HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dz@cs.brown.edu (Daniel Zalik)
Subject: Re: If I could read only one book on Judaism, what would it be?
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:12:05 GMT

In article <40857@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
|> Let's say that I'm a Martian and am assigned to learn all about
|> Judiasm in one week.  What book do you suggest I read?  It has been
|> recpmmended to me that I read "Jewish Literacy" by Telushkin, I
|> believe.  What do you all think?
|> 
|> 					Thanks,
|> 
|> 					Matt Harrington
|> 


I believe that "learning all about Judaism in one week" relegates the
culture to the realm of mere theology. I suggest a book entitled "As a
Driven Leaf" by Milton Steinberg which deals with Jewish History,
timeless Jewish concerns and aspects of Jewish ritual. It is an enlighting
and engaging novel of historical fiction.

Daniel
Organization: Doctoral student, History, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:13:38 -0500 
From: Etan Shalom Diamond <ed16+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Passover in Va'yera

   I'm not sure if any of the divrei torah posted here talked about
this, but if so, I apologize for the redundancy.  In any case, here's
the question:

   When the messengers come to Lot to tell him to leave Sodom, the text
says he gave them matza.  Rashi comments that he did so because it was
Pesach.  

    Now, even if we say that Avraham and others kept the whole Torah,
did that include such things as Pesach?  Isn't that holiday a
time-dependent festival that would have had absolutely no meaning in the
time of Abraham and Lot?  And was Lot included in this idea of keeping
the whole torah?  The whole thing seems quite strange.  

    Anyone know anything about this?  (I should give credit to a friend
of mine who asked me this question but has no access to scj.)

    Thanks!  Shabbat shalom!

------
Etan Diamond
Department of History
Carnegie Mellon University
ed16@andrew.cmu.edu
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Serious question about a Cohen getting married
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:30:32 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

dg = gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
ak = ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)

ak: However, why would we believe Yibbum overrides the
ak: prohibition of a Kohen Gadol marrying a widow?   After all, he could
ak: have required Chalitza.

dg: `aseh docheh lo ta`aseh?

While an aseh does docheh one lo ta`aseh, it doesn't docheh two: not
marrying one's brother's wife, and a Cohen Gadol not marrying a widow.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			    Jerusalem
From: ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: 1st Re: jesus of Nazareth
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:41:29 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <2784@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
> ....
> ....
>--
>/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
> |__/__/_/        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |warren@
>/ nysernet.org                             Jerusalem


The slogen:  " Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh "  means:

    "It is better to expel Jews
        than to fight ( the  Arabs  who want Jews  to disappear) . "

Shalom    gideon ehrlich

Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:19365 misc.headlines:6936 talk.politics.misc:58608 misc.legal:19629
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:12:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov5.131007.3653@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.080110.13323@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>Or the police did, which is the other possibility.  Many people felt
>>that the cops needed someone to arrest quickly to quiet down the Jewish
>>community, so they just picked Nelson and creatively fit the evidence to
>>him.

>"Quiet the community"??????  It was the Black community that was
>rioting.   It was the Black community that was pelting Jewish homes,
>communal buildings, and people.  It was the Black community that was
>shouting "kill the Jews."  It was a group from the Black community that
>lynched a Jews.  But the police had to calm the Jewish community?

I meant politically.  They were afraid of the political pressure that
would have been put on them if someone wasn't arrested.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Reform and halakhah
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:14:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <09Nov92.194522.19265@granite.ciw.edu> cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.163429.24770@umbc3.umbc.edu> shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>>But now to a serious question.  You object to Orthodoxy's claim
>>that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
>>process.  I can understand your dismay.  But -- I really want
>>to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
>>a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions?  For example, the
>>child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
>>temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
>>Jewish?  Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
>>argument?

>Actually I don't know the answer to this, and I think it is a
>difficult problem.  If I had my druthers, there would be no
>reform Judaism, since they have thrown out the Halacha
>altogether.  Solomon Schecter and other fathers of
>Conservativism used the phrase "Catholic Israel" and held that
>the halacha should be decided by those who cared about
>halacha--i.e. C and O.  O feels that halacha can be only decided
>by O, and R says "what's halacha?"  I'm in trouble now!

