HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eva@Apocalypse.CAD.UCLA.EDU (Eva)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Latkes with ?? (was: Ascii Chanukah symbols?)
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:04:37 GMT
Organization: U.C.L.A. Computer Aided Design Laboratory

In article <cF4kwB4w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker) writes:
>eva@Apocalypse.CAD.UCLA.EDU (Eva) writes:
>
>> Does anyone have any ascii pictures of a dreidle or a chanukia?
>> (If you send one of latkes I might be tempted to put sour cream on it and
>>  take a bite out of the screen)
>----
>Yuch!  Does anyone else eat latkes with sour cream?  I thought the only 
>way to eat them was with apple sauce.

We have three toppings on our table for Chanukah:
1) Apple Sauce
2) Sour Cream
3) Honey (This is quite good even if it has a Rosh Hashana reference)
       (and if you add sugar on top it stops the honey from dripping!!) YUM!

As for sufganiyot, our baker had rasberry filled AND custard filled.

such diversity!!!!!

eva
eva@apocalypse.cad.ucla.edu


Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: kashrut howls
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:53:22 GMT

In <1gt04bINNiom@morrow.stanford.edu> aliki@nova1.stanford.edu (Alexandra Schmidt) writes:

>... CMLOR ...

Now we conjugate acronyms?  I CMLOR, we COLOR, you CYLOR, he/she
CHLOR, they CTLOR ...
-- 
/|/-\/-\          "If there really was a Jewish conspiracy to run the
 |__/__/_/        world, my rabbi would have let me in on it by now.
 |warren@         I contribute enough to the shule."
/ nysernet.org 			    Saul Goodman
From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: ERETZ YISRAEL (was Re: deportation)
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:51:33 GMT

dat@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Turner) writes:
 
> 1) I am a British Jew.  My homeland is Britain.  The homeland of Swedish
> Jews  is Sweden, and so on.  Exactly the same as for British and Swedish
> Baptists, or Catholics.  Judaism is a religion, not a nationality.  Most
> Jews  live  in  the  diaspora,  and show no signs of moving - nor should
> they.  Their homeland is the country they are living in.

Okay.  Let's say we take your definition of homeland (which I don't),
namely, one's homeland is the country in which one lives.

> 2) Unfortunately what you call Eretz Yisreal has almost exactly the same
> boundaries  as  historic  Palestine.   The  Palestinians lived in it for
> thirteen centuries, without doing Jews or anyone else any harm,  and  it
> is  their homeland.  They have no other homeland.  You are a settler - a
> colonist - in another people's land.

Based on your definition above, those Palestinians who do not currently
reside in Israel, or Palestine or whatever you call it, cannot claim
Palestine as their homeland.  Using the same definition, those Jews,
Arabs and anyone else living in Israel/Palestine can claim I/P as their
homeland.

The fact that Israel's borders are virtually identical to those of
"historic Palestine" is meaningless.  It just means that if a "historic
Palestinian" were still around, he/she wouldn't have to relocate in order
to call him/herself an Israeli.

You also bring up the concept of a country.  What exactly is that?
And if the place in which one lives is not an official "country,"
does that render it ineligible for homelandness?

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: "terry rubenstein" <terry.rubenstein@canrem.com>
Subject: converting
Reply-To: "terry rubenstein" <terry.rubenstein@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: soc
Date: 26 Dec 92 07:57:37 EST

Can anyone please tell me what is involved in someone from another religion
becomming a Jew.

How long does it usually take? What do they need to know? How does someone
start the process? Besides promissing to follow that which you have learned,
what else must the prospective convert assure the one converting them? Is
there a great deal of difference in what is required to convert as a Orthadox
as opposed to converting as a Conservative?

Thanks in advance for the help!
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #12428  Terry.Rubenstein@canrem.com
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 00:03:26 GMT

In article <9212181831.AA10223@cyclone.sbi.com> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
>faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
>
>It is far easier and more objective to define membership in this way.
>Once someone is defined as a Jew, that person is then encouraged to
>observe the law.  If we are to be precisely defined by our beliefs,
                                                            ^^^^^^^
>or even by our practice, I suspect that at most one person could
>ever be defined as a Jew.
>
>> Could there be different procedures for
>> becoming one who believe in the religion, as opposed to a member of the
>> nation?
>
>Yes.  A good example is Christianity, which generally defines its
>adherents by their belief, unlike Judaism.  I have a problem with
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, actually I agree with the statement that Jews are defined by
what they do and not what their beliefs are.

But then I read all these articles saying conservative converts are
not kosher because they and their rabbis don't hold certain beliefs.

Lots of words right here stated: since conservative rabbis and
converts do not believe the entire written and oral Torah were
written by G-d, then the conversions are not valid.  Of course,
I believe if one holds certain beliefs, one's actions in particular
situations would differ from those who do hold those beliefs.  But
the criticism here wasn't about actions;  it was about beliefs!

