HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Tanya and Secular Knowledge
Organization: E.E. Dept., Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:16:22 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-1171]: bourbon

In article <Bvz0AF.Bp@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
(Quotes from Tanya omitted)

>It does, but in my opinion, it only makes it worse.  I agree that one
>should use one's knowledge, skills, etc., to serve God.  But one does
>not serve God by not using one's secular knowledge in religious matters.
>I am not willing to accept the idea that the reasoning of the sages,
>necessarily ignorant of the physical world as were their contemporaries,
>can stand if it defies secular knowledge obtained later.  
>
I'm not sure what the third sentence ("But one does not...) means.
However, there is an erroneous assumption, that the sages were
"necessarily ignorant of the physical world." In fact, the Alter Rebbe
was quite knowledgeable of the science of his day. The current Rebbe
has a degree in engineering and knows a great deal about the sciences.
Many observant Jews are reputable scientists, like Herman Branover,
for instance. The reasoning of the sages, if properly studied and
understood, does not defy secular knowledge obtained later - it
anticipates it.

>In particular, I completely reject the idea that one can even hope to 
>understand Judaism properly without taking into account secular knowledge.
>Sanctity is no substitute for knowledge; as the American folk saying goes,
>
Well, I think the reverse is also true: one cannot hope to properly
understand secular knowledge without taking into account Judaism. The
issue for Tanya - and Judaism - is one's perspective: the question is
not the activity, but the purpose: is secular knowledge an end in
itself or a means to serve G-d?

>
>Instead of placing the reasoning of our sages above secular knowledge, our
>religious leaders should learn about the physical world BEFORE they get
>indoctrinated by those who do not know.  Even in interpreting both the
>commandments and the narrative ofthe Torah, a great scholar like Hertz uses
>many things learned about ancient civilizations to understand it.
>
So do all the sages. But they don't assume "secular knowledge"
automatically knows best, a wise course as that bit of religion
constantly changes.  And the point is that Hertz used "secular
knowledge" as a tool, not an excuse. Too often we tend to use it as
the latter. I think the issue is not interpretation, but observance,
which derives from purpose: who does one serve?


-- 
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
>Phone: (317)494-6054
>hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
>{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)


David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: zalman@cumc.cornell.edu (Zalman Suldan)
Subject: The I-can't-believe-they-got-a-hescher-on-this thread
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <zalman@cumc.cornell.edu (Zalman Suldan)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:28:27 GMT


Are these wafers Pas yisroel??? Now THAT would be interesting!!

Zalman Suldan
Zalman@CUMC.Cornell.edu
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Ezekiel
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:10:48 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Oct06.171236.654391@locus.com> hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles) writes:
>In article <1992Oct06.103511.4188@watson.ibm.com> jec@zurich.ibm.com (Jean Cherbonnier) writes:
>>There is in the Old Testament, in the Ezekiel prophecy I beleive, a fantastic
>>description, and I would like to know about an interpretation. Ezekiel describes
>>the arrival of something very bright and illuminated. From this object, several
>>creatures get on the ground. They look like human beings, but they fly, and
>>they were a sort of helmet.
>>It amazes me because the description is extremely detailed and sounds like the
>>arriving of a space ship carrying extraterrestrial creatures...
>>If someone has an explanation, I would be very happy to read it.

>>Thanks.

>We have it by tradition that the first Chapter in Ezekiel is
>*not* to be interpreted literally. You are dealing with
>super-natural  concepts being described in terms of human language.
>Obviously, languages are not "designed" to handle such concepts.

There is a good treatment of this material, not just the first chapter,
in an article in a science fiction magazine (I believe _Analog_) some
time ago, entitled someting like "The Four-Faced Visitors of Ezekiel."

Much of the explanation given there could not have been made until quite
recently, at most the last century.  For example, the face of the kid is
an extrusion from the helmet with horns of an antenna, and the face of the
eagle is a breathing hose.  On the whole, this article considers the 
incident to be a rather accurate reporting by someone of that time of
what was intended to be a discrete appearance by the extraterrestrials.
The flying is by a one-man portable jet helicopter, and also by a platform.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Subject: Re: Kosher Honey
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:15:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.152329.15610@eskimo.celestial.com> chips@eskimo.celestial.com (:crp:) writes:
>Why is honey kosher?
>Is there any other food that comes from something treif that is kosher?
>Does honey need a hechsher?
>

Excellent question. The Talmud and the commentaries discuss this
and similiar questions.

Q: Why is milk kosher? It is a product of a living animal, and since
   a it is prohibited to eat a living animal (aiver min hachai), the
   milk which is derived from it should also be prohibited?
      
A: The Torah says that Eretz Yisroel is "zevat chalav udvash" - a land
   flowing with milk and honey. IF milk were non-kosher, the Torah
   would not have praised Eretz Yisroel with it.

   Source: Talmud Bechorot (around page 5 or 6 -- this is from memory)

Q: Same question about eggs
A: The Torah says that you should send away the mother bird, and take
   the eggs for yourself. Implying, therefore, that the eggs are OK.

Q: Same question about honey. This time, however, you can't give the
   same answer as before ("... a land flowing with milk and honey"),
   because the honey mentioned there is referring to DATE HONEY -
   not bee honey.
A: This question, if I remember correctly, is asked by Tosfot. The
   answer given, which I don't fully understand and may not be saying
   it over correctly, is that the honey is not an integrated part of
   the bee, but rather it is produced separately by the bee.

   Perhaps someone more familiar with bee biology could elucidate on this.


   (Disclaimer: All of the above is written from memory, which is
    subject to possible innaccuracy :-(

Chag Sameach,
Hayim Hendeles
From: waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: sexism
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:04:23 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

> In article <CFMRBYYR@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie We
> >I was born Jewish and I had an Orthodox Jewish education.  I have abandoned
> >Judaism because I came to recognize that it is sexist to the core.  The
> >Tanach is a patriarchal body of literature which completely invalidates the
> >history, experience, and contribution of women.  Jewish law, at least
> >Orthodox Jewish law, is degrading to women.  Is there anyone out there who
> >feels the same way?

I can't help but whether you in fact received an Orthodox "education" or 
perhaps "indoctrination?"  I myself have received a good Conservative 
_education_ that was as much a process of personal exploration as it was 
a classroom education.  I have found little conflict between my religious 
beliefs and the realities of living in the 1990's.  I find that my 
personal exploration of Judaism and Jewish thought helps me to navigate 
through life as well as my talmudic studies have honed my analytical 
abilities that carry me through the professional day.  I have known many 
O people that are capable of this kind of thought as well, although I'm 
sad to say this attitude is slightly less frequent in O circles.

I hope you become convinced that abandoning Judaism because of a poor 
educational environment is not necessary.  Your questions at least 
indicates a possibility that something is missing from your life.  
Perhaps it is a religious tie to your community and family that can fill 
whatever void may be there.

Todd
From: silverm@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Jeff Silverman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: sexism
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:57:02 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

You know, she has a point there.

Melanie, a belief system must "feel" right for you in order for you to
believe in it.  If you don't believe in it, then it isn't a belief system.
I happen to believe in Aristotelian logic, even if I can't spell it.
I also believe in a Reform Judaism.  Both of these belief systems feel right
for me.  But then, I'm the kind of person you perceive as an oppressor:
white, male, establishment, etc.

I would hope that you take the time and trouble to find a system of values
and beliefs that you are comfortable with, that you develop your thoughts
and find a way to be truly happy.

Unfortunately, you will probably not find such a path in this forum: people
who use computers are sometimes inordinately logical.  It is appropriate for
computer systems.  Computers love logic.  It is in appropriate, sometimes, for
people.

Live long, and prosper, Melanie.

Jeff Silverman
Boeing Commercial Airplane

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: fy@lucid.com (Frank Yellin)
Subject: Re: sexism
Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA
	<1992Oct13.163304.28530@njitgw.njit.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:55:59


In article <1992Oct13.163304.28530@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu
(David Charlap) writes: 

>  5) Separate seating is done because it is a disturbance to
>  concentration.  I know from my own experience that it is difficult
>  to concentrate on prayers when a beautiful woman is seated in my
>  line-of-sight.  The Rabbis knew this also.  The same probably also
>  goes for women trying to pray while looking at a good-looking man.

Gosh.  I wonder where I'm supposed to sit.

I shouldn't sit on the men's side of the mechitza because I might be
distracted by the good-looking men.

I shouldn't sit on the women's side because I might be a distraction to
some of the women.

I certainly shouldn't be put into a separate section with other gay men.
I'd both distract and be distracted!

Oy gevalt.

-- Frank Yellin
   fy@lucid.com
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: PLEASE!  I need your help!  Help me keep this love alive!
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:08:33
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Oct6.152821.10362@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
	<1992Oct8.222951.6052@guinness.idbsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:29:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.222951.6052@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

   In article <1992Oct6.152821.10362@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
   >weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
   >> rlk@underprize (Robert Krawitz) writes:
   >> 
   >> >			  People have to decide for themselves whether
   >> >they care more about their background than about a relationship, 
   >> >and that choice should be free rather than forced or coerced 
   >> >(counting guilt tripping as coercion).

   The issue is not "their background".  The issue is "the nature of
   their obligation to God", a much more serious matter.  You are
   assuming a profoundly different view of moral issues from theirs by
   your very use of words like "a relationship", "free choice", "guilt
   tripping" in this context, one in which the very seriousness of this
   question is hard to comprehend.

Well, I suppose that since I'm a nonbeliever it's hard to comprehend the
very notion of an "obligation to god" in any meaningful sense.  I
suppose that I do have an entirely different view of moral issues from
someone who is a believer in the biblical god.
--
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 league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: allenmk@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (The Not So Tall Adventurer)
Subject: Re: *Jesus of Nazareth*
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:27:59 GMT

danl@col.hp.com (Daniel Lockhart) writes:

>Check out the Monty Python Holy Grail where the monks walk around 
>while hitting their heads with boards.  Check out the sect of Islam
>where they will whip themselves with thongs.   man is a strange creature.

>daniel

And, sadly, there are sects of Christianity in South America (possibly
elsewhere--I've only heard of the groups in S.A.) where adherents actually nail
themselves to crosses on Good Friday.  They are taken down before they die, but
still, it is a horrible thing.  

Melinda Allen

-- 
Melinda K. Allen                  The LORD is close to the brokenhearted 
allenmk@ucsu.colorado.edu       and saves those who are crushed in spirit.   
allenmk@tramp.colorado.edu			               Psalm 34:18 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Ashkenazi/Sephardic rift?
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:26:55 GMT

In <1992Oct14.191700.15345@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal) writes:

>In article <emc.719081806@noonian>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>> Now it seems we are back to square one.  Russians won't talk to
>> Ethiopians.  The latter think that Russians are pushy and loud while
>> Ethiopians are considered crude, uncouth and smelly.
>> 
>> Any speculation as to how long this rift will last?
>> 
>> 

[Interesting history omitted]

>My opinion, it will take a generation for the Ethiopians to
>level their skill and education level with the rest of Israeli
>society (assuming they want to).  It will take much less
>time for the Russians to become accustomed to Israeli life,
>but to become true Israelis will probably take the same
>generation. 

Assuming that THEY want to, and don't take the first 
chance to go the "land of milk and honey" where you live :-)

>		Seth Rosenthal



--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca	
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: Nazis
Organization: liver ---> spleen
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:21:24 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <1992Oct9.060710.2185@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
lbs@tkm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.154151.10547@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu
(Danny Keren) writes:

>>I definitly think "Nazi death camps in Poland" or something similar
>>should be used. When I was debating with neo-Nazi Holocaust
>>deniers on the net, I took care to make it clear that the camps
>>were erected and run by the Nazis.

> Who came from Germany, nowhere else. It must be made clear.

If Danny's carveats aren't politically correct enough for the Polish
apologists, then why not put all the details:

"And were placed in Poland becuase htere wre lots of Jews and rail lines
there.  And were surrounded by Poles who had no idea that Jews (and others)
were being killed there.  And when the was was finished survivors were
killed in a variety of Polish run pogroms."

This reminds me of the Monty Python skit about the interview with the
German composer who's name was so long that by the time the interviewer
had said it twice, the composer grew old and died.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Questions About a Hebrew Letter
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:46:34 +0200
Keywords: tav
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Oct10.035516.29038@infopro.com>, david@infopro.com (Dragon [David Fiedler]) writes:
> I have just 4 questions... 
> 1. What is the name of the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet?
> 2. How is this letter pronounced?
> 3. Was it always pronounced this way? 
> 4. If not, when was it changed and why? 
> Thanks in advance... 
> a very confused 
> David Fiedler    UUCP:{netcomsv,utoday}!infopro!david               AIR: N3717R
> "The future is tekon."   Internet: david@infopro.com or david@utoday.com 
> USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:-5873


1. The last letter is "tav".
2. Most modern Israelis pronounce it as a dental t (almost the same as English
   t except that in English t is usually alveolo-dental.)
3. This was probably the earliest pronunciation. Like the letters bet, gimel
   dalet, kaf and pe, this sound split into two allophones. One allophone was
   like the original pronunciation the other was like th in English "think". In
   Ashkenazi dialects this th allophone evolved into an s sound. Some Sephardi
   pronunciations maintain the th. In modern dialects, the soft allophone s/th
   has reverted back to hard t and so tav is pronounced the same no matter
   where it occurs in a word.
4. It is not certain when the allophonic split occurred by it certainly had
   taken place by the time of the Greek translation of the Tanach (I forget
   the date of this.) It is also hard to work out when the Ashekenazis lost
   the th pronounciation.
 
_______________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
| Fluffy, the Quantum Kitty                                                   |
| c/o Colin Naturman             "`All right,' said the Cat; and this time it |
| naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za        vanished quite slowly, beginning with the  |
|                                  end of the tail and ending with the grin,  |
|                                  which remained some time after the rest of |
|                                  it had gone."                              |
|                                                                             |
|                          Lewis Carroll,  Alice's Adventures in Wonderland   |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|

Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:17399 soc.culture.polish:3088
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:11:53 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Oct9.135543.10892@walter.cray.com> aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur) writes:
>>Not the point.  Many people in this discussion have failed to take
>>note of the special status of the _Protocols_ -- that it is a book
>>written *explicitly* as a lie, intended *only* to deceive.
>Nobody maintained it is not a lie - people do not know what to think
>about precisely until they get enough information. Some of them
>probably will try do get it, read it and make their own opinion.
>That it is proper approach - jumping into conclusions without proper
>knowledge is a good custom.

It is a lie in a sense which a book like Mein Kampf is not.  Suppose I were
to write a book entitled "Aleksander Mazur's Protocols".  The book says "I,
Aleksander Mazur, admit to raping five women.  This rape is justified
because ..." and goes on in detail.  I then claim that you wrote this book,
and I publish it with your name on the front cover because I want to claim
you are a rapist.

That is what the _Protocols_ is.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: <none>
From: news@skitzo.dseg.ti.com
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:28:00 CDT

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Intermarriage
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:57:47 GMT

In article <2AD3FFFF.13320@ics.uci.edu> mkrawitz@ics.uci.edu (Marc Krawitz) writes:
>
> article) is that Jews deserve a choice in this matter, without having
> to endure harassment from friends, family, or colleagues.  The key word
> here is *choice*. 

If your family and friends have a mock funeral for you should you choose
to intermarry, is that not *their choice*.  Or does choice only go one
way?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: sexism
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:21:51 GMT

In <9210141950.AA23467@ptms_dev.sbi.com> gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler) writes:

>Let's have the statistical evidence that it
>is "always predominantly men who invoke the argument of the word of
>G-d and the argument that they see nothing unfair to women in Orthodox
>tradition."

I suppose that one could go through this thread and tally the number
of men vs. women who stated that they found nothing unfair to women in
O.  Whether that's a large enough sample or not, I don't know.  I'm
sure that it would have a similar problem to telephone polls - people
who don't have telephones (net access) might have different views than
those who do.  Also there are certainly more men than women in this
group.  And women who let their husbands drive the car for them
probably aren't represented here at all.

Anway, out of 1049 articles on my system, 50 belong to this thread.
There are less than 50 names below as some people have posted more
than once.

People who criticize Judaism as sexist or agree that it needs to
change or say that non-O solves the problems
M/F = 5/4
    Melanie Wertz
    Alberto Adolfo Pinkas
    Wolpert, Edward Greenwal
    Leslie Bishko
    Todd J. Dicker
    David Ellis
    Jerry Shapiro
    Laura Allender
    Terra Incognita (says in the article that she is female)

People who defend O
M/F = 9/0
    Dov Bai
    Josh Backon
    Andrew Solovay
    Aryk Nusbacher
    David Charlap
    Hayim Hendeles
    Samuel Saal
    David Esan
    Hillel Markowitz

People who haven't clearly expressed a view, or at least I couldn't
figure out where they stand (yes, I know I'm on this list).  Given
that I recognize some of these people from the net and even from real
life, I'm sure that some of them belong on one of the previous lists.
But since they didn't say anything in this thread, I've put them here.

    Leslie (who could be a man or woman but I'd guess the latter, has
a different address than the Leslie Bishko)
    Randall Holmes
    Warren Burstein
    Frank Yellin
    Don Gertler
    Roger Lustig
    Robert Krawitz
    Janice Gelb
    Eliot Shimoff
    Jeff Silverman
    Mark
    Bradley Somer
-- 
/|/-\/-\       New signature will appear "acharai hachagim"
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			Jerusalem