R does NOT ignore halakhah; it reexamines everything.  Reform rabbis
call the Talmud, Midrash, Responsa, etc., holy books, by which they
mean that they are Divinely inspired.  Inspired, but not written.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz)
Subject: sexism
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:37:54 GMT

No one has answered my questions yet.  Why is it that MEN are not barred
from appearing provocative to women?  WOMEN EXPERIENCE ATTRACTION TOO!

Melanie
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Prayer shawls
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:23:23 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 <1992Nov11.203836.19055@netcom.com>, solovay@netcom (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
>The requirements: A Tallit must be rectangular, and above a
>certain minimum size (which I forget... anyone want to followup?)

One amos in each direction.  The lenient opinion permits 18'', the
strict opinion is 24''.  If it ever gets washed, allow for shrinkage.

>You must attach a special tassel, called a "tzitzit", to each
>corner.

This is somewhat inaccurate.  The "you" here should be a Jewish man,
not our Nice Young Lady.  The tzitzit that you attach are 4 sets of
4 threads, 3 long, 1 extra long, each set looped through a corner
hole and knotted for the sake of the mitzvah (saying "l'shem mitzvoh
tzitzit" while tightening the double knot is the usual way), giving
8 threads hanging down, 7 medium, 1 long.  The long thread is then
looped around the others and knotted again a few more times along
the way down.

There are numerous customs regarding the extra knots and looping.
The standard Ashkenazi practice is 7 loops, 8 loops, 11 loops, and
13 loops between the knots.

>	 If you go to a good Jewish gift shop, they'll sell you
>tzitzit, complete with instructions on exactly how and where to
>attach them.

Not any string is acceptable for the tzitzit.  Every step of the way,
from the sheep shearing to the wool spinning to the threading, has to
be done l'shem mitzvoh tzitzit.  That's why you buy them at a Jewish
gift shop, although the strings themselves usually don't come with
instructions.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: sexism
Date: 8 Nov 92 12:54:36 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <GJSSBPF6@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>No one has answered my questions yet.  Why is it that MEN are not barred
>from appearing provocative to women?  WOMEN EXPERIENCE ATTRACTION TOO!
>
>Melanie



We [men] are.  It is as simple as that.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg            |    ^     Life's a dream-so sleep through it!
Bitnet:                     | \-/-\-/         Be'ahavat Chinam
rothberg@bimacs             |  X   X Am Yisra'el       The People of Israel
Internet:                   | /-\-/-\Be'Eretz Yisra'el In The Land of Israel
rothberg@imacs.cs.biu.ac.il |    V   Im Torat Yisra'el With The Torah of Israel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:39:25 GMT


Summarizing to save bandwidth:
Stephen (Yisroel), answering a question about post hoc invalidation
of a conversion, suggested that invalidation might occur if the Bet
Din were improperly constituted, and then added "e.g., Conservative"
as a parenthetical explanation.  Art, who has often identified himself
as a Conservative Jew took offense.  And the battle began ... :-(


For whatever it's worth, here's my perspective. If someone (Orthodox,
Conservative, Reform, or non-observant) were to ask about conversion,
it's incumbent on _all_ of us (O,C, or R) to honestly spell out the
differences.  It is vitally important (as well as truth-in-advertising)
to indicate that a Conservative conversion may create difficulties later
on in life were the issue to come before an Orthodox rabbi.  I am
pretty certain that many Conservative and Reform rabbis warn potential
converts about the problem; at least they _should_.

My objection to Stephen's (Yisroel's) parenthetical reference to
Conservative conversion is that it was gratuitous; if necessary,
it could have been rephrased ("e'g., the the rabbis of the Bet Din were
not properly ordained or did not follow required procedures").

To end on a cheerful note: You both were correct, but in different
ways.  To end on a less cheerful note: You were both wrong, but
in different ways.

More seriously, we could all use a little bit more ahavat chinam!


-- 
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: sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Clinton / Gore election result
Keywords: USA Presidential election
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:53:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsl.1992Nov5.145313.7329
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Nov5.031805.17261@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>, andreb@aix00.csd.unsw.OZ.AU (Andre Baruch) writes:
> Since the election results have now been sent all over the world I have one question.
> 
> As my father phrased it:  "Is it good for the Jews?"
> 
> 
> B'vakeret Zion

Which Jews?

Overall, it is probably good for American Jews.
To American Jews (IMO) the economy is usually less important
than protection of rights and liberties, divisiveness and
intolerance in the country, and freedom from interference
by religious groups in government.  In all three respects
a Clinton victoryis a positive step.  No
sight could be scarier than Pat Robertson saying "God is on
our side" .   Sounds too much like the Crusaders.

As to Israel, my opinion is that Clinton will be too busy
trying to justify a second term by fixing the economy
to spend much time on world affairs.  He will be publically
supportive towards Israel, but his priorities on money
will be towards home not abroad.  Israel will likely
lose some financial support as a result.  If Israel
were attacked, I believe there would be no difference
between Bush and Clinton, both believe that Israel must
exist in secure borders.  Given his election campaign,
though, funding is likely to be used domestically.
He will probably support the peace process, but will
put less pressures on the Israelis to make concessions.
For a clue, look to see if Steven Solarz gets a place in
the Clinton team.


		Seth Rosenthal

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own not my employers'.
From: goldberg@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Jewish Fundamentalism
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:46:09 GMT
Organization: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology

warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:

>I did once come across two people who claimed (and seemed serious
>about it) that every word of every midrash was true.  I tried to find
>out if perhaps they meant something different by this statement than
>what it seemed to mean on face value (e.g. "Was Moshe's height really
>ten amot?"  "Yes.") and either we were speaking entirely different
>languages, or they really accepted every word of midrash as factual
>(as opposed to containing truth in a metaphorical way).

>Now assuming that I understood them, and they weren't just pulling my
>leg, perhaps this is Torah Shebaal Peh Fundamentalism?
 
     The assumption is wrong, you understood what they said, not what they
meant. They meant more than they said. Moshe's height was really ten amot,
but they did not specify which amot, and you implicitly assumed current
amot. That's all. Every Midrash is of course true. The point is that there
is I think a Midrash which says that Adam and his descendants lost the
knowledge of True / False when they acquired that of Good / Bad.
     Frankly, I did not check that this Midrash exists, but I have no doubt,
because I learnt it from a Rav who would never dare invent such things, Moshe
ben Maimon, Guide for the Perplexed.

    Yaaqov
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Phillips)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Cc: stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:37:00 +0000


> +From         : ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
> +Subject      : Re: Conversion Question
> 
> In article <memo.729068@cix.compulink.co.uk> stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
> >You say that the person is NO LONGER keeping MANY of the mitzvot,
> >from which one might infer that he or she at one time kept all the
> >mitzvot and still keeps some of them. If that is the case, then in
> >all probability the conversion would remain valid. The only way it
> >could be found to be invalid is if one of the conditions for
> >conversion was lacking at the time of the conversion, viz. the Beis
> >Din was not Kosher (eg. Conservative), ...
> 
> I try hard not to let my anger get the best of me,  but why does the
> author have to go out of his was to provoke so many people?
> 
> Wasn't it sufficient to say "the Beis Din was not kosher" without
> being insulting and political and wrong?

I'm not trying to insult anybody, merely stating a fact.

> To state that a conservative Bet Din is not kosher is inflammatory,
> insulting and wrong.  True, there are significant political issues
> at stake, but they do not per se make a conservative Bet Din not
> kosher.  What they do is, in practice, make a conservative
> conversion much more difficult or near impossible to be accepted in
> certain circles.  And many people will defend the politics as being
> religious in nature.   I don't.

Politics has nothing to do with it. My concern is strictly halachik
and I claim for support the Teshuvos (Responsa) of Reb Moshe
Feinstein z'tzl who in many of them stated that a conversion through
a Conservative Beis Din was not a valid conversion. And anyone who
thinks that Reb Moshe had any considerations other than halachik ones
is completely misguided.


> But because a conversion was handled by a conservative bet din does
> not mean it is unkosher, and it is unnecessary to deliberately be
> provocative in this newsgroup.  Or perhaps this newsgroup has simply
> become a place for people to be nasty and provocative?


"Nasty"? No. "Provocative"? Well, if by that you mean that it
provokes discussion (which is what this newsgroup is all about after
all), then I plead guilty.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen (Yisroel) Phillips      Tel: 44-895-442141
Burch Phillips & Co.            Fax: 44-895-421231
63a Station Road
West Drayton
Middlesex
UB7 7LR
United Kingdom                  stephenp@compulink.co.uk

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:00:45 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc

In <1992Nov6.171416.16625@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com sez:
>
>For those of you who are not aware of NYC politics right now, Mayor
>Dinkins doesn't have much credibility among white New Yorkers, nor
>with the Police Department.  The noisy police demonstration a month
>ago followed the shooting death of a drug dealer by a policeman, after
>which the Mayor rushed to the drug dealer's family to comfort their
>loss, while criticizing the police.  Mayor Dinkins is making the
>already difficult job of law enforcement in NYC even more difficult.  

As one of Livni's apparently fungible white New Yorkers, I feel free
to scoff at this rather broad assessment.  Jake's biases are evident
from his characterization of the demo as "noisy"; the fact is that New
York's Finest trampled private vehicles, assaulted citizens who
happened to get in their way (above ground and in the subway), and
called Mayor Dinkins a variety of interesting racial epithets.  I
doubt that Jake would describe an Al Sharpton-led rally as "noisy" if
it involved a crowd screaming "kike" at ex-mayor Koch.


>I don't trust the police for everything, either, but that doesn't
>automatically mean that they can never tell the truth.  Juries are
>being prodded by the words and actions of Mayor Dinkins to distrust
>the police mightily.

Anyone who believes this lacks any sense of the NYPD's recent history.
The cases of Michael Stewart, Eleanor Bumpurs, and any other number of
suspiciously dead arrestees have done far more to make New Yorkers
distrust their cops.


Followups out of misc.legal.

-- 
	      Spring . . . too long . . . Gongula . . .

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: WARNING: Sam Saal coercion
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:22:31 GMT

In <1992Nov6.163303.7364@nynexst.com> schwartz@nynexst.com (Steven Schwartz) writes:


>Come to think of it, Eli, I also wouldn't object to 
>your hasty departure.

>G'bye.

Thanks for your opinion Steven.
At least it is publicly posted for all to see.

It's a good thing however that this isn't the wild west or you
might have your guns out and saying "This town ain't big enough..."

I recommend that all who are interested start 
soc.culture.jewish.moderated as the Xtian newsgroup has.  That
way, you can squash all dissenting opinion before it even
gets posted, and without having to use coercion (Sorry for the typo).
And you would not have to hear from me or anyone else that you
object to.  Until then I'll assume that democratic principles
are in operation.

>Steven H. Schwartz		Expert Systems Laboratory
>schwartz@nynexst.com		NYNEX Science and Technology Center
>PROFS: SCHWARTZ@UNIX		500 Westchester Avenue
>914-644-2960			White Plains NY 10604
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca                                     
"Je ne peut etre sauf qui je suis"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Phillips)
Subject: Re: Living in Israel - Voting in USA
Cc: stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:15:00 +0000


> +From         : davis@passy.ilog.fr (Harley Davis)
> +Subject      : Re: Living in Israel - Voting in USA
> 
> No harm, aside from the fact that it's illegal according to American
> law to become the citizen of another country without giving up your
> American citizenship.  In practice, of course, it's perfectly
> feasible.

My wife is a United States citizen and has been living in England for
14 years. I recently wrote to the U.S. Embassy in London to enquire
what would happen to her U.S. citizenship if she were to take out
British citizenship. They sent me some printed sheets with extracts
from the relevant legislation and notes thereon.

Basically, the U.S. don't encourage dual nationality, but if one
takes out citizenship of another country one will lose one's U.S.
citizenship only if one intends to give up one's U.S. citizenship
(and in certain other cases like committing treason or taking up
certain foreign government jobs). Further, it is presumed, until the
contrary is proved, that a person does not intend giving up his or
her U.S. citizenship

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen (Yisroel) Phillips      Tel: 44-895-442141
Burch Phillips & Co.            Fax: 44-895-421231
63a Station Road
West Drayton
Middlesex
UB7 7LR
United Kingdom                  stephenp@compulink.co.uk