So I read with agreement the statement that beliefs do not define
Judaism, yet know that beliefs will once again be thrown down as
a gauntlet when conversion discussion arise.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Jewish Christmas Carol Hits
Date: 24 Dec 1992 02:25:34 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec23.220540.15417@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>Peter, Paul, and Mary (are any of them Jewish?) did a Christmas show
>containing Chanukah songs as well. Both sets of material were very
>movingly arranged and performed.

None of PP&M are Jewish, and in fact Paul Stuckey (sp?) is close
to being a fundamentalist Xstian. However, the group has been *very*
supportive of Soviet Jewry (at least partially out of the atmosphere
of Communist religious suppression) and have even been part of the
B'nai B'rith lecture circuit.
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: ERETZ YISRAEL (was Re: deportation)
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.arabic
Date: 1 Jan 1993 00:01:30 +1100
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

I claim the first posting for 1993!

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>In article <1hrfo6INNpa1@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

># Nobody disputes that there was significant migration into and out
># of Palestine over many years, but your contention that most 
># Palestinian Arabs of 1910 resulted from it is not supported by
># the evidence.  Here is one of many pieces of quantitative evidence
># that prove you are dead wrong:

>	If it proves him dead wrong you ommitted a lot.

>#   Birth places of residents of Jerusalem and Hebron districts in 1905.
                    ^ Moslem

>#                        Cities              Villages
>#   district       Jerusalem  Hebron     Jerusalem  Hebron
 
>#   same place        78.0     96.7        93.9     94.8
>#   other Palestine   10.3      2.5         5.7      4.4 
>#   not Palestine     11.7      0.8         0.4      0.8
 
>#   [U. O. Schmelz, Population characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron
>#      districts according to the Ottoman census of 1905, in Ottoman
>#      Palestine 1800-1914 (G. Gilbar, ed.), (Brill Leiden, 1990).]
 
>	As we now know due to the deabte over where Yassir Arafat was
>born, what used to be registered as birth places was not where they
>were born, but where the births were registered.  Someone born in say
>Amman who had his birth registered in Jerusalem would be listed as
>having been born in Jerusalem.  This is the center of the controversy
>over where Arafat was born since it is how things were done.

How could I have missed this explanation?  Tens of thousands of people 
in 1905 (twelve years before the Balfour Declaration) conspired to 
register their births in the wrong place.  As proof of this there is 
a controversy over the birth place of someone born twelve years 
AFTER the Balfour Declaration.  The Ottoman registration system had 
been replaced by the British system in the meantime, but, hell, Arabs
will be Arabs.  I wish I was as clever as you, David.

Soc.culture.jewish changed to talk.politics.mideast in the followup.

>makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu

Brendan.
From: sutin@ra.UCSC.EDU (Brian Sutin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Mezuza question
Date: 28 Dec 1992 22:13:10 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory UCSC
NNTP-Posting-Host: ra.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec28.191850.4685@cbfsb.cb.att.com> hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz) writes:
>If the new owner is not Jewish, then you must remove the old
>mezuzah.  If you don't know the new owners then it would be best
>to take the old mezuzas to your new how.  If the new owners would
>use a mezuza themselves then it may be best to bring up the issue
>(you can say you would prefer to take the mezuzas).  In either
>case, it would be best to first get the mezuzas checked to make
>sure they are still kosher.
>| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |

According to Encyclopedia Judaica, if the new owners are Jewish then you
must leave the mezuzas on the house, otherwise take them with you.

Brian Sutin				sutin@lick.ucsc.edu
Lick Observatory, UCSC			Santa Cruz, CA 95064
    Fred:   "May I rescue you?"
    Ginger: "No, thank you.  I prefer being in distress."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: goldberg@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg)
Subject: Re: deportation
Organization: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:44:00 GMT

aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:

>In article <1992Dec27.011409.23888@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

>>	Correct.  "palestine?" does not exist.  It never has.

>This says it all.  Maybe we should refer you to something that is a
>little more familiar to you ... the Bible.  Then come back and tell us
>that Palestine has never existed.

    Having read the Bible, I must say that I have seen PHILISTINES, as in Land
of PHILISTINES, more or less the Gaza strip, depending on the date. But
I have not seen Palestine. I probably did not read well enough.
    By the way, at the 1988 Montreal TeX Users Group meeting, I showed the
work I had done (before XeT-TeX came into reality) to make TeX work right to
left in Hebrew and Arabic (I showed examples of both). I presented the Hebrew
and Arabic alphabets to the audience, showing among others that our languages
do not distinguish between P and PH, Arabic even less than Hebrew. The audience
seeming surprised, I quoted that PALESTINE and PHILISTINE was one word. The
audience reacted with a tremendous piece of laughter. I did not ask why.
    The Arabic text generated with TeX which I displayed, to illustrate the
new Arabic font written at the Technion, Haifa, Israel, was:
    "Jews and Arabs, all are Sons of Abraham"
    The Hebrew texts were a short scientific example and the last paragraph
of Maimonide's Mishney Torah, talking about Peace in the World to Come.
    Perpetuation of Philistine mentality, associated with destruction in the
mind of students of antique civilisations, is not going to contribute in  
bringing back Abraham's Sons together, nor in making the World to Come any
nearer. Perhaps the most famous Philistine-related issue in the Bible is the
story of Samson and Delila (Delila=empty in Hebrew...); reminding it to s.c.j
readers, Anisa, is not likely to help your cause. Also, I am reasonably certain
that present "Palestinians" do not claim to be descendants of antique
Philistines--at least I never heard such a claim before.
>Anisa
    Yaaqov
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jacobw@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jacob Solomon Weinstein)
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:50:06 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Norman Miller has apparently set himself up as the Art Czar for the
>rest of us. The Menorah in Beverly Hills, which is what started this
>thread, is by the famous Israeli artist Agam, and though Norman
>is free not to like it, to make a general argument about vulgarity
>based on his own personal taste in art is just plain silly. Some
>of the most refined cultural arbiters and critics, who would be
>among the first to scream "vulgarity" think the Agam's work
>is worthy of hanging in major galleries around the world.
>
>Finally, it's clear that Norman doesn't have a clue about what
>vulgarity means (check the dictionary) since he says:
(STUFF DELETED)

I followed your instructions and checked my Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary. Here's one of their definitions of "vulgar":
"Lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste." Which means that making
"a general argument about vulgarity based on his own personal taste in
art" is NOT silly. 

I know that N.M. did try to offer a very broad definition of vulgar
that's quite different from that of Webster's, but it seems to me that,
in essence, he was saying that the big Menorah was not to his taste.
This does not strike me as a terribly offensive statement, nor one
for which Norman ought to apologize. 




Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: L'Chaim 247
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:43:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.040547.9427@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>   Every war ever waged was basically for power/money, except for one. The
>>war which the Greeks waged against the Jews over 2,000 years ago was waged
>>for oil. Olive oil to be exact.

[sections deleted to save bandwidth]

>If I steal your car, does it show that I didn't do so for material reasons
>just because after I took it I decided to drive it instead of sell it to
>someone else?
>
>Of course not.  If I steal your car and I drive it, I don't have to pay
>a few thousand dollars to buy one and drive _it_ instead.

>If I throw you out of your house and decide to live in it instead, does
>that mean I didn't take your house because I didn't knock it down and use
>the materials elsewhere?
>
>>   But oil is significant for another reason, a reason which gives us
>>additional insight into oil's message in our lives in general and the
>>Chanuka miracle in particular. 
>>   Oil, like wine, symbolizes the secrets of Torah, the mystical aspects
>>of  Judaism. These formerly hidden concepts are becoming more revealed as
>
>A reason which makes me doubtful.  The Greeks did not know that oil has this
>symbolism when they decided to choose oil to defile.  If the symbolism is
>anything other than coincidence, who chose it?  Is it supposed to be a miracle
>that the Greeks picked the one substance that would have a nice symbolism?
>--
>
>Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)


You miss the point.  The Greeks are in the position of someone
(to use your analogies) who owns a number of Jaguars and
deliberately goes and trashes his neighbors VW and then drives
that.

The Hellenists carefully chose the mitzvos they forbade and the
items they defiled BECAUSE of their symbolic meaning.  It was no
accident.  That is one reason that they deliberately sacrificed
pigs on the altar.  If it was only a matter of taking over the
temple for their own use they could have used sheep just as the
Greeks in Greece did and just as the locals did.  A similar
method can be seen in the way that the xians took over the pagan
holidays for their own use by reinterpreting the meanings.

Instead, by sacrificing a pig, the Hellenists were making a
carefully chosen statement.

-- 
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:24130 talk.politics.mideast:24269
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israel must return the deportees!
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:10:58
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: dat@ukc.ac.uk's message of 29 Dec 92 01:05:05 GMT

In article <531@owl.ukc.ac.uk> dat@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Turner) writes:

   Can people not see that the violence of Hamas and similar  organisations
   is the natural reaction of the Palestinians to the misery of their lives
   under Israeli occupation?

Then why were such groups organized long before June 1967, when this was
not an issue (the PLO was formed in 1964)?

   Not a shred of evidence has been presented in open court  that  the  415
   deportees  are  guilty of anything - not even of being members of Hamas.
   The deportations are a crude reprisal, of the  same  type  as  when  the
   Germans  deported whole French villages in response to each killing of a
   German soldier by the resistance.  This type of collective punishment is
   completely illegal, and profoundly repulsive to international opinion.

Supposedly 6 of the 415 may not be members of Hamas, and there is
apparently an appeals process going on now concerning them.  We'll see
what happens there -- Israel claims to want to deport members of Hamas.
But if 409 of the 415 were members of Hamas, they have voluntarily
affiliated themselves with that group.  Strictly legal or otherwise,
temporary exile does not strike me as a particularly inhumane punishment
given the situation (in itself, although the circumstances of the
deportees are quite harsh right now, and perhaps Israel should permit
relief supplies to be delivered by a neutral party, or maybe even do so
itself).

   The deportations will simply fuel further violence.  I can tell  you  my
   reaction  to the deportations - I wanted to go out and punch the nearest
   Israeli.  And I am a Jew.  What effect do you think it will have on  the
   Palestinians?

I haven't heard about too many incidents of violence since this
happened.  That second sentence sounds like sheer bluster to me.

   Israel has to be told that the deportations are absolutely unacceptable,
   and must be reversed.

   David Turner
   (A British Jew who does NOT support Israel)

Fine, I don't agree with everything Israel does, but this talk of
wanting to go out and punch the nearest Israeli is sheer nonsense.
--
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mstern@wam.umd.edu (Michael Stern)
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:31:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.154347.12623@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.073102.12213@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternl
>ight) writes:
>>
>>At the Beverly Hills Menorah lighting ceremony Sunday night, presided
>>over by the Mayor of Beverly Hills, the Vice-Mayor, and a Chabad Rabbi,
>>it was stated that the ACLU and the American Jewish Committee went
>>to court Sunday morning to stop it (and lost).
>>
>>Does anyone know what the h... is going on when the AJC tries to stop
>>a menorah lighting?
>>
>>David
>
>What the hell is going on is this: the AJC, with the approval I
>suspect of most American Jews, is fighting for a secular rather
>than religious society.  If you think you'd prefer the latter,
>contemplate for a moment who would be running it.
>
>Norman Miller

A 'secular society' is a euphemism.  There can be no truly 'secular'
society, since there would be nothing to keep it together.  Contemporary
US has come pretty close lately, but if you believe that we a re a 
'secular' state, take a field trip to a shopping mall this week!

Michael Stern	mstern@wam.umd.edu	UMCP/USDA-ARS

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: norm@helix.nih.gov(Norm Friedman)
Subject: Re: SCJ Gathering Balto-Wash; Final Update
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <norm@helix.nih.gov(Norm Friedman)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:32:20 GMT

>For those of you who have been following the continuing saga of the SCJ
>Gathering for the Baltington-Washimore area: it was successfully held
>earlier this afternoon. It was not a large gathering but we made up in
>quality  what we lacked in quantity: the Professors Shimoff, Jeff Edelheit
>and family, Ron Greenberg, Rob Levene, Martha Kahn and yours truly.
>
>I understand there will be some overlap with next week's gathering in
>Highland Park, NJ.
>
>L'shana ha-baah b'Baltimore; this year it was in Potomac, Md., near
>Washington.
>
>Rabbi Charles Arian
>CARIAN@american.edu
Rabbi Charles,
Sorry to have missed.  Would have enjoyed being with you all.  As I told
you previously, the date conflicted with the NCSY Chanukah Music Festival
in Balto.  Maybe again sometime soon.  Thanks for your troubles.  norm
+--------------------------------------------------------+
   

   *    ***    **      *
   *   *   *     *     *
   *   *   *     *     *   
   *    ***         ***
   *   nissan reuven b'R Shami             
   *   
   *   *  *   ***   ***   **  **
   *   ** *  *   *  *  *  * ** *
   *   * **  *   *  ***   *    *
   *   *  *   ***   *  *  *    *
       norm  "EVERYWHERE I GO, I GO TO ISRAEL!"
+---------------------------------------------------------+
From: simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Mezuza question
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:42:18 GMT
Reply-To: simon1@bass.bu.edu (Simon Streltsov)
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: Boston University

Dima Khaikin writes:
>One more thing you have to
>remember is that you have about 30 days to put them up once you move in.
>So, if a Rabbi can't make it earlier, then you should put it up yourself.

Isn't it, that you shouldn't do it before 30 days ?
(it is considered temporary dwelling before that ,
on the other hand, if you are paying mortgage already,
you dont feel it as a temporary one (-:[).

Maybe it depend on the minhag?
(Litvaks dont do it before 30 days, other - chabad, for ex,- do)
Or, maybe I'm completely messed up.

Simon

p.s. Peter, why wouldnt you make a prty for all Boston scj 
readers in a new house together with afffixing a mezuza (-:
It could be beginning of a nice tradition!