HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: JPFO
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:57:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.204450.20980@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.181637.26524@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>>JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

>News of this organization comes on the heels of my discovering that
>the Republican Party's chairman is a Jew.  A starnge world.

I don't see what's so strange about a Jewish Republican leader.  Is
the Republican party guilty of some anti-semitism that I haven't
heard about?  Jesse "Hymie" Jackson is a Democrat, lest you forget.

Or were you under the impression that all Jews are liberals?

If the idea of Jews promoting firearm ownership seems odd to you,
perhaps you should review the events of 1930's Germany.  One of the
Nazi Party's first actions was strict gun control (guess who was
singled out for especially strict enforcement).  Some Jews are
understandably reluctant to allow themselves to be disarmed again,
regardless of where their other political beliefs may lie.  I happen
to think they have an excellent point.

(If this decomposes into a gun-control shouting match, I suggest
taking it to talk.politics.guns.)

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@tti.com to you!)
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
From: lmk2@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Oral sex
Date: 18 Nov 1992 21:38:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <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

Yeah, girls used to believe this when I was in high school.... Same 
thing as "you can't get pregnant if you leave the light on."

Leslie


Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: G-d or G*d?
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:15:58 GMT

In <goldberg.722091694@techunix.technion.ac.il> goldberg@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:

>I would personally consider this as discussion of a solution in quest
>of a problem. The reason not to spell the Name is definitely not respect
>but attention paid in advance against possible erasing. The Name is fully
>spelled out in texts which are handled so as to try prevent erasing, like
>keeping them locked, etc...

Do you mean that the reason we use "G-d" is in case someone erases something
and so not to desecrate the original "God"?  But did not "God" come from
German "Gott", which came from indo-european ..., which came from ...
Which one should we protect from possible erasure?

Of course if you wish to discuss Hebrew, that language has
NOT been around forever, and studies show that it coalesced c. 1600 BCE
originating intimately from the surrounding Semitic tongues.  For instance
Adam and Eve are Hebrew names but those names arose long after the age
which the account claims (the creation of the world).  This applies to 
any Hebrew name of God which you wish to discuss.  No sources with those
names have been found before 2000 BC.  So should we not try to preserve
names of God before 2000 BC, rather than later derivations?

>If your hypothetical community had such texts, there is no reason why the
>incomplete Name would become corrupted.

What about us?  Do we keep texts hidden with the name "God" rather than
"G-d"?  

>Yaaqov Goldberg

--
Eli Chiprout                 
Dept. of Electronics, 
Carleton University, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca                                     
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: Murray Kahl <kahl@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Subject: Rav Kahane (z'tl)
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <Murray Kahl <kahl@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:56:51 GMT

 
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:17:12 GMT 
From: warren@nysernet.ORG (Warren Burstein) 
Subject: Re: Kahane 
 
In <6NgguB1w165w@corner.wpb.fl.us> murray@corner.wpb.fl.us (Murray Kahl)
writes: 
 
>Quite the contrary, as we have politicians the likes of Ghandi advocating 
>expulsion 
 
You're right, the fact that Ghandi can get three seats and that the 
Likud put him in the coalition scares me.  That the departed did 
not consider the success of Moledet a victory for himself doesn't make 
me feel any better about this. 
 
I have heard him address this very point and his argument is that since
Ghnadi's approach is not based on Halacha, it is racist.
 
>Exactly whom do you feel the Arab members of the Knesset represent if not  
>the PLO? Unfortunately for us, their intentions are not that kind, as to  
>make Jews second class citizens.  
>All one has to do is ask the family of Helena Rapp, the 15 year old school  
>girl who was just sliced up at a bus stop in Bat Yam. 
 
I was not aware that Helena Rapp was murdered by one of the Arab 
Members of Knesset.  Perhaps you consider it reasonable to conclude 
from actions of a number of members of a given ethnic group that all 
members of this group are guilty? 
 
I feel that you would be hard put to find Arabs within Israel that do not
consider the PLO as their leaders. And so until I see or hear their leaders
condemn their actions, I also hold their leaders responsible. Has one Arab
member of the Knesset, or a de facto leader such as Faisel Husseini condemned
these murders?
 
>Kahane was a 
>saintly figure, the victim, the scapegoat, the paradoxically gentle man of 
>violence with a weapon in one hand and a mea culpa in the other. 
 
The departed was a victim of murder.  He was not a scapegoat - he 
deserved the criticism that he received.  I find no paradox: he 
*was* a man of violence. 
 
Than prove it. Definition by fiat offers little.
 
>I challenge you to substantiate that Kahane demanded that his foes subjugate 
>themselves to him or leave. In contrast to your words, I heard him say many 
>times that he does not want their love, he wants their respect. 
 
It is the Arabs to whom he offered the choices of either submitting 
themselves to the Jews or to leave the country. 
 
That is not what you wrote! You clearly said subjugation to Kahane.
This is another topic and you are referring to his approach of allowing Arabs
to live in Israel but surrendering their full rights as citizens.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Pierced Ears
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:26:07 GMT

In article <1ky5TB1w165w@valpso.hanse.de> tichauer@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo Tichauer) writes:
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>> 
>> I think the reason today has to do with bodilly mutillation.  For the
>> same reason that elective surgery is not allowed.
>
>
>  If so: Is plastic surgery for aesthetics reasons forbidden for a Jew ? 

My understanding is that this is a somewhat complicated problem.

First of all, it is not strictly true that elective surgery is not allowed.
Elective surgery covers a fairly broad category, much of which is allowed.
For example, surgery to remove painful cartilage from a knee joint is
elective, but I doubt you would find many rabbis who would forbid it.  Many
surgical procedures make someone more comfortable though the condition in
question is not life-threatening.  As a more common example, consider removal
of wisdom teeth.  It is generally considered permissible, even as a preventive
measure. 

Secondly, my understanding is that the issue is not primarily bodily mutilation
but the risk to life from surgery.  There is a cost-benefit analysis involved
here and individuals should consult both their doctors and rabbis before
making decisions.

As for plastic surgery, it is more debatable.  It is almost certainly
permissible in cases of extreme disfigurement.  How extreme is where the
issue lies.  One criterion I've heard is whether someone's appearance is
such that they would be unlikely to find someone to marry.  

Miriam Nadel
From: rice@enterprise.Berkeley.EDU (Daniel S. Rice)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Prayer shawls
Date: 15 Nov 1992 21:20:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: enterprise.berkeley.edu

In article <9211150344.AA14346@host0.COLBY.EDU> <jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU
(Nice Young Lady(tm))> writes:
>How can the plural of tallis be talitot? It's not a feminine noun, unless it's opne of the oh-so-cute 'feminine with masculine form' like 'iyr' (city).
>If it is masculine it would be tallisim, according to my Hebrew textbook...

	First of all, Even-Shoshan does list it as a feminine noun.  Secondly,
many masculine nouns are pluralized with 'ot' and many feminine nouns with
'im'.  For example, many masculine nouns ending in 'om' or 'on' take the
'ot' ending: chalon -> chalonot, chiliazon -> chilazonot, chalom -> chalomot,
derech -> drachim.

						Dan
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: goy
Date: 22 Nov 1992 01:56:06 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <9211191645.AA28619@tequila.lanl.gov> <rena@tequila.LANL.GOV (Rena Whiteson)> writes:
>>FYI: In case you're wondering, the word "goy" (pl. "goyim") is
>>not at all derogatory; it is just the Talmudic word for non-Jew.
> 
>>Andrew Michael Solovay
>
>Actually goy means nation.  Goyim means nations. Because of the context
>of much of its usage it has come to mean 'all the other nations'. 
>
>Rena Whiteson

I'd really like to agree with both of these comments, but I can't.
The missing ingredients here are 1) tone of voice, and
2) chronological perspective.

It is absolutely true that in Biblical Hebrew the word "goy"
means nation and is not used in a derogatory sense (I haven't
checked my concordance lately, but I'm fairly confident of
this). However, the word as it is often used today--and 
particularly as it derives from the Yiddish usage--is indeed
derogatory. Because the word is slightly ambiguous in this
regard, you either need a complete context or you need
to have audibly heard the statement to decide.

Jack F. Love
 

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: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:49:24 GMT

In article <4446@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>In article <92325.140220GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu (Callec Dradja) writes:
>>At the time, I was very surprised to hear this especially since he
>>is an orthodox rabi. What do other people think? Is Rabi Michael
>>correct or should he take a refresher course on basic Jewish law?
>
>Maybe you should check his credentials.  A Rabbi named Michael??
>
>:^)

I don't get it?  Are you saying Jews cannot be named after angels?
Why?
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: afrydman@granpa.enet.dec.com (Avi Frydman)
Subject: Re: Kosher Honey - Still no answer
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:34:18 GMT


In article <1992Nov16.171013.24723@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, er@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Elie Rosenfeld) writes...
>The simple proof for the kashrus of honey is the well-known song that every
>child in a good Jewish nursery school should know:
> 
>"Dip the apple in the honey, make a bracha loud and clear..."
> 
>From which it can be proven that honey is kosher, since if it were not, why
>bother making a bracha?
>:-)
Elie, 

In my home we make the bracha on the APPLE not the honey...though the way my
younger daughters dunk their apple slices and drip the honey all the way to
their plates/mouths, maybe they should say a "shehakol".  :^)
From: aplebaum@irs01.cs.huji.ac.il (Hillel Applebaum)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: When SANHEDRIN will be around ...
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:04:22 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew U. of Jerusalem, Computer Science Dep.
NNTP-Posting-Host: irs01.cs.huji.ac.il

Let's say that, BZ"H, a SANHEDRIN is formed.
Then the length ofjewish months will be decided there 
according to the testimony of eyewitnesses of the moon.
THEN
our calenders - they will be worthless !!!!
how can I, then, make an appointment next month, when I don't know
what day it'll be ? how will I be able to plan my vecation when
I can't know if PESACH will be on SHABAT or not !!!!!

HELP !!!!!

-- 

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
/ Hillel P. Applebaum  |> ISRAEL - where all
/ Jerusalem,   Israel  |  jews should live !
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
better peace with the Golan - then war without it.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen)
Subject: Re: Halacha when the decisive facts were wrong (was Re:
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:36:33 GMT
Organization: Geophysical Laboratory, CIW

In article <LERNER.92Nov20130330@tune.cs.columbia.edu> lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner) writes:
>In article <20Nov92.040520.8071@granite.ciw.edu> cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
>
>
>I'm glad we agree.  Since starting a fire on Shabbos is not permissable,
>neither is the general use of electricity permisssble in the situations where
>making a fire is prohbited.  Likewise the actions which you describe -- the
>strenuous rubbing of two sticks, pouring water on phospohorus, or opening the
>airway of a superheated oxygen-free gastank would all make a fire, and be issur
>on Shabbos.

No we don't agree.  It is forbidden to kindle a fire using
electricity, or anything for that matter, because kindling a fire
is forbidden.

Your argument implies that it would be forbidden to use water,
air, or even move on shabbat since such actions when taken to
extremes or applied to certain materials could start a fire.

When I turn on a light it does not start a fire (I would hope! :-) ).

You may have a minhag of not using electricity on shabbat, and I
have no argument about that and would respect it.  I however do
not believe that it was valid halacha to forbid electricity since
the issue is crystal clear.  And allowing electricity does not
allow starting fires with it, cooking with it, etc., which are
separately forbidden.

Shabbat shalom.
-- 
Ronald Cohen
Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington
5251 Broad Branch Rd., N.W.,  Washington, D.C. 20015
From: MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Sex on Fast Days
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:53:15 GMT
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs


 In: <1992Nov17.180236.3257@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
 er@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Elie Rosenfeld) wonders:
 Subject: Sex on fast days (Re: Oral sex)

>In article <1992Nov17.170914.1564@speedy.aero.org>, nadel@attatash.aero.org (M
>|> But it's a moot point to ask if it's forbidden on fast days since sex in
>|> general is forbidden on fast days.
>
>Is sex forbidden on all fast days, or just Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av?  I
>remember hearing somewhere that it is "preferable" to abstain from sex on the
>minor fasts, but is it strictly prohibited?  Certainly, the other three
>inuyim (afflictions) besides eating - washing, anointing, and wearing leather
>shoes - are completely permissible on the minor fasts.

I had once heard that one should  not have sex during day time at all,
thus there  is no problem  with these minor,  day time, fasts.   Is my
information of  no sex  during daytime  correct? I  am sure  some more
knowledgeable person can enlighten us on that.

>Elie Rosenfeld      | "I am what I am, Leila -- and if there are self-made

 Michael Shimshoni
From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:20:24
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
	<1992Nov18.191208.28751@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
	<1992Nov18.215925.3513@cis.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soldan.aero.org
In-reply-to: khaikin@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu's message of Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:59:25 GMT

On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:59:25 GMT, khaikin@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (dmitry
khaikin) said: 
> Oh, great! Now Jews are taken away the right to advise another Jew about
> Judaism. I am sorry, but does that imply that you can do whatever you
> want and no one can tell you that it is wrong?

I don't think the right is taken away. In my many *years* on this net (I've
been reading s.c.j since it was n.r.j, since, oh, about 1984-85), I've learned
that the way that one says things is oh, so important.

In the area of religion and Judaism, I cannot say that you are or are not
right or wrong. I can state that our beliefs differ; that in my eyes you are
wrong or right. 

Religion (and that's what Judaism is, at the heart of it) is a matter of
belief. We have our beliefs as to the source of the Torah, of the Writings, of
the Prophets, of the Talmud, of the Mishnah, of the... you get the idea. We
can't change beliefs, we can't argue with them. We can recognize that they
differ, and explore the differences (without saying one is right or wrong).

Orthodox Jews have certain beliefs that differ from their liberal bretheran;
these belief differences lead to schisms that some believe to be irreparable.
However, by taking these schisms as absolutes, we prevent any resolution. We
must respect the fact that it can never hurt to treat a person who claims to
be Jewish as Jewish (regardless of the conversion), it can never hurt to
calmly teach the differences. If the person is not "adequately Jewish" in the
eyes of one movement, then providing education will alert the person to the
fact, and they will choose -- without any prodding from you -- to do what is
right if they want to be associated with that movement. If not, they will
serve God in whatever way they can.

God is unfathomable. We weren't around 4000 years ago when Judaism started to
know who is authentic. I don't know if Orthodox is right, or Reform is right,
or if both are wrong (and the Buddists are right :-). All I can do is live the
best life I can, and set the best example I know how to. In doing that, I can
hope God is satisfied which my little part of his creation.

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: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Kosher pork in the diabetic?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:07:20 GMT

In article <gqJLuB1w165w@valpso.hanse.de> tichauer@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo Tichauer) writes:
>  What means CYLOR?
   Can't You Look Op References?
From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Cornered turtles?
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:07:26 GMT

Warren's new "acharei ha-chagim" sig tells us "adif tzav pinui
mi'tzav shmoneh."  Some have suggested a subtle (or perhaps not
so subtle) political message, but those of us who fondly recall
the "strange carrot" assume that there is an even more subtle
message.

My own guess:

"A cornered turtle is better than "Thou Shalt Not Steal""

This subtly combines the question of tzizit [required for a 
turtle, or a turtle-neck?] with the eighth commandment [and
even Yogi Berra], recent scj threads.

Another possibility:

"An unmarried turtle is better than a turtle that can count
[or eight turtles?], which combines the sexism thread with
the chanuka thread (which hasn't started yet, but it's 30
days before the chag ...).

Or:

A cornered commmandment [i.e., tzizit] is better than a
Ze'evi who can count [votes].

Warren -- if you don't like these "legitimate interpretations,"
will I get a tzav pinui, or a tzav shmoneh?  :-)


-- 
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.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:20799 soc.culture.turkish:11974 talk.politics.mideast:22450 talk.politics.soviet:9116 soc.culture.greek:10851 soc.culture.europe:9774 soc.culture.soviet:10190 soc.rights.human:4299 soc.culture.yugoslavia:9703
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Belief and science (Einstein)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:30:27 GMT



>Seth Ness <ness@aecom.yu.edu> wrote:

>>isn't an assumption being made here that god is susceptible to
>>logical analysis. or that god is susceptible to analysis at all. or that
>>the human mind and human thought is capable of generating any concepts
>>that are applicable to god at all?

To which I replied:

>This is an interesting idea and should not be quickly dismissed.  Either
>we can reason about God, or we cannot.  To judge whether we can or cannot
>we can only use reason and logic, we have nothing else. (I will mention
>the irrational mystical experience shortly).

>Now suppose that we use reason and logic, and decide that we cannot 
>reason about God using reason and logic.  Then we are caught in a bind,
>because we are now saying that the reason and logic that we used to 
>come to that knowledge is not valid.  
>Suppose on the other hand that we use reason and knowledge and come to
>the conclusion that reason and logic are useful when reasoning about God.
>This also causes a problem, because reason and logic are the criterion
>by which we have decided reason and logic are useful tools to understand
>God.  

>The answer of many is to simply follow the "gut feeling" the non-rational
>mystical experience of God that you have within you.  If that is the case, 
>then it may be right, but you can forget criticising/reasoning with other 
>people for having different mystical experiences of God than yourself, 
>because the very process would not be given to rationalization, 
>axiomatically.  

>Reason/logic are the only tools we have if we are ever to agree with
>each other, on anything.

Please note that I have used logic in the above argument.  If you reject
logical reasoning, then the above argument will be meaningless.  If that
is so, then you are on your way to Zen...  :-)
--
Eli Chiprout                 
Dept. of Electronics, 
Carleton University, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca                                     
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: My interpretation and yours
Organization: Smiley Abolition Front
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:02:55 GMT

In article <9211231652.AA16894@relay2.UU.NET> johnson@itzb.com writes:
>
>You people are all such hypocrites.  You go on and on
>about how legitimate you all are, while saying that I
>am illegitimate just because you disagree with me.

No no no. We'd call you "illegitimate" if your parents weren't
married. We disagree with each other all the time, and we only
occasionally call each other "bastards".

On the other hand, we call you a "pagan" because you worship
Yashka haMamzer. Important terminological distinction.

Alles klar?
-- 
Andrew Michael Solovay    

"When angry, count four. When very angry, swear."
                --Mark Twain
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish