HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re:  Interfaith marriage
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:13:57 GMT

tichauer@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo Tichauer)

>   (don't be prudish: this is a
>   word that you can find it in "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" and I am sure 
>   in any other american-english dictionary)

I'm sure I don't need to supply the word in question, since it has been
appearing in our (family-oriented :-) news group with ever-increasing
frequency on this thread.  There seem to be some people out there who
are either dense, very inconsiderate of others' sensibilities or just
have a rather deficient vocabulary.  Yes, the dictionary on my desk,
_The_American_Heritage_Dictionary_, does have an entry for the term.
The stylistic label for this particular entry is "Obscene."  The
"Guide to the Dictionary" section states that this label is used to
identify a "term that is considered to violate accepted standards of
decency."

The same dictionary labels racial slurs and the like as "offensive,"
which it claims is "not only insulting and derogatory, but an discredit
to the user as well."  I try to avoid both these verbal categories,
since my very content is enough of a discredit to me.

Perhaps no-one has come right out and requested that these types of
terms be avoided in scj.  You may continue to use whatever obscenities
and slurs you like.  I am not trying to censor anyone.  I understand
that one can be quite offensive with a perfectly innocuous vocabulary.
So be as vulgar as you wish, but just realize that you sound like
a pig.

Thank you,

-Don Gertler
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: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:50:00 +0000


> +From         : stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
> +Subject      : Re: Conversion Question
>
>
> Oh boy, here we go again.  Well folks, here's another reality
> reminder.  Maybe this time it will sink in-
> 
>     1.  Orthodox Jews do not "own" our religion; theirs is but
>         one legitimate INTERPRETATION of what God expects from
>         all of us Jews!

Nobody "owns" a religion. But for 3,000 odd years the Orthodox
"interpretation" as you put it has been the one that has been
universally accepted (apart from a few breakaway groups like the
Saducees and Karaites). I think that the Orthodox are quite justified
in maintaining that 3,000 odd years tradition.

>     2.  In justifying the legitimacy of the Conservative and
>         Reform movements, we do NOT have to show consistency
>         with the Orthodox INTERPRETATION of our Law; after all,
>         who died and made them boss?


O.K., but then don't expect the Orthodox to go along with the
Conservative and Reform interpretations and certainly don't get upset
when they don't.

>     3.  While there may be some issues regarding the Reform
>         definition of who is a Jew, and these are issues that
>         ALL Jews need to work out, to the satisfaction of
>         ALL Jews, there is be NO REASON whatsoever for Jews
>         of all sects to refuse to accept a convert from a Bet
>         Din of Conservative Rabbis.

The reasons are quite clear. First, they don't accept Torah Mi'Sinai
(ie. both the written and oral Torah) completely and secondly they
don't feel bound by ALL the Mitzvos (a sine qua non in conversion).


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

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
From: rmt51@cas.org (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Pierced Ears
Reply-To: rmt51@cas.org
Organization: S.W.I.G.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:47:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.091744.11741@discus.technion.ac.il>,
ben@vmsa.technion.ac.il writes:
|> In article <96772@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
|> Wiener) writes:
|> 
|> >Considering that kippahs were taken from slave fashion, I don't think so.
|> 
|> >--
|> this is intewresting. from where do you find that a kippa is "slave
|> fashion"??

I've never heard this, but the etymology of the word 'yarmulka' is Ukrainian
'yarmo,' meaning 'yoke,' so it fits.
-- 
Rick Turkel           (___  ____ _  _  _  _  _     _  ___   _  _ _  ___
(rmt51@cas.org)           )    |  |  \  )  |/ \     |    |   |  \_)    |
(rmt51@cas.bitnet)       /     | _| __)/   | __)    | ___|_  | _( \    |
			Ein navi be`iro.            |

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: What would be the Jewish equivalent of "Islamic law"?
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 23:56:50 GMT

feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

> A number of governments have announced their intentions to replace
> local non-religious law with traditional Islamic law; with "sharia"
> law, in Sunni countries, if I understand correctly.
> 
> What would be the Jewish equivalent?  Would we be instituting
> "halakhing" law, or some such?
> 
> (My concern here is with terminology, not legal reform as such.)

I don't know all that much about Islamic jurisprudence, but if "sharia"
is the generally accepted corpus of Islamic law as understood by
Orthodox Muslims, then the corresponding Jewish term would be "Halakha."
If "sharia" is the name of a particular document, then I suppose we
would have to use something like "Shulchan Arukh" for the corresponding
term, though there may be such vast differences in derivation, authorship
and universality among respective communities in the two faiths that
the analogy is rendered ridiculous.

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Subject: Re: Kashrus: Kellogs Crumbs
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:18:04 GMT

In article <9211051633.AA10397@cyclone.sbi.com> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
>norm@helix.nih.gov writes:
>
>> >There was a 'rumor' floating that Kellogs was changing the formula
>> >for its baking crumbs so that they were now Milchig and could not
>> >be used with chicken/meat. Anyone have further info ?	Thanks.
>> I never knew that they were kosher in the first place.  Who give haskakah? 
>
>I may be wrong, but I believe Kellogs products bearing a "K" are under
>the supervision of the Vaad HaKashrut of Massachusetts (VHM).
>
>-Don Gertler


I just checked with the Vaad Hakashrus of Baltimore and the Kellogs
crumbare are kosher under the KVH (which is Massachusetts).  The
name is Vaad HaKashrus Harabbonim.

The Baltimore vaad said that the rumor about the crumbs being
milchig is just that (a rumor) and is not true.

_______________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz        |    Im ain ani li mi li             |
| H_Markowitz@att.com     |    Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha      |
|_________________________|____________________________________|
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Belief and science (Einstein)
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:11:32 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: israel@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert B. Israel)

In article <israel.721647866@unixg.ubc.ca>, israel@unixg (Robert B. Israel) writes:
>In message <1992Nov12.174400.4716@guinness.idbsu.edu>, holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu
>   (Randall Holmes) writes:
>>	     God must know the truth or falsehood of any proposition.

>     Even being omnipotent and omniscient doesn't protect you from
>logical paradoxes.  There are some propositions (of ordinary human
>language) that can't consistently be assigned a truth-value.

That depends on how you model ordinary human language.  Classical
logic is not very good.  Even modus ponens is an inaccurate model
of certain fairly ordinary usages of "if ... then".  See Vann McGee
"A Counterexample to Modus Ponens" JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, about 10
years ago.

Anyway, the liar's paradox and endless variants have indeed been
modeled non-classically in some manner or other ever since Russell.
Most of these have been artificial or incomplete, and thus not a
satisfactory solution.  But within the last decade, one such has
been developed which actually appears reasonable.  See Barwise and
Etchemendy THE LIAR for details.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Apology to the SCJ community
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:39:32 GMT

I would like to apologize to Sam Saal and those of you who read
SCJ for publicly broadcasting our disagreement.  I should
settle it directly with him.  I am sorry for wasting all of your
bandwidth with this affair.  My temper gets the better of me
on occasion when I have strong feelings on a subject.
--
Eli Chiprout                  " 'Al ta'am vereach, ein lehitvakeah!"
Dept. of Electronics, 
Carleton University, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:21:25 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET (Yaakov Kayman)

In article <92315.121602YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, YZKCU@CUNYVM (Yaakov Kayman) writes:
>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,

That's easy.  There are some with overall Orthodox beliefs but a few
Conservative practices.  As long as they stay within enough of a
d'oraisa level of Orthodox observance, they are still considered a
kosher witness by many.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Brian E. Foont)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Pierced Ears
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:11:01 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

With reference to this topic, someone stated earlier that piercing ears
had something do to with slavery, i.e. when a slave decided to stay on
as a slave voluntarily their ear is pierced.  However, as I recall, this
is to be done with an awl, i.e. to create a hole large enough such that
it does not close up, and is this a permanent marking that this person
is a slave and chose to keep this lower station in life.

As to the "beged ish" business.  Is seems to me that it is.  Beged ish is,
as stated elsewhere, determined by the standards of society at large.  It
seem apparent that if the question is asked, then it almost surely holds
that there is a question on the issue, and therefore to at least a sizeable
portion of the population it is "beged ish."

On the idea of self mutilation - I have alway thought that this applied
to such things as intentially harming one self or inflicting pain (or
the risk of such things leading to the commonly practiced prohibition of
using straight edged razors when shaving).  Piercing ones ears is less
painful (or so my sister told me) than getting an allergy shot, does not
draw blood, and is relatively harmless.  However, I would guess that this
question remain open to personal interpretation.

Brian E. Foont
bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

My views are my own, but you may share them if you like.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:37:07 EST
From: <CARIAN@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: What _is_ the procedure for conversion to Judaism?
Distribution: na

First consult a (Conservative/Orthodox/Reconstructionist/Reform) rabbi
because only (Conservative/Orthodox/Reconstructionist/Reform) Judaism
is Authentic Judaism (tm) and only Authentic (tm) conversions are
valid.

After the required period of study the candidate appears before a Bet Din
of three (generally, but not necessarily, rabbis). The Bet Din questions
him/her and he/she agrees to be bound by the mitzvot.

Then comes immersion for all candidates and circumcision or "hatafat dam
brit" (symbolic circumcision if already medically circumcised) for male
candidates.

These are the three steps. They are followed in O(tm), C(tm) and I
believe Rec(tm); they are optional but often followed in R(tm).

Rabbi Charles Arian
CARIAN@american.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: sarah@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Interfaith marriages
Reply-To: sarah@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 08:53:09 GMT

HUH???
 
You recommend that people email her to tell her the evils of WHAT?
Betrayal of Judaism? Emotional problems? Maybe she's not Jewish? She
never said she was.  Maybe she's a marriage counsellor? Maybe she's
dating a Jew, knows someone who is, or is just curious.  Don't you think
you're being a little unfair? Who is she hurting my asking for information?

Sarah, who is VERY confused and surprised at the venom in your email.
From: hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Kosher Honey - Still no answer
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:14:41 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <mannj.721421798@acf9> mannj@acf9.nyu.edu (Jordan Mann) writes:
>chips@eskimo.celestial.com (:crp:) writes:
>
>>An acceptable answer to why honey is kosher is still waiting to be found.
>> ...
>
>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

You have made a basic error here. First of all, the Talmud DOES NOT
ask the question about bee honey. One of the commentaries (Tosfot)
on the relevant passage in the Talmud asks this question. 
 
Second of all, you cannot judge the merits of this argument, without
looking up the Tosfot, and seeing exactly what he says. Perhaps someone
misquoted it, or perhaps they misunderstood it. Perhaps, 'manufacture'
was the wrong word - but there is still some difference between the
milk produced by a cow vs. the honey produced by a bee. (Perhaps some
erudite reader can explain to us what this difference is.)

Unfortunately, I don't have a reference at work, to give you the exact
quote.

Third of all, even if the "scientific fact" given were false, it
would still not make a difference. The fact is that Jews have been
eating honey for the past 3000 years, and had there been a prohibition
involved, we certainly would have heard about it long ago. Tosfot
is merely trying to give a reason why one certain prohibition
does not apply. So, if you don't like his reason, you are certainly
welcome to introduce your own theory - as long as you don't argue
in Halacha.

Hayim Hendeles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Why I think Kach's policies are racist (AND DANGEROUS)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:44:47 GMT

In article <dfs.721447233@ro> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
>Furthermore, the policies of Kach, if carried out, would have the
>following consequences - I assure you that they are easily predicted:
>
>1 - Most of the world would cut diplomatic and economic ties with
>    Israel.
>
>2 - Israel would suffer the same fate as Yugoslavia - economic
>    sanctions and expulsion from the U.N.
>
>3 - The Arab nations would unite as never before, posing a grave
>    threat to Israel's existence.
>
>4 - The internal divisions among Israeli Jews would reach the
>    boiling point.
>
>So you see, that even if you don't think Kach's policies are racist,
>they should be fought simply because of the terrible danger they pose
>to Israel and the Jewish people.
   Ah, but David, God is on our side! We can force God to cause the
   world to work differently from the way it would "naturally." In
   short, we force God to perform miracles for us.

   And of course, this is precisely where the late R. Kahane's plan
   of action is in fact completely *un*Jewish. We don't force God's
   hand and we don't demand miracles of him. (Shmuel 1, Chps. 4-6)
From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:13:23
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
	<LERNER.92Nov10141907@tune.cs.columbia.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soldan.aero.org
In-reply-to: lerner@cs.columbia.edu's message of Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:19:07 GMT

On Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:19:07 GMT, lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner) said:

>>>                                       Nothing in Reform prevents someone
>>>from being fully Orthodox while still considering themselves Reform. It's a
>>>conscious decision to join the Orthodox. 

>   The above statement is false.  At best it is a reform opinion.
>   It does not correspond to the actual Jewish practice.  By 
>   definition if one is "fully Orthodox" they one does not accept
>   such reform positions as patrilinial descent.   

Actually, that's not true. I know many Reform Jews, including Reform Rabbis,
who disagree with this decision, and do not accept it. One thing Reform gives
is the freedom to disagree.

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"
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Israel and the diaspora
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:24:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <92314.1255372893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
<2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>Noam Chomsky also reported on this in an article in Z magazine, December
>1991.  He wrote:

Hardly unexpected company for our Andy.  I'm surprised it took him this
long to quote Chomsky.

(Typical Chomsky garbage - deleted.)
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Einstein and Judaism
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:34:22
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<RLK.92Nov10183802@underprize.think.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: rlk@underprize.think.com's message of 10 Nov 92 18:38:02

In article <RLK.92Nov10183802@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

   There is >>NOTHING<< wrong with making a starting hypothesis and working
   from that point.  From a scientific point of view, there is absolutely
   nothing wrong with hypothesizing a god, even!

Lest I confuse anyone, I should point out that the god hypothesized must
be defined well enough to permit tests that could decide whether said
god existed to be devised.  I. e. any scientist who proposed a god would
be expected to describe its expected characteristics to some level of
detail, such that someone else could come along and propose a test which
if failed would serve to refute the hypothesis.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:34:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: venera.22847
	<1d650sINN2kt@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
	<1992Nov3.205925.24782@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<1d8tr2INNe4n@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu's message of 4 Nov 92 16:30:26 GMT

In article <1d8tr2INNe4n@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love) writes:
>
> In article <1992Nov3.205925.24782@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
> >
> >	All I really mean to say is that those who condemn Rabbi Kahane
> >(HY"D) for having been a racist without knowing what HIS words (as
> >opposed to what others say about him) actually are, and without
> >knowing the Jewish sources on which he bases them are not contributing
> >anything worthwhile.  I use this phraseology because many claim that
> >the late Rabbi's views are both non Jewish and racist.
>
> I have read most of Kahane's own writings, I have also read all
> of the original sources he cites in the writings I have read. I have
> also read analyses by Orthodox opponents of Kahane, for example,
> those compiled by Oz v'Shalom ...

This is getting ludicrous.  Kahane was in the rather frequent habit of
referring to Arabs in his speeches as "dogs".  Somehow, I doubt that
deep study of Kahane's writings and/or Jewish religious sources is
required before the designation "racist" is deemed appropriate for a
person such as this.

> >"For all I care, you can send your money to the Hitler memorial fund, too, if
> >that pleases you."
> >
> >From  arens@vaxa.isi.edu (Yigal Arens) in article <9323@venera.isi.edu>

I have no idea why Mr. Makowsky insists on attaching to every posting of
his my old comment on the fact that he donates money to modern day
followers of Hitlerite principles, but he must have is reasons...  More
likely than not, he assumes that people will misconstrue my comment --
as its context has been so long gone.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
arens@isi.edu
From: rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:03:57 GMT
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In article <1992Nov6.193242.4385@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>In article <2757@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>
># dm = makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
>
># me: I don't know about David Skoll, but I have read the deceased racist's
>                                                                   ^^^^^^^^
># me: books and articles and heard him speak.
>
># dm: We are discussing Rabbi Meir Kahane.  Not whoever it was you heard
># dm: speak.
>
># Yes, we are discussing the late racist rabbi.
>
>       By "we" I meant the discussion I was taking part in involving the
>non Racist Rabbi Meir Kahane (HY"D).  Please stay out of this
>discussion if you want to discuss another Rabbi who might have
>happened to be a racist.

Well.  I do not know about Warren, but I definitely heard somebody
calling himself 'Rabbi Meir Kahane' spouting Kach propoganda at 'The
Museum of the Potential Holocaust' at Ussishkin street, here in
Jerusalem.

I also know that when a friend of mine challenged him on his sources,
he eventually came out with something along the lines of: "Who is the
talmid chacham?  Me?  Or you?"  Sounds like a massive cop-out to me.

>--
>"For all I care, you can send your money to the Hitler memorial fund, too, if
>that pleases you."
>
>From  arens@vaxa.isi.edu (Yigal Arens) in article <9323@venera.isi.edu>
       ^^^^^

Perhaps it might be more appropriate if someone else's name were
there? :-|


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg            |    ^     Life's a dream-so sleep through it!
Bitnet:                     | \-/-\-/ Be'ahavat Chinam (With causeless love)
rothberg@bimacs             |  X   X Am Yisra'el       The People of Israel
Internet:                   | /-\-/-\Be'Eretz Yisra'el In The Land of Israel
rothberg@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il|    V   Im Torat Yisra'el With The Torah of Israel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish