HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: janiceg@marvin.Eng.Sun.COM (Janice Gelb)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Prayer shawls
Date: 12 Nov 1992 17:49:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: janiceg@marvin.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin

In article AA05344@host0.COLBY.EDU, 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?) in our local temple, from the plain white with a few blue stripes,
>to the rabbis gold-embroidered one, some with colored embroidered hebrew letters,
>I've even seen on with BLACK stripes and one covered totally with blue stripes (most of them only have a few stripes on either end, this one looked like
>some sort of kitsch horse blanket).  I want to make (handsew, embroider, etc.)
>a tallis for a friend of mine, as a gift, and I was wondering, among
>all the variations, what are the absolute REQUIRED characteristics of prayer
>shawls, and what variations are dictated mostly by fashion, and, of them, what do you all find preferable?  
>

Properly tied tzitzit (fringes) and a mimimum size requirement are the 
only absolutes that I know of; color and stripes are usually determined 
by custom.  In the mid-1970s there was a trend toward tie-dyed tallitot 
among the BT set; now the out-of-the-ordinary ones I see are usually 
different color weaves with matching kipot.

********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb                  | (415) 336-7075     
janiceg@marvin.eng.sun.com   | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!) 
********************************************************************************
From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Pierced Ears
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:42:01 GMT
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org

rmt51@cas.org (Rick Turkel) writes:

> I've never heard this, but the etymology of the word 'yarmulka' is Ukrainian
> 'yarmo,' meaning 'yoke,' so it fits.

I've heard about a dozen different (folk) etymologies for the word
"yarmulka."  The one I like the most is "yar' malkhut," meaning
"fear of [the] kingdom [of G-d]."  It fits nicely, but I don't think
anyone has really been able to trace this one back reliably.

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: terra@athena.mit.edu (Terra Incognita)
Subject: Re: Jewish Movies on Video?
Organization: MIT - DMSE and Bait
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:14:07 GMT

In article <92314.1909572893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
[....]
>
>Are there any other Zero Mostel gems out there?(Besides "Something funny
>happened to me on the way to the Forum")

YES!  "The Producers", starring Zero Mostel and (a very young) Gene Wilder,
directed by Mel Brooks.  Featuring the unforgettable song "Springtime for
Hitler".  One of those movies you just have to watch periodically.  A classic.


--
Terra Incognita                             terra@athena.mit.edu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA    USA
"Work. Worry. Consume. Die. It's a wonderful life." (Lippy)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:50:42 GMT

In <dfs.721347698@ro> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:

>Racism == discrimination based on religion, race or culture.
>Discrimination == differing treatment of people in areas of housing,
>political rights, or freedom of movement.
>Kach plank #1 == take away political rights from non-Jews only
>Kach plank #2 == forbid cohabitation of Jews and non-Jews, based on
>non-Jewish partner's religion

>This adds up to RACISM to me.  I don't see how you can get around
>it, unless you want to nit-pick at my definitions.

Kach supporters come from the point of view that God is the one that
want to impose these policies on peoples using His 
instruments -- the Kach party.  Now this, I claim, is a projection
on God of violently racist attitudes: the worst kind of "making God
in an image".  However, when their position is presented
as God's will or based on Jewish writings, one is left in a defensive
position of disagreeing with God.  So the only approach is to show
that this is not the will of God, and therefore, by standard definition,
as you have shown, 100% racist.

>David F. Skoll

--
Eli Chiprout                  " 'Al ta'am vereach, ein lehitvakeah!"
Dept. of Electronics, 
Carleton University, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca
From: rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:42:57 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

All this reminds me of the Latin dictum:

 quis custodes ipsos custendiendos?

 (rough trans:  Who will guard the guards themselves?)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg             |     ^
Bitnet:                      |  \-/-\-/  "He's not the messaiah.  He's a
rothberg@bimacs              |   X   X    naughty little boy."
Internet:                    |  /-\-/-\                        - Brian's Mum
rothberg@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il |     V
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 08:02:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.234200.8473@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>In article <92312.0400382893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
># In article <4428@bimacs.BITNET>, rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg) says:
>

[ ..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.
>
># As a result,
># the number of Jews leaving Russia has dropped which puts them in great peril
># should the anti-semites come to power. I remember seeing on the CBC a few years
># ago reports of refugee camps in Italy full of Russian Jews who did not want to
># go to Israel but would not be accepted by the US because of the quota.
>
>	You have no idea what you are talking about.  There are Soviet
>emigree organizations in Italy practically begging these people to
>come to the US.  They have been spotted with signs saying "The Jewish
>G-d is in the US".  These things are all documented, and it is this
>which caused the slow down of emigration.

No, actually YOU have no idea what you are talking about.  I was in
Italy in the fall of 1988, on my way from Russia to the US.  It was
right after Israel and US "agreed" that Russian Jews should go to
Israel.  Suddenly, in October, almost all applications for refugee
status started to have been refused.  It was a terrible shock to the
people; I remember going each evening to the "gathering place" where
they announced who had gotten "the status" and seeing people literally
sink in despair when they were refused the refugee status.  There were
suicides, you know.  
And do you know what the situation is now ?  After the Vienna-Rome
route was closed, families' eligibility for the refugee status has
been determined at the interview IN MOSCOW.  Can you imagine anything
more hypocritical than giving people a "political refugee" status and
forcing them to stay in the country for months after the decision had
been made because "paperwork needs to be completed" ?   And BTW, you can 
only get the refugee status if you have direct relatives in the US !  Can you
tell me what the ... having relatives in the US has to do with
awarding the status that is supposed to be given to people who flee
the country because of the fear of persecution ?

							-- Mike Ratner




-- 
******************************************************************************
			|  Michael B. Ratner  |
			|_____________________|
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:28:02 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.

tichauer@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo Tichauer) writes:
>
>baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>>
>>andy 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU writes:
>>>
>>>Amen, sadly like many expatriate communities, American Jews are far more
>>>reactionary than their Israeli brethren. I have heard far more right wing,
>>>violent talk from the armchair quarterbacks in New York than from Israelis.
>> 
>>This isn't the first time you have made this claim about American Jews
>>being more "reactionary" (to use your loaded term) than Israelis.  Do
>>you have any proof to back it up?  For example, I would accept as evidence
>>a reputable public opinion poll; this poll can be compared either with
>>polls in Israel or with actual election results in Israel.
>
>I had the same  feeling each time I was in Israel and had contact with
>American Israelis and Sabres. Till now I haven't heard of a Sabre that
>is known  for his own ideas similar to those of Rabbi Kahane and Rabbi
>Levinger. It is very sad to hear that both of them carry the very honorable
>title of a Rabbi. Does anybody know how big is/was the percentage of
>American Israelis in Gush Emunim and Kach (with sources)?   

OK, but ex-American Israelis in Gush Emunim don't have much to do with
the average American Jews who are (supposedly) armchair quarterbacking in
New York.

I believe that the first poster is simply wrong, but I can't remember
where I saw the polling data that makes me think that.  That is why I
was wondering whether he could support his assertion.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:47:46 GMT

In article <92315.121602YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> Yaakov Kayman <YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.160234.1074@speedy.aero.org>, nadel@attatash.aero.org
>(Miriam Nadel) says:
>>
>>It's not as simple as that.  I've heard several Orthodox rabbis say that
>>some Conservative conversions may be legitimate.  The issue involves the
>>converts acceptance of halacha and whether the bet din has adequately
>>addressed this.  Which is a procedural issue from the Orthodox viewpoint.
>>The identity of the supervising rabbis is primarily of concern as to whether
>>or not it may be presumed that the convert was adequately questioned as to
>>intent to follow halacha.
>
>Were there no other problems than that of fundamental Conservative
>Movement ideology or belief, and there are, I wonder how any Orthodox
>rabbi can legitimize any Conservative conversion, given that the official
>position of the (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary and its ideo-
>logues is that the Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) is somehow not divinely-
>authored(!), which is outright minnut and kefirah (heresy and denial of
>G-d)! The concept of "Torah min HaShamayyim" (Torah authored by G-d, and
>therefore the *binding* Word of the Master of all that is), is one of
>the Jewish faith's fundamentals - NOT the "<x> Jewish" faith, but the
>Jewish faith.

As I recall the discussion, it had to do with the need to determine just
who the individual members of the (Conservative) bet din are and what their
positions on these issues are.  The opinions of the JTS are not binding
on Conservative rabbis and it appears quite likely that one could find
at least three Conservative rabbis who believe in Torah min HaShamayyim.
(I've even heard of one Reform rabbi who has stated that he believes in
Torah min HaShamayyim.)

What I'm getting at is that, in the absence of other evidence, one could
presume that the bet din was not acceptable to Orthodox standards, but there
are some cases where this problem may not exist.  They are likely to be
rare, but may well exist.  At any rate, the point is not the label but
the practice.  And it seems to me that the same arguments still applies to
Conservative acceptance of Reform conversions - in the absence of other
evidence, one would have to assume that the standards did not apply.


Miriam Nadel


  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:24:37 GMT

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!

I assume that some Reform Jews will soon enter the fray.  In
case they don't, let me suggest that they are convinced that
_they_ are the legitimate inheritors of rabbinic Judaism!

Which does not imply that your rejection of them is necessarily
incorrect.  But it should suggest that you can't reject Reform
Judaism and then object to Orthodox rejection of Consservatism.
(Does Reform Judaism reject Reconstructionist doctrine?
"And so ad infinitem ...?")




-- 
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: regina@tivoli.UUCP (Regina Foiles)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Interfaith weddings
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:01:22 GMT
Reply-To: regina@tivoli.UUCP (Regina Foiles)
Organization: Tivoli Systems Inc., Austin, TX

My sister and her boyfriend are getting married in June. She's protestant and he's jewish. Neither
a minister nor a rabi will marry them because neither one wants to convert to the others  
religion. My sister does want the wedding to be in a house of God. The only thing we can think
of to solve this problem is a Chapel with a non-denominational Chaplain. I'm sure that this is not 
a unique situation. Can someone who has gone through this before, or knows someone who has, give 
me some advice on how to help my sister and future brother-in-law? 
 
Please email me directly at regina@tivoli.com because I don't read this newsgroup.
 
Thanks in advance, 
        Regina Foiles
From: ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: *jesus of Nazareth*
Date: 4 Nov 92 10:14:22 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <22807@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
>In article <4398@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:
>>
>> In article <22764@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
>> >In article <4376@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon
>> >Ehrlich) writes:
......
......

>I understand that your English is less than fluent.  That is no problem
>in principle, but since discussions in SCJ do take place in English, you
>might wish to consult a dictionary before wasting people's time and net
>resources.
>--
>Yigal Arens

I understand that your attitude toward Jews and Judaism is a mixture
of hatered and some more hatered and nothing but hatered.
That is a problem in principle, but since discusion in SCJ are
supposed not to be motivated by such motivations , it would be better
if you will stop wasting people's time and net resources.
  Gideon Ehrlich     ERETS YISRAEL

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: to people w/ knowledge
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:56:31 GMT

ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) reposts a message from Rick
Dinitz (dinitz@tss.com)

> - I don't have the folklore source material, but I'd expect to find
>some bizarre tales involving satan in the folk literature of Jews
>wherever they came into cultural contact with christianity.

There is also an Islamic devil (Shaitan), although I don't know what
role this character plays in that religion, so it might be that Jews
from Islamic countries also have folk tales about satan.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			    Jerusalem
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:38:49 GMT
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department

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...

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
From: jweber@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (jodi.weber)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: British Royal Family question.
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:21:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <memo.740889@cix.compulink.co.uk> stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>> +From         : EXTDSM@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (MADDISON,David)
>> +Subject      : British Royal Family question.
>> 
>> I recently learned that the baby boys of the British Royal Family are
>> circumcised by a mohel. Does anybody have any further information on this?
>
>I had the "honour" of being circumcised by the late Dr. Snowman A'H
>who was employed by Her Majesty the Queen to circumcise Princes
>Charles, Andrew and Edward. Apparently it used to be the custom to
>circumcise royal baby boys, no doubt for medical/hygienic reasons,
>and a Mohel was used.
>
>I believe that the "modern" royals (like Charles and Diana) have not
>had their sons circumcised.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Stephen (Yisroel) Phillips      Tel: 44-895-442141
>United Kingdom                  stephenp@compulink.co.uk
>

On "thirtysomething" a few years back, Melissa was talking about this very
subject.  She noted that the Royal Family used a mohel to circumcise their
male babies, thereby giving him the title of the Royal Mohel.

(It was actually nice to see at the end of the episode that the baby, who
had been named Leo, was called Aryeh Lev ben Michael.  They got the
translation right.)

Why does (did) the royal family use a mohel instead of a surgeon or some
other M.D.?


Jodi Weber
jodiweber@attmail.com   or   jweber@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Sexual immorality in Israel
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:18:30 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <4435@bimacs.BITNET> rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg) writes:
>While looking for a job, I came across the following small
>advertisement in the situations-vacant column:
>
>NIS 15,000: pretty girls wanted.  must be liberal.  call....

What could one do with 15,000 girls at once?  You'd need a stadium to
keep them in!



-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~