Berishit Rabbah 51:9) explains how they
>managed to conceive.
    I was emailed this too by a couple of people. However, I am still
    puzzled as to why the Amoraim don't mention it. They are never
    loathe to cite psukim when the psukim contradict somebody's
    statement.
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Square Kippot (was: Re: Tzitzit on ordinary garments)
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:41:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov16.021109.15846@cas.org> rmt51@cas.org writes:
>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.

Serious note: If someone wore a large enough shawl, would that not require
tzitzit?

Not so serious note:  If I decide to wear a big enough kippah (not while
driving or doing other things which might require unrestricted viewing),
it seems I'd need tzitzit?
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Square Kippot (was: Re: Tzitzit on ordinary garments)
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:43:39 GMT

In <1992Nov16.194139.1078@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:

>Serious note: If someone wore a large enough shawl, would that not require
>tzitzit?

I've been told that wearing a four cornered garment draped around
one's shoulders after the style of the storefront mannequin
Bar-Mitzvah boy is incorrect.  But I don't know if the problem here is
that one is incorrectly wearing a four-cornered garment or that one
who wears a tallit while praying has to wear it this way.  So I don't
know if they way that it's worn affects whether it needs tzitzit or
not.

And of course the mannequin and standard tallit styles do not begin to
cover all ways in which a rectangle of cloth could be worn.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@         "Warren's slogan is an Anti-semite slogan."
/ nysernet.org 			    Gideon Ehrlich
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Kahane
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:34:40 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

>In <6NgguB1w165w@corner.wpb.fl.us> murray@corner.wpb.fl.us (Murray Kahl) writes:

[concerning whether the departed's views are becoming mainstream]

>Quite the contrary, as we have politicians the likes of Ghandi advocating
>expulsion

Earlier today, I wrote:
    You're right, the fact that Ghandi can get three seats and that the
    Likud put him in the coalition scares me.

Tonight, reading this week's Jerusalem Report, which contains a
sidebar about a dispute between Moldedet party head Zeevi (nicknamed
"Ghandi" - like his namesake he also is a man of of peace, he
reportedly threatened "I will peel the skin off your face") and the
other two members of Modedet's Knesset delegation, I thought about
this again.  Three seats is worrisome, but hardly mainstream.  The
Likud, while it did let Moledet into the government, made it quite
clear that they expressly rejected his views on "transfer".

So while I am worried that there are enough Israelis to give Moledet
three seats, I don't see anything becoming "mainstream" here, thank
God.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@         "Warren's slogan is an Anti-semite slogan."
/ nysernet.org 			    Gideon Ehrlich
From: schubach@blackfoot.cis.ohio-state.edu (bernard william schubach)
Subject: Re: G-d or G*d?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:03:14 GMT

In article <1efju6INNea0@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>I would like to hear more knowledgeable individuals' opinions (first or
>second-hand) on this reasoning that I have concerning showing respect for
>the name of HaShem:

<Much deleted to save bandwidth>

>
>Thus, it seems to me that we should show respect for HaShem by _not_
>distributing the indiscriminate respect of "G-d" but rather by applying
>that respect to His name (as we know it) as such, that is, A------ or
>the equivalent; or, if we apply respect to His titles, it should be
>towards those that are uniquely given to Him in this world, such
>as E----- and the like.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

A slight correction, though:
Elohim can refer to the plural of El, as in
"Elohim Aharim" meaning "other gods."

>I would welcome anyone to explain any mistakes I have made, or confirm
>that this is sound reasoning, or offer prior commentary of any kind on
>the subject. 
>
IMHO this is sound reasoning. See above for mistake.

Bernie.
>-- 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
>|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: What _is_ the procedure for conversion to Judaism?
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:03:23 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)

In article <1992Nov15.035336.9419@netcom.com>, solovay@netcom (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
>>In the previous lengthy article, I didn't catch what happens to a
>>ger if he is already circumsised.  What is meant by a "ritual
>>drawing of blood?"  (more at: from where is the blood drawn?)

>A pinprick at the base of the glans (the head of the penis); that
>is, the circumcision scar.

Not just pins.  Razor blades and thumbtacks can be used.  The prick
can be made somewhat higher, say for the better leverage.  The amount
of blood that is required to be drawn is minimal.  If a white tissue
pressed against the nick stains the slightest bit pink, it suffices.

I suppose some rabbis are strict.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Kibbutz
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:45:51 GMT
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In: <kers0205.10.722055367@elan.glassboro.edu>
kers0205@elan.glassboro.edu (CHUCK KERSHENBLATT)  wrote:

>Anyone interested in sharing a few kibbutz stories? I worked on my second
>kibbutz last summer up in the Jezreel valley, a beautiful place called Ein-
>Dor.

The best Ein-Dor story I know is in Samuel I Chapter 28.

Michael Shimshoni
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: sex and Dawud Melekhanu(Yemenite pronunciation)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:46:52 GMT

In article <98694@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <4457@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU>, aaldoubo@copper (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>>>>Maybe you should check his credentials.  A Rabbi named Michael??
>
>>>I don't get it?  Are you saying Jews cannot be named after angels?
>
>Actually, we're not supposed to even pronounce angels' names, except
>those that have come into common usage for names.

Can you please say more about this.   Where is this rule?  I had
thought we were but a little lower than the angels; that is, the gap
between us and the angels is very little, while the gap between the
angels and G-d is very large.

In light of other Mikhaels in TNaKh, how does this rule fit in?

(Are there other Gavriels?)

>>I was half-joking.
>
>It would have been funny if you were correct.  Rabbi Christopher, for
>example, would be ridiculous.

And yet if we find one such, we cannot blame children for names their
parents gave them.

(I say this as the father of Mikhael Hayim.)

>-Mikhael Peretz Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)


-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Israel and the diaspora
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:06:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov17.150625.17538
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1e5c6iINNq11@pita.cs.huji.ac.il> 
aplebaum@irs01.cs.huji.ac.il (Hillel Applebaum) writes:

>Many wrote - all deleted.
>
>The point is that while Zionism fights GALOT (diaspora), not all 
>jews are Zionist. If a jew wishs to help the diaspora get bigger 
>instad of Israel - then he isn't Zionist.

Correct.

>Now, the question is: Must a jew be Zionist ? I say - YES.

Fortunately, your word lacks the currency of a moral law.

>and if not so, and if you think not so, on what basis can we
>Zionist talk with you on this thing ?

On the same basis that separates a rational human from a fanatic.

>As a Zionist I'll tell you that I'll do my best to eliminate all
>GALOYUT by bringing them here (former USSR, Ethuopya (?) or the US)

I really admire your choice of verbs, Hillel.  You *tell*, rather than
merely inform, the world that you will *do*, rather than try, attempt,
or endeavor, your best to *eliminate*, -- presumably meaning to
eradicate, extirpate, exterminate, and expunge, -- all GALOYUT by
*bringing*, rather than inviting, enticing, or beckoning them to your
little Oriental principality.  Well, I sincerely hope that you and
your ilk will indeed do your best to eliminate this recalcitrant Jew.
Bring plenty of vaseline, and remember to file off the front sight on
your Galil, as otherwise you will suffer great pains in your efforts
to *eliminate* the length of its barrel from its new home in the
moist, dark recesses of your colon.

>-- 
>
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>/ Hillel P. Applebaum  |> ISRAEL - where all
>/ Jerusalem,   Israel  |  jews should live !
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."
From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:32:24
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: soldan.aero.org
In-reply-to: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu's message of 20 Nov 92 04:55:37 GMT

On 20 Nov 92 04:55:37 GMT, aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) said:

> What is a Messianic Jew?  Is that from the Jews for Jesus philosophy?

Alas, you're correct. It's another way that the J4J denote themselves :-(>

Daniel


--
[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:faigin@aerospace.aero.org              [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
		    "And as they say, the rest is compost"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: Jonathan Pollard...
Organization: Smiley Abolition Front
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:39:22 GMT

In article <1ek4lgINN60e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>                   ...In spite of the hysterical reaction on the
>part of Mr. Casper Weinberger, Pollard NEVER committed the crime
>of treason.  This dispicable crime is the act of selling secrets
>to the enemy.  

I don't know the legal definition, but my dictionary's first
definition is

   trea.son n  \'trez-*n\
      1 : the betrayal of a trust : PERFIDY, 
          TREACHERY

This certainly applies to Pollard. Perhaps his punishment was out
of proportion; on the other hand, a common accusation against
Jews is that we can't really be trusted because our first loyalty
is to Israel. Pollard did a lot to confirm that slander in many
people's minds. Given that, it ill behooves us to leap to his
defense.
-- 
Andrew Michael Solovay    

"When angry, count four. When very angry, swear."
                --Mark Twain
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: goy
From: Yaakov Kayman <YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 23 Nov 1992 14:19:49 EST
 ><1992Nov23.040258.28472@cs.albany.edu><1eqvcvINNpr8@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1eqvcvINNpr8@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love) says:
>
>In article <1992Nov23.040258.28472@cs.albany.edu> mark@cs.albany.edu (Mark
>Steinberger) writes:
>...
>>Viewed another way, should we stop calling ourselves Jews because the
>>word has had negative connotations for a number of non-Jews?
>>
>>--Mark
>
>There is a fairly general notion that people can call *themselves*
>as they please. You may have some complex idea behind your comment,
>that I don't grasp at this time, but I don't think your comment
>bears on the issue of using the term "goy" in a derogatory fashion.

I must agree with this assessment, and say that it even extends to
those times when certain groups use terms that are meant as deliberate
slurs against them WHEN USED BY OTHERS to refer to them.

Example: One night I was riding around Crown Heights with one of my
best friends, a Black Jew. Seeing the particular crowd around the
local park (Lincoln Terrace for those familiar with the area), he
said to me, "Uh-Oh! N*G**Rs (African-Americans' LEAST favorite word)
is out!" I was stunned, and asked him, "Say, doesn't anybody get upset
when you use that word?" He said "No, but don't YOU be stupid!"

I took his advice. Wouldn't you?  Similarly, I use the word "non-Jew,"
which I feel is neutral. If some non-Jews take exception to the word
"goy," why antagonize them gratuitously?

>Jack F. Love

Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman      (212) 903-3666       City University of New York

BITNET:   YZKCU@CUNYVM        "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU     about whom the wolves complain"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish