HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mannj@acf9.nyu.edu (Jordan Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Kosher Honey - Still no answer
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:56:38 GMT
Organization: New York University

chips@eskimo.celestial.com (:crp:) writes:

>An acceptable answer to why honey is kosher is still waiting to be found.
>The main thread at this point is that since the honey, like cows milk, is
>not used by the 'animal' itself internally, therefore the stomach is 
>just acting as a holding vessel. To support this , it may be noted that
>pigs are used to dig up certain mushrooms with their snouts and mouths and
>that these mushrooms are still kosher.

I'm not sure what that proves.  These mushrooms are kosher because you can
get the ones that were never inside the pig.  You can't get honey that was
never inside the bee.

>However, the problem remains that their is no other substance that is 
>digested by a non-kosher 'animal' and considered kosher. So to reiterate
>the basic question:
>Why is bee honey kosher and tigers milk not?

I have never seen the relevant Talmudic passage myself, but I understand
that the Talmud's answer to this question is that bees don't manufacture
honey; they only gather it.  This is now known to be false.  The question
therefore is what the believing Jew's attitude should be toward this
passage and to the kashrut/non-kashrut of bee honey.  There are several
statements in the Talmud apparently at odds with modern science, and 
halakhot are based on some of them.  These are some of the approaches to
this issue that I have heard from respected Orthodox rabbis:

1) Modern science is wrong, and the Talmud is right.  (Michael Shimshoni
will be relieved to know that a highly respected
Orthodox rabbi said of this approach, "I don't know how anyone living in
the twentieth century could believe that."  Nevertheless, this is a popular
approach.)

2) The Talmud is wrong, and therefore the halakha is wrong.  This answer
doesn't work for honey, because Samson ate bee honey (I think it was
bee honey) and the Scripture doesn't seem to say there was anything wrong
with that.  But it could work for other such Talmudic statements.  But 
noone seems to have enough faith in this answer to change the halakha on
this basis.  Or perhaps they do accept it, but are afraid of being branded
heretics.

3) The Talmudic passage must be reinterpreted.  For example, when the 
Talmud seems to say that lice do not reproduce but are generated 
spontaneously from sweat, one prominent rabbi says that what the passage
really means is that lice always reproduce in filthy conditions.

4) The Talmud has the science wrong, but the halakha is still correct.
In other words, when the Talmud states that honey is kosher because bees
don't actually manufacture it, it's not that the rabbis of the Talmud
had to decide whether or not honey is kosher and decided it on this 
basis.  They knew by tradition that bee honey is kosher, but didn't know
why.  They supposed that this is the reason.  We now know that this can't
be the reason, but the halakha presumably has some other justification.
--

Jordan Mann at NYU      (mannj@cims.nyu.edu)
From: simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's anti-semitism
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:24:51 GMT
Reply-To: simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: Boston University

In article <1992Nov12.044330.24893@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:

>After brilliantly winning the world championship in 1972 from
>Boris Spassky, Fishcer forfeited the 1975 title match because
>of his insistence on a technicality - he wanted the match to
>be over only when one player wins 10 games, and not as it used
>to be (limited to 24 games). To me, that was the first sign
>of the man going crazy - to drop the title without playing
>because of such a thing!? 

Not so simple:
His successor Mr.Karpov became so famous by close cooperation with
KGB and using trick, which seemed gross even by Soviet chess 
standards (-:, that any of the Fisher's suspisions could be justified -
maybe it was the reason to become crazy (-:

>as the world champion if he does... the current world champion
>is Armenian Gary Kasparov, as nearly big a megalomaniac as
>Fischer. If they ever play, that will be something to see. My
>bet: Kasparov 10, Fischer 4, 20 draws.
>
>-Danny Keren.

My bet - Kasparov - 3, Fisher - 4, 30 draws, game stopped
for some unusual reason.

Simon
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: WARNING: Sam Saal coercion
Organization: liver ---> spleen
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:57:55 GMT
Followup-To: poster

Note: the following is a nit that I would have sent privately to any other
person.  Eli seems to prefer everything in the open so for those that
don't care to read what is essentially personal mail, please skip the rest
of this article.  I set followup to "poster."

In article <emc.721074151@pulaski> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:

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

>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.

Actually, in a purely democratic system, I suspect the majority could vote
to get a particular minority removed.  Netnews, following the American
system (among others) offers protection to minority views in a democracy.

It's a nit, I know.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conservative Leadership on the 21st Century
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:27:39
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
	<1992Nov12.210127.19907@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soldan.aero.org
In-reply-to: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com's message of Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:01:27 GMT

On Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:01:27 GMT, saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) said:

> ... in the
> same way that there are people today who remember growing up with a more
> traditional service and feel uncomfortable in Reform services even though
> "theologically" they'd be more comfortable there.

In the same vein, there are people who grew up with Reform in the 1920s, 1930s
and 1940s (when it was at the peak of the swing to "discard") who are
extremely uncomfortable with what Reform has become today, and its increasing
emphasis on practice and serious study.

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: ratner@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Ratner)
Subject: Re: Israel and the diaspora
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:36:47 GMT

In article <BxIDIM.JF1@encore.com> amarkel@encore.com (Arieh Markel) writes:
>nobby@milton.u.washington.edu (Vitaly Shmatikov) writes:
>
>>In article <BxHqCx.KF5@cs.columbia.edu> ratner@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Ratner) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov7.234200.8473@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>>>
>>>[ ..stuff deleted..]
>>>
>>>>	The US was (and still is) imposing quotas on ALL immigrants into
>>>>the US, and one of the criterion is whether or not the individual is
>>>>considered an economic or political refugee.  If Israel is offering
>>>>them a refuge, the US is not going to let them in as a political
>>>>refugee when they can let in someone else who is.
>>>>
>[ some more stuff deleted ... ]
>
>A question regarding the so called refugee status awarded to soviet
>jews who were allowed to leave.
>
>I had understood, that they had to renounce the soviet citizenship and
>accept Israli citizenship before they left, thus making them immediately
>citizens of a country of which they cannot claim to be refugees from.
>
>Am I correct ?

No.  Before 1989 the usual procedure that a Russian Jew followed when
he wanted to leave was:

Get an invitation from Israel from a "relative" (usually a fictional
character, or a random Israeli citizen).  In one of the papers that
accompanied the invitation it was stated that when in Israel the
person to whom the invitation was issued would be granted Israeli
citizenship.  
Then those papers together with a score of others were given to the
OVIR (entity that decided whether to give you a permission to leave)
and they would (or wouldn't) give you that permission.  In order to
obtain the exit visa applicant would have to sign the document stating
that he/she renounces his/her Soviet citizenship effective the moment
he/she crosses the country border.
Thus people who came to the US had no citizenship.  I, for instance,
still don't.
After the procedure had been changed, Israeli invitation was only good for
going to Israel (how strange ! :)  People willing to go to the US had
to obtain invitation from the US and have their interview in Moscow.  
Russian authorities no longer require emigrants to renounce the
citizenship. 

						-- Mike Ratner



-- 
******************************************************************************
			|  Michael B. Ratner  |
			|_____________________|
From: chaim@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Chaim R. Dworkin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Movie "Exodus"
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:01:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

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?

Having given testimony in Israeli courts on a few occasions, I can say
that a witness is asked to put their right hand on a Tanach and swear to
say the whole truth.  The first time around I consulted with some dati
friends and was told that there is no prohibition, although as in most
Jewish customs, there are those who would disagree...  they "affirm"
rather than "swear".

BTW, your question should have been "...permitted in Jewish religion?"
not "Jewish culture".  Jewish culture has no specific halacha.




Chaim R. Dworkin
chaim@linc.cis.upenn.edu
From: 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Jewish Vegetarianism
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:48:41 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

I've been a vegetarian for about five years now. I have found over the past
little while that a disproportionately high number of Jews, particularly more
religious Jews are vegetarians. I'm wondering why that is, is it because it's
easier to keep Kosher in a gentile world as a vegetarian or is there some
direct religious foundation for the practice.
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: NEED SOME KNOWLEDGE ABOUT JUDAISM
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:37:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: hrt213.9211100037.AA12008
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB


On Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:28:00 GMT, ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) said:

 A> In article <9211091515.AA04973@helix.nih.gov> <norm@helix.nih.gov> writes:
>>On Mon, 9 Nov 1992, KAZI ASIMUDDIN wrote:
>>
>>> I need some knowledge about judaism, could somebody send some basic
>>> knowledge
>>> about judaism.!!!!!!!!
>>> 
>>> Thank you
>>
>>do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you. the rest is
>>commentary. go and study it.
>>
>>Seth L. Ness                         Ness Gadol Hayah Sham
>>ness@aecom.yu.edu                      


>Sounds familiar.  Still the best description, and certainly the
>shortest.

 A> That's because Seth typed it in while standing on one leg.

	On a challange, no doubt.

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
"You beat me to the line *I* wanted to give.  8("
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Prayer shawls
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:28:02 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 body of the tallit must not be "shaatnetz"; that is, it may
>not be a mixture of wool and linen.  This rule actually applies
>to any article of clothing.

A rule unique to tallisim is that they may not be leather.  It's a
modern dispute whether synthetics can be used for tallisim.

>Beyond that, there are certain conventions, e.g. the Tallit is
>generally made of wool, and is almost always white; it is often
>embroidered or decorated with blue, to recall the thread of
>techelet (a kind of blue die) that used to be put in the tzitzit;
>various other customs & traditions.

If I remember correctly, Rambam says an all red tallis should have red
tzitzis, and an all green tallis should have green tzitzit, and all
other tallisim should white tzitzit.  This never made sense to me.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: schwartz@nynexst.com (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Noachide marriage procedure.
Originator: schwartz@baba
Reply-To: schwartz@nynexst.com
Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 19:41:41 GMT


In article <1992Nov5.164007.13934@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg) writes:

I asked a friend this question a while ago.  His answer was
basically that they are married when they moved in together,
and divorced when one moves out.  I suppose this has implications
for a Jewish legal system where they are living as gerei toshav
(resident Gentiles), and questions of support arise.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: aliki@nova1.stanford.edu (Alexandra Schmidt)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: 500 years later
Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:39:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: nova1.stanford.edu


You can get Voice of the Turtle cassette tapes from Nefesh Ami in New York.
I have a bunch, and they are wonderful.

			. . .Alexandra


Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: henny@uieea.ece.uiuc.edu (Henny Graupe)
Subject: Pidyon ha'Ben
Summary: what when why
Keywords: pidyon haben what when why?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:24:34 GMT

I am a bit confused about an event that is supposed to occur shortly
after the birth of a male (only?) child.  What exactly is a
Pidyon ha'Ben?  When does it occur, is it a certain number of days
after a birth, or is it a Saturday afterwards?  Finally what is
the reason for it?

thanks for any information
henny(henny@uieea.ece.uiuc.edu)


C
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Prayer shawls
Date: 14 Nov 1992 01:40:17 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <9211121509.AA06862@cyclone.sbi.com> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
><jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU (Nice Young Lady(tm))> writes:
>
>>I see a great variety of tallit (where is my hebrew textbook when i need a 
>>plural form?)
>
>The proper plural of "talit" is "taliot," though most people use
>"talitot," which is also considered acceptable.  (If you're from
>Eastern Europe, it's "taleisim." :-)
>
>-Don Gertler

Actually, we don't know what the "proper" plural of talit is. The word
is not attested in Biblical Hebrew. The likely etymology is from 
tet.lamed.lamed (talal), but even this is by no means certain. The 
plural form is found occasionally in rabbinic literature, but in
the earliest cases (e.g. Yerushalmi Sanhedrin), the mss offer
"talitot" corrected to "taliot"--if you accept the correction.

Ibn Shushan simply says that the plural is taliot, talitot or talitim.
I personally believe that the last entry is based on the Yiddish
plural (namely, teleisim) and this is the form most prevalent among
American Jews. In my personal experience, most Israelis seem
to prefer talitot which preserves the sound of the singular and
is parallel to "delet, dlatot." Taliot may be the best guess for
a "pure" plural here, but given the lack of certain etymology, the
argument becomes a little silly. Moral, use any of the above.



Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: shimoff@umbc5.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Re: Einstein and Judaism
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:22:04 GMT

Einstein's area of expertise was theoretical physics.  But how much
did he know about Jewish law, Jewish history, halakhic sources,
or Jewish philosophy?  So far as I know, his knowledge of Jewish sources
(Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform) was minimal.  If his knowledge
of Jewish sources was as limited as I believe it was, then I would
be as convinced by his comments on Judaism as he would be by a rabbi's
comments on theoretical physics.



-- 
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: cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 09 Nov 92 19:45:22 GMT
Organization: Geophysical Laboratory, CIW

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!
-- 
Ronald Cohen
Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington
5251 Broad Branch Rd., N.W.,  Washington, D.C. 20015
From: aplebaum@irs01.cs.huji.ac.il (Hillel Applebaum)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Modest dress in Judaism (was Re: sexism in Judaism)
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:06:45 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew U. of Jerusalem, Computer Science Dep.
NNTP-Posting-Host: irs01.cs.huji.ac.il

In article <1d9qr4INNjum@morrow.stanford.edu>, aliki@nova1.stanford.edu (Alexandra Schmidt) writes:
|> In article <9211031350.AA22551@host0.COLBY.EDU> <jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU (Nice Young Lady(tm))> writes:
|> >Or should good Jewish women avoid public events where they have to look good in
|> >front of other men?
|> Oh, come on, this is laying it on a bit thick. . .
|> Covered knees, elbows, nothing tight, and no cleavage does not in any way
|> preclude a dress being elegant and glamorous.  I don't know where the
|> equation of 'modest' and 'drab' is coming from here, but it's not from any
|> religious source I know of.
|> 
|> Think how liberating the law is!  You can look as beautiful as you want, just
|> obey a few small dress codes and then if the guys start ogling you as you
|> sashay around the dance floor (with your husband, of course) you can feel

Soory, girls AND boys. Modesty isn't just covering your knees, etc. It's 
also not wearing anything that makes you look too different. Therefor
one shouldn't wear somthing too expensive or too extravagnt (???). It
should never happen that pepole would look back on you and say "look
at that man/weman".
This is true for both man & women.

BTW, my wife need a new dress, can anyone recomend my a good place ? :-)
-- 

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
/ Hillel P. Applebaum  |> ISRAEL - where all
/ Jerusalem,   Israel  |  jews should live !
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss)
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 15:32:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.003849.23188@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>In article <Bx64A5.753@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kgivon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (karen lee givon) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov2.194247.2535@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>>>In article <Bx2pE5.Jz6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kgivon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (karen lee givon) writes:
>>>
>>>>I am Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist, but I am relieved that Kahane is
>>>>gone.  He was a crazy fanatic...the world will be a much better place
>>>>when fanatics are gone.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I'm dissappointed to see so many people I had previously agreed with on
>>tpm so adamantly support the ideals of a racist maniac. 
>>Especially those who have so strongly argued against antisemitic fanaticism...
>
>I can see that you are Following-Up on my posting but I hope that you
>aren't actually referring to me, in your posting.  
>
>I am not "so adamantly supporting the ideals of a racist maniac" so
>much as commenting on your relief in Kahane's departure and the manner
>in which the US Justice system handled the case of his murder.
>
>If you were truly concerned about maniacal fanaticism, you should be
>at least as concerned about Nosair and the philosophies that impelled
>him to this killing as well as the racial and social environemnt that
>allowed him to be acquitted of murder.  Face it, now that Kahane is
>gone, your problems are not.  Just ask Yankel Rosenbaum's family...
>
>-- 

I have a feeling that the Kahane was assassinated by the Mossad and not
by an Arab. That is probably why there were no conviction in his case.
Does anybody agree?

Nabil
From: backon@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: McDonalds in Israel
Date: 8 Nov 92 07:25:33 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

I just read in the Israeli papers that McDonalds is *finally* coming to Israel.
I wonder if a Big Mac will be renamed BIG MOISHE :-)  :-)

Josh
backon@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL
From: trb@ima.isc.com (Andrew Tannenbaum)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Prayer shawls
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:51:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: ima.1992Nov13.185139.22291
Reply-To: trb@ima (Andrew Tannenbaum)
Organization: Beth trb, Baruchline, MA, USA

In article <1992Nov11.203836.19055@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
> First, the plural: I believe the proper plural is "Talliot", but
> the commonly-used plural is the Yiddishized "Talleisim".

The correct Hebrew plural is talitot (or taliot).
The correct Yiddish plural is taleisim.  No "but" about it.

	Andrew Tannenbaum   Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mark@fenris.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger)
Subject: Re: sexism
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 05:38:07 GMT

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!

Barred or not, how many observant men do you know that dress
immodestly or provocatively?


--Mark
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish