HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:00:37 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Israel and the diaspora
 <1992Nov2.143745.6279@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
 <92308.0209172893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <4428@bimacs.BITNET>

In article <4428@bimacs.BITNET>, rothberg@bimacs.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg) says:
>
>I think the above argument has another perspective to it which both of
>you do not have
>
>Unlike both of you I live in Israel, and whether you agree or disagree
>with the policy of the government of Israel you will not necessarily
>be affected by its consequences.  (Before you flame me, I do realise
>that anti-Semites everywhere need only the flimsiest excuse for their
>deplorable activities.)

Ah yes, the famous "wish you were here" argument. Unfortunately, Israel's
actions often effect us in the diaspora. For example until a few years ago
about 90% of Russian Jewish emigres emigrated to nations other than Israel.
Israel, feeling that the inherent right of these people to travel should only
be extended as far as Israel tried to make it impossible for them to go
elsewhere by arranging direct flights to Jerusalem and getting the U.S. to
impose quotas on the number of Russian Jews entering the country. 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.

Also, Israel's human rights atrocities does nothing to help fight anti-Semitism
in the diaspora. If Israel should ever tilt to the far right represented by
Sharon or Kach, I believe Diaspora Jews would be the target of anti-Semitism
not seen for decades.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni)
Subject: Re: Movie Exodus
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:30:42 GMT

In: <1992Nov9.203808.2026@col.hp.com>
danl@col.hp.com (Daniel Lockhart) wonders:

>In the scene, the young boy swears on a book and gun.  The question seems
>easy at first, what book is he swearing on?
>
>A) the Tanach ( is swearing on the Tanach permitted in Jewish culture?
>              ( how available were copies of the Tancah in 1948?
>              ( something seems wrong about the gun and a Tanach!

Let me say at the beginning I did not like Exodus, either in book form
or as a movie, but that is another story.

As to  the question.  I am  no authority what is  permitted by "Jewish
culture" but as a fact, in entering  the Haganna, we did take an oath.
I do not remember  whether besides the pistol we also  had a Tanakh on
the table, but  it is possible.  What happened at  the "Irgun" (to use
Exodus jargon), I cannot say, have a gun AND a Tanakh sounds plausible
to me.   On the availability of  Tanakhs books in 1948,  and before, I
can set Daniel's mind at rest, there were plenty of them in Palestine.
I  also do  not see  anything  wrong on  principle of  gun and  Tanakh
together, if  the fight  was a  justified one from  a Jewish  point of
view, and it surely was, this combination seems very natural to me.

>B) Another book other than the Tanach

If there was book, the Tanakh would have been the one.

>C) Just another movie stereotype that doesn't really exist.

Ari ben Kenaan (sp?) was a movie stereotype (and how!), but this scene
was not.

BTW the  present practice  of the  Israeli Army, at  the end  of basic
training, is to give all new soldiers a copy of the Tanakh.

>daniel

 Michael Shimshoni
From: khaikin@banana.cis.ohio-state.edu (dmitry khaikin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: If I could read only one book on Judaism, what would it be?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:01:14 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science

Hi! I posted earlier about the book by Chaim Harris. I am sorry it is
not by Chaim Harris, it is by Chaim Donin. The book is called " To Be A
Jew".

Thanks,
Dima
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "A word is worth one coin; silence is worth two."_____ The Talmud.
  "Silence is good everywhere, except in connection with Torah."____ The Zohar.
   khaikin@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dmitry Khaikin, Columbus Ohio, USA)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: Jewish Fundamentalism
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:19:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.143410.605@umbc3.umbc.edu> shimoff@umbc5.umbc.edu
(Eliot Shimoff) writes:

>My guess would be that your definition of fundamentalist is much
>like my definition of "meshuga-frum" -- any more than two steps
>to the right of my practice. :-)

And, of course, anyone more than two steps to the left is
assimilationist?
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:41:21 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)

In article <FAIGIN.92Nov11074337@soldan.aero.org>, faigin@aero (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
>Although it is true that Reform does not impose a requirement for a
>get during a civil divorce, if the Rabbi is consulted, they often
>recommend it. However, civil divorce is recognized as a divorce by
>most Reform rabbis.

Meaning what?  That there are Reform rabbis who consider a remarriage
after civil divorce a form of adultery?  That they won't perform a
marriage between a mamzer and a non-convert non-mamzer?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: 500 years later
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:42:16 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

The U of Iowa and Agudas Achim, our local synagogue, with various sources
of outside money, have just sponsored a conference on the Sephardic
Diaspora.  This included exhibits in the synagogue, an academic
conference, and much more, finishing up with a concert by "The Voice of
the Turtle", a musical group that specializes in Ladino (Judeo Spanish)
music.

The concert was quite good (the group explained their songs, and that,
combined with my minimal knowledge of Spanish and Hebrew, was enough to
let me follow the music enough for enjoyment).  I strongly recommend the
Voice of the Turtle, as a musical group, to anyone who has a chance to
hear them.

They play on period instruments (or reconstructions thereof), and they
base their work on the oral traditions of the scattered remnants of the
Ladino community.  The only element they seem to have missed is the
New Mexico community which is only now coming into the light of day.

The single most moving story they had was approximately as follows:  They
had long been aware of an oral tradition among the Jews of the Sephardic
Diaspora that when the Jews left Spain, many of them took their house keys
with them.  The tradition had it that the keys were passed down through
the generations.  After a recent concert in Boston, they said, a woman
from the audience approached them, saying that when they told the story
of the keys, her hair had stood on end -- she had an old key, a ancient
foot long iron key that she'd gotten from her grandmother.  She'd known
that the key was a family heriloom, but she'd never really known why.
Family tradition had it that her family once came from Toledo, and when
she heard the story of the keys, she'd suddenly connected the key with
the family tradition.  The woman, on a later visit, showed them the key.
This was, for the people in the Voice of the Turtle, the first
confirmation they had of the tradition of the keys.

I'll repeat myself -- if you get a chance, go see the Voice of the Turtle
and learn something about the culture of the Spanish Sephardim.

				Doug Jones
				jones@cs.uiowa.edu
From: ptyaxel@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Seymour Axelrod)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: MOTT?
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:43:00 GMT
Organization: SUNY at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


In article <1992Nov11.190927.448@scott.skidmore.edu>, ssteigma@scott.skidmore.edu (Stephen H. Steigman) writes...
..

>If Christians consider themselves decendants of the tribes,
THEY DO NOT.
 and
>Moslems consider themselves decendants of Mohammed,
THEY DO NOT.
 doesn't that make
>all Jews, Christians, and Moslems memebers of the tribe of Abraham?
NO.

Seymour Axelrod, Psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo
PTYAXEL@UBVMS.BITNET                    PTYAXEL@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Date: Wednesday, 4 November 1992 21:18:07 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.13
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Halakhic Methodology and Burden of Proof
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Distribution: world

In <1992Nov1.225411.12330@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)  wrote:
# 
# In article <92306.113217CARIAN@auvm.american.edu> CARIAN@auvm.american.edu writes:
# >The question then is: "is something permitted unless proven to be forbidden?"
# >Or is the opposite the case, namely "something is forbidden unless proven to
# >be permitted."

# I think that situations where something isn't clearly permitted or
# forbidden is known as a "safek" (doubt).  In such situations, the very
# religious tend to choose the stricter interpretation, just to be on
# the safe side.  But practical decisions in such areas are usually left
# up to your local rabbi.  Do what he feels is right.

  Ah, but what is stricter?  Some apparently feel that it is stricter
  to forbid wearing a tie.  One could argue that, like wearing kippot,
  REQUIRING the neckwear is (con)stricter, perhaps on the grounds of
  showing respect.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: British Royal Family question.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:24:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.182103.23855@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
jweber@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (jodi.weber) writes:

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

The medical profession has gone back and forth, over the years, on
whether circumcision is a good idea.  I have a theory about why.  When
few circumcisions are done in general, the medical profession sees far
fewer problems among those men that have been circumcized.  This
usually includes a large percentage of Jewish men (i.e. those who have
been circumcized by a Mohel).  The medical profession decides that
circumcision is a good idea so they promote it.  Now more surgeons get
into the business, success rates decrease, problems increase, and the
medical profession starts to discourage the procedure.  When they get
back to the rates in which problems are again few, it is because it is
the Mohelim that are doing most of the circumcisions and the cycle
starts again.

My bet is that the Royal family has been circumcizing its boys long
enough that they move beyond the cyclical trend by looking for the most
experienced person available.  It is not all that unusual for an
expereinced Mohel to have done literally thousands.  Because they may
not do any other surgery (from this they make a living :-) they get
mighty experienced.

Does anybody remember the "Saturday Night Live" fake commercial for the
car which used proof for the smoothness of the car's ride by
circumcizing a baby boy in the back seat while riding over a bumpy
road?  A classic.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: What Does it take to be a Prophet/Messanger?
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:10:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.BxEnLt.CDI
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Nov8.143442.15078@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.030057.8951@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny
>Keren) writes:

>> I would be grateful for answers to the following:

>> 2) Are there any criterions one has to fill to be considered a
>>   prhophet/messanger?

>Maimonides spells them out in detail in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah,
>particularly chapters 7-10 and thereabouts.  Among the qualifications
>are scrupulous Torah observance, impeccable character, a demostrated
>ability to tell the future precisely and accurately, physical health,
>avoidance of daily trivialities, and maintenance of a consistently
>high level of spirituality.

This does not jibe with some of those generally considered to be
prophets.  Balaam (Bil'am) is accepted as a prophet, and while he
could be excused for not observing Torah, his character was far
from impeccable.  

One of the most successful prophets, from the standpoint of God,
was Jonah.  Certainly his character was not impeccable.  Also, he
was successful ONLY because his foretelling the future caused acts
which made his predictions false!

Many of the recognized prophets made no predictions whatever.
False predictions are stated in the Torah as a way of recognizing
a false prophet.  The idea of a prophet was someone who broadcast
at least a reasonable version of what God wanted said.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: antler@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Stephen Antler)
Subject: Information Request
Reply-To: antler@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:51:27 GMT

Moshe Waldoaks asked to have this announcement posted.  You may respond to him
directly or to me and I will forward responses.
 
Steve Antler
 
 
THE GANTSE MEGILLAH
 
 
     I have just undertaken a wonderful project.  You can be a 
part of it.  Do you have any really good Purim Torah that you 
would like to see published in The Gantse Megillah?  The 
collection will be published next year by the Jewish Publication 
Society (JPS).  This unique Purim companion will include a Hebrew 
and English version of Megillat Esther, a light-hearted 
commentary, and loads of Purim parodies, jokes, cartoons, and 
much more.
 
     You may know my work as the co-editor of The Big Book of 
Jewish Humor, and The Big Book of New American Humor.  Some of 
you may have seen me on the PBS documentary, "The World of Jewish 
Humor."  Ly conviction is that Jewish humor is an important 
aspect of Jewish consciousness.  The Gantse Megillah provide an 
opportunity to include not only comic ideas about the Purim 
story, but will also introduce many to the fantasy and 
imagination that is part of our midrashic tradition.  
 
     Materials concerning other parts of the Tanach and Rabbinic 
literature will also be considered.
 
     I am particularly interested in materials that can withstand 
time and place.  But there is always a way to use any really good 
and funny pieces.  Items in Hebrew and Yiddish are also welcome.
 
     If you can provide any leads or suggestions for materials, 
please send them along and I will follow them up.
 
     Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
 
 
                                  Moshe Waldoks
                                  12 Lombard St.
                                  Newton, MA 02158
                                  USA
                                  617-964-3412
                           
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mark@fenris.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger)
Subject: Re: Who built the pyramids
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 19:20:51 GMT

In article <goldberg.721586146@techunix.technion.ac.il> goldberg@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>mmg@doc.ic.ac.uk (M M Ghanem) writes:
>>Am I sensing something in the line of : The pyramids are jewish,
>>therefore ....
>     Definitely NO WAY. No such claim. The pyramids are splendid Egyptian
>     monuments 

True, and they come as part and parcel with the land of Egypt.

But wasn't it the Arabs who pulled off their outer casing of
limestone, thus defacing them in perpetuity?

Some caretakers!


--Mark
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:39:34 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)

In article <1992Nov5.152848.19608@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ask@cbnews (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>>Politics has nothing to do with it. My concern is strictly halachik
>>and I claim for support the Teshuvos (Responsa) of Reb Moshe
>>Feinstein z'tzl who in many of them stated that a conversion through
>>a Conservative Beis Din was not a valid conversion.

>Many teshuvot?  [misinformation omitted]

Yes.

See a summary discussion in J David Bleich CONTEMPORARY HALAKHIC
PROBLEMS Vol 3, p 91.  In discussing conversion witnesses, he points
out that the requirements include complete acceptance of the Written
and Oral Law in their entirety, and even the most minor deviation
from this is grounds for disqualification.  Bleich goes on:

	... it was the stated opinion of halakhic authorities
	that ideological adherents of Reform and Conservativism
	fall into this category. ... R Moses Feinstein has written
	in no less than nine different responsa ... that all who
	identify themselves as non-Orthodox clergy must be con-
	sidered to be in this category.

Bleich's footnote references these nine teshuvot, and he then mentions
seven others.  Even someone who is completely observant, by Orthodox
standards, but has Conservative beliefs (say regarding the origin of
the Oral Law), would be an invalid witness.

The early Hasidim were rejected on much weaker grounds.  The Vilna
Gaon's core objection to Hasidus was its explicit change in _emphasis_.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Einstein and Judaism
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:16:00 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <92313.1842022893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:

>As this is a "cultural" newsgroup rather than a religious one, Einstein could
>well argue that as politics and religion are all part of culture, if you
>wish to have an exclusively religious newsgroup, you should start
>soc.religion.judaism

One could only make this argument if one was not around during the
Great Renaming (TM) when soc.culture.jewish was created rather than
talk.religion.jewish (there were no soc.religion groups then, and
those that exist today are all moderated, I think, and the survey
mentioned below also found a majority against moderation) in order to
increase propagation (note that your system doesn't carry talk
groups), when talk.politics.mideast was created specifically in order
to remove discussions of the mideast conflict from soc.culture.jewish,
or when Daniel Faigin's survey found a majority of soc.culture.jewish
readers supported keeping politics out.

However, since many people on this net seem to only object to politics
when they disagree (the last time that I got involved in a political
debate here (which someone else began) I got several complaints, all
from people who disagreed with me), it's highly unlikely that politics
will ever actually be removed from this list.

However, I repeat my offer, if there is anyone who would like to
particpate in talk.politics.mideast and can't because their system
doesn't get it, I will set up a listserv so that they can both post
and receive articles by mail.  Many of the same delightful people who
you know and love from scj can also be found in tpm, so you can be
assured of an appreciative audience there too.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			    Jerusalem
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: 1st Re: jesus of Nazareth
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:00:38 GMT

In <4436@bimacs.BITNET> ehrlich@bimacs.BITNET (Gideon Ehrlich) writes:

>If Joel Goldberg's aim is to use this Jewish net for a christian
>misionnary activity then he is definitely doing an immoral action.

If Gideon Ehrlich's aim is to use the net to imply that Joel Goldberg
engages in Christian missionary activity then he is definitely doing
an immoral action.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			    Jerusalem
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Dvar Torah -- Parshas Vayera -- Rabbi Alter
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:08:51 GMT

In article <KRULWICH.92Nov9115057@zowie.ils.nwu.edu> krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
>
>	Parshas Vayera -- Rabbi Avrohom Alter -- Yeshiva Migdal Torah
>At the beginning of the parsha we see Avrohom sitting in the opening of his
>tent and G-d appears to him.  During this nevuah [prophetic experience]
>Avrohom raises his eyes and sees three men approaching.  Immediately Avrohom
>excuses himself, gets up, and goes to greet the visitors [Gen.  18:1-3].
>Thinking about this, one is struck by the oddity of the scene.  Avrohom is
>sitting in the divine presence, communicating with the Creator of the
>universe, at an unprecedented spiritual level, when he sees three wanderers
>approaching, and in Rav Noach Weinberg's words, he says "excuse me G-d, I've
>got company!!"  This requires some explanation.

Even more interesting considering Abraham was an old guy by now, and
had just circumcised himself!
====
>Later in the parsha G-d informs Avrohom of His plans to destroy S'dom [Sodom].
>Avrohom prayed for G-d to spare the city, ...
...
>This is demonstrated without question when we consider his response
>to G-d's final test [which is at the end of this week's parsha].  Commanded by
>G-d to sacrifice his beloved son, Avrohom did not hesitate for a moment.

This has always puzzled me.

Why did Abraham, who did not hesitate to argue with G-d when he told
Abraham he planned to destroy Sodom,  not argue when told to
scarifice Isaac?

He is silent.  Not one word?  

(There's a midrash that he does ask G-d which son he means, but
that's not so much an argument as it is a delaying tactic or a
clarification.)
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus