HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's anti-semitism
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:40:48 GMT

On 11 Nov 92 23:14:00 GMT, v206gb6c@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (IS AN ILLEGAL PERSONAL NAME) said:

 I>     I just read that former chess champion Bobby Fischer blames his
 I> quitting world chess play on the Jews.  The article also said he has
 I> made other anti-semitic remarks in the past.  Can anyone comment on
 I> this?

	Mr. Fischer has been using his rematch against Boris Spassky
(spelling?) as a forum for all his political views, not the least of
which are his opinions about Israeli (he says "Jewish") treatment of
Palestinians, and the standard "Jews running the world" paranoia seen so
often. 

	Luckily, both his (and Boris') play in the match has been shown
to be out of date (Fischer hasn't played in 20 years) as well as inept.
I doubt we'll be seeing him in the future.

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
"Happiness is a good cheesecake."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: MOTT?
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:47:23 GMT

ptyaxel@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Seymour Axelrod) writes:
> ssteigma@scott.skidmore.edu (Stephen H. Steigman) writes...

> >If Christians consider themselves decendants of the tribes,
> THEY DO NOT.

Christians are non-psilanthropists.  One is Christian if one
believes in the saving powers of a particular individual.

>  and
> >Moslems consider themselves decendants of Mohammed,
> THEY DO NOT.

Moslems are adherents to Islam, another belief system.  They
believe that Arabs are descended from Ishmael, a son of Abraham.
This is the Torah view as well.

>  doesn't that make
> >all Jews, Christians, and Moslems memebers of the tribe of Abraham?
> NO.

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Kosher Honey - Still no answer
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:07:29 GMT

Another question is, as I remember it (if anyone thinks I have
remembered it wrong, please go home and look it up before you tell me
that I am wrong), one is allowed to kill lice on Shabbat because they
are spontaneously generated.  As we know that this is not the case,
are we to continue to kill lice on Shabbat (either because it's
allowed, and we don't understand why, or maybe Chazal got it wrong but
nonetheless the halacha says it's allowed) or not?
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			    Jerusalem
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:29:21 EST
From: <CARIAN@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
 <09Nov92.142010.19718@granite.ciw.edu> <1992Nov9.163429.24770@umbc3.umbc.edu>
 <09Nov92.194522.19265@granite.ciw.edu>

>In article <1992Nov9.163429.24770@umbc3.umbc.edu> shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu
>(Eliot
>Shimoff) writes:
>>But now to a serious question.  You object to Orthodoxy's claim
>>that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
>>process.  I can understand your dismay.  But -- I really want
>>to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
>>a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions?  For example, the
>>child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
>>temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
>>Jewish?  Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
>>argument?

Eliot raises an interesting point, in his typical thoughtful and
respectful fashion.

Conservative rabbis do not and may not, upon risk of expulsion from The
Rabbinical Assembly, accept as Jewish the child of a non-Jewish woman,
absent a valid conversion.

Why is this different than the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
conversions? Because the focus is not on the identity of the rabbi
supervising the ritual or making the decision but on the ritual or
decision itself.

A better example would be the Conservative attitude toward Reform conversions.
Conservative rabbis will accept Reform conversions if they are performed
according to the proper ritual -- milah, t'vilah, bet din of three. If they
are not performed halachically they will not be accepted-- but the reason
is not the identity of the supervising rabbi, it is the problematic
way in which the conversion was performed.

In contradistinction, the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
conversions is based not on the form of the conversion but the identity
of the supervising rabbis, since the procedure and ritual in Conservative
and Orthodox conversions is identical.

Rabbi Charles Arian
CARIAN@american.edu
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:20:58 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Apology to the SCJ community

In article <emc.721337972@keiko>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) says:
>
>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.
>--

I too would like to apologise for allowing my dispute to remain a public one
I should have responded to Sam personally instead of publically.
I suggest we ALL (not just Sam, Eli and myself) refrain from engaging in
ad hominem personal attack and stick to the issues at hand. As long as we
all respect each others right to have a different opinion, there shouldnt be
a problem. If Jews cannot  get along, there is no hope, so let's please TRY.

If someone out there sees this as an opportunity for a cheap shot, I'd be
highly disappointed in them. (I'm not referring to Sam here)
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:07:37 EST
From: <CARIAN@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question

In article <memo.743293@cix.compulink.co.uk>, stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Stephen Phillips) says:
>
>Is that really the case. Does not conversion require "Kabbolas Ol
>Mitzvos"? And is it not the case that the Conservative movement does
>not consider all the Mitzvos as binding? If so, then to that extent
>the conversion procedures are not identical.
>
Conservative conversions require kabbalat ol mitzvot. Following the
statement in Bechorot 30b, we require converts without reservation
to accept the binding character of *all* mitzvot.

Conservative Judaism considers all the mitzvot as binding. On some
matters we disagree with the Orthodox understanding of how a particular
mitzvah is to be observed, but the mitzvot are binding.

Rabbi Charles Arian
CARIAN@american.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: ddsokol@unix.amherst.edu (D. DANIEL SOKOL)
Subject: Re: Was the Holocaust Unique?
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:22:20 GMT

andy (2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA) wrote:
> In as much as Jewish history is concerned, past efforts against the Jews have
> been of a religious nature in as much as individuals would usually be spared
> if they converted, the Nazis couldn't care less if you were religious, not
> religious, assimilated, unassimilated, even being a convert to Christianity
> wouldn't spare you.

In Mein Kampf Hitler makes it quite clear that his form of antisemitism is
based upon the idea of race and not of religion.  For example, it wouldn't
matter if a Jewish family had converted to Christianity 3 generations ago
and now were culturally and linguisticly German.  They would still be of an
inferior race.  Hitler points out that the "solution" of the Jewish problem
by conversion to Christianity would be even worse than Jews remaining distinct
because by assimilating, they mongrelize Germans in in a superficial Darwinian sense, this hybrid would also destroy the German people and culture.

> 
> While there have been other attempts in history to eliminate a people, none
> have been as delibirate, as determined as methodical as the Holocaust. Groups
> which in the past have tried to wipe out populations (turks against armenians
> or the current "ethnic cleansing" in ex-Yugoslavia) would be satisfied if the
> target population emigrated. The ultimate aim of the Holocaust was to kill
> every Jew on Earth. This is incomprable to anything else in history.

The Holocaust was also unique because the technology of the times made a pure
genocide completely plausible.  There have always been attempts in Jewish 
history to murder the Jews but none ever came near in scope to the Nazi
atrocities.

My concern after rereading Mein Kampf last night is how easy it would be
for a young disillusioned East German who has seen both the faliure of
capitalism and of commumunism to read Mein Kampf and to find in it answers
to his problems and to take pride in his German self.  For someone who has had
little to no schooling of history or of the Holocaust, falling for what Hitler
says is very easy for an East German who in Hitler sees compelling reasons
why the system has failed him.  Unfortunately, all too many East Germans are 
reading Hitler and believing the book.  Is there some sort of Jewish group,
or German governmental organization that specializes in the teaching of the
Holocaust and of anti-semitism to German youth?
		Danny Sokol-Amherst College
		DDSOKOL@Amherst.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU (Nice Young Lady(tm))
Subject: Re:  Modest dress in Judaism (was Re: sexism in Judaism)
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <jjsulliv@COLBY.EDU (Nice Young Lady(tm))>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:00:04 GMT

Dima khaikin@pike.cis.ohio-state.edu) :


I am sorry, but if you think that a married woman has to attract other
men then we really disagree on this issue. For a married women to
purposely attract other men is immoral! What is going to be next? You
are going to say that outside sexual relations are Ok when you are
married?
Oh, and another thing, you are not married yet, so, you don't really have
to cover your hair and "hide" your sexuality. BUT married women do, and
"hide" is not really an appropriate word for it. "Preserve" would be
probably more appropriate. Preserve your sexuality for your husband.


*********
	A)  This is where I got my supposition that women are supposed to make
	sure that they are not attractive to other men, which is NOT insured
	by standards of modesty that we have been lately discussing. 
	B)  I did think this was pretty insulting.  I like to look attractive, 
	not for the purpose of getting ogled or inviting improper advances,
	but b/c I feel better about myself when i know I look good (long sleeves
	and long skirts are fine, even), and because I know whatever man I am
	with, unless he is an insecure jealous TWIT, will also like the fact that
	I look good.  I would NEVER consider even having dinner with another
	man if I am in a relationship ( much less if I was MARRIED!!) and 
	any sort of sexual contact is DEFINITELY out.  (Well, I guess I would
	have dinner with, say, my brother or his best friend who I've known 
	forever....)  
	C) I usually wear long skirts and (not tight!) sweaters, since i do,
	after all, live in central Maine (The Great White North).  However, 		men still find me *gasp* attractive!  What should I do?  

JJ
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: danl@col.hp.com (Daniel Lockhart)
Subject: Movie "Exodus"
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:38:08 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

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!

B) Another book other than the Tanach

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

daniel

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: fy@lucid.com (Frank Yellin)
Subject: Re: Minyan in Senate!
Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:33:35


In article <1drpt0INNlho@morrow.stanford.edu> aliki@nova1.stanford.edu
(Alexandra Schmidt) writes: 

>  In article <Pine.3.05.9211101740.A1267-a100000@alsys1> <Seth Ness
> <ness@aecom.yu.edu>> writes: 
>>
>> i had heard that there will be eleven jews in the senate. but i was under
>> the impression that diane feinsteins mother was not jewish.
>>
>  *I* am under the impression that Dianne Goldman Feinstein formally
>  converted to Judaism before she married Richard Blum.  
>
>   What flavor of conversion, I couldn't say. . .

Wow.  Both sides win.

The Orthodox wouldn't count Feinstein in their minyans, no matter what her
conversion. 

The Reform would count Feinstein in their minyans, no matter what her
conversion.  

Boths sides are happy!

-- Frank Yellin
   fy@lucid.com
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Pierced Ears
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:19:21 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ben@vmsa.technion.ac.il

In article <1992Nov11.091744.11741@discus.technion.ac.il>, ben@vmsa 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 can't name a specific source, but I've always heard that the kippa was
originally a Roman head covering meant for male slaves.  The Jews adopted
it to indicate that they too had a Master.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Not Techelet Again (Re: Prayer shawls)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:30:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.235201.5049@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
>Oh no! Not the Techelet thread again!
  But it can't _be_ the authentic techelet thread...
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:34:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.97353
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 <92317.122453YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, YZKCU@CUNYVM (Yaakov Kayman) writes:
>>>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.

>My point here was that for a conversion to be effective, the prospective
>convert MUST agree IN PRINCIPLE to conform to Jewish Law - ALL of it
>without exception, as applicable (we have no Beit HaMikdash, so we can't
>bring sacrifices, etc.). This is something NO clergy with "overall
>Orthodox beliefs but with a few Conservative practices" can assure, since
>those "few" Conservative practices form the basis of denying G-d's ulti-
>mate authority, substituting Man's "right" to choose in its place.

A kosher witness is a kosher witness, and is defined by halakha, not
by what appears logical at the moment.  Orthodoxy is "stuck" with a
definition of kosher witness that has numerous strange things in it.

The role of the witness is not to assure anything, but to be a witness.
If he eats swordfish, gelatin, McDonald's french fries, or drinks any
US wine, but does nothing else that Orthodoxy can criticize, he is, I've
heard, a kosher witness.  The same if he bikes to shul on Shabbos.
 
>How then could ANY Orthodox rabbi worthy of the name accept Conservative
>conversions as valid?

In general, he can't.  In particular cases, the halakha allows for some
remote possibilities.

>Though it is, of course, hypothetically possible that three members of
>the Conservative clergy can be found who [meet O kashrus for witnessing.]

It's not so hypothetical.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: shdan@tudorct.com (Dan Shimoff)
Subject: Re: British Royal Family question.
Organization: Tudor Investment Corporation, CT
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:22:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.202454.26963@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:
>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.?
>
[medical reasons for circumcision deleted ]
>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.
 
Actually, way back before anyone remembers, the ancestors of the royals
were Jews.  However, because of the rampant anti-Semitism they could not 
disclose their religion (similar to Esther), but insisted in rules like
mohels for circumcisions and marrying within the family to keep the
traditions alive.  Almost as spectacular as a JEwish pope!

:-)

-- 
Dan Shimoff           
Phone: (212) 602-6798  
Address: shdan@tudor.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:42:02 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Einstein and Judaism

In article <2780@israel.nysernet.org>, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
says:
>
>In <emc.721089476@noonian> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>
>>I often wonder what the reaction to Einstein would have been
>>if he had posted his comments concerning Judaism and
>>science on this newsgroup instead of presenting them
>>in lectures etc.
>
>Probably no different than the debate that goes on here now.  While
>I would like to see the debate carried on in a less inflammatory
>manner (without regard to whether I agree or disagree with a given
>flame), even if we had someone on this net with the statue of
>Einstein, that person would still be open to criticism by those who
>disagreed.
>
>If this hypothetical poster had posted things that were more relevant
>to talk.religion.misc or talk.politics.mideast than to soc.culture.jewish,
>I'm sure that some people would have asked (some of them using typical
>Usenet politeness, no doubt) that the discussion be taken to those groups.
>

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

>[This is not to be construed as relating to the relevance of any actual
>posting to SCJ.]

of course not

>
>> Would he have been met with demands to "tone down" his remarks if he
>> had posted as an anonymous poster?
>
>The identity of a poster is irrelevant to all but ad-hominem
>arguments.  The flames against anonymous posting (or postings that do
>not bear the full name of the poster) are entirely out of place,
>irregardless of whether the poster is a genius or an undergraduate (or
>both.  or neither).  Arguments with the content of such postings (as
>with the content of any other posting) are another thing.
>--
>/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
> |__/__/_/
> |warren@
>/ nysernet.org                      Jerusalem
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: segs@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (susan.e.slusky)
Subject: Re: Jewish Movies on Video?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:07:15 GMT


Probably hard to get but worthwhile _I Love You Rosa_. Set in Palestine,
19th Century I think. About a young widow and her even younger brother
in law. Sub titled

Also no one's mentioned _Exodus_, dated but still good,

_Crossing Delancy_, dated in it's own way,

_Sophie's Choice_, interesting holocaust treatment

something I can't remember the name of, based on a novel of B. Malamud, starring
Rod Steiger.
From: tichauer@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo Tichauer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 16:12:03 +0100
Organization: "The Private site of Manfredo Tichauer"

warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:

> In <1992Nov3.055524.29120@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Da
> 
> >	I had always thought (and if I am wrong I apologize) that the word
> >"Imam" (which was actually used while he was alive also) meant martyr.
> 
> I don't know the precise translation, but it is a term that Moslems use to
> describe spiritual leaders.  As it is applied to living people, it
> probably doesn't mean martyr.

  From THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY:
 
  IMAM. Leader of prayers in mosque; title of various Muslim leaders,
        especially of one succeeding Muhammad as leader of Islam.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Manfredo Tichauer M.                       EMAIL : tichauer@valpso.hanse.de
  Opitzstrasse 14                            VOICE :     (++ 49 40)  27.42.27
  2000 Hamburg 60 - GERMANY                  FAX   :     (++ 49 40) 270.53.09
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Belief and science (Einstein)
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:15:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.202713.3130@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>Eli Chiprout (emmc@do3carleton.ca) writes:

>>Einstein was unable to accept Quantum Theory because of his belief in an
                                                              ^^^^^^
>>objective, orderly reality; a reality which would not be subject to random
>>events and which would not be dependent upon the observer.  He believed that
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^
>>QM was incomplete, and that a better theory would have no need for
>>statistical interpretations.  

>This is a most enlightening characterization of the views of the man who was
>arguably the greatest scientist of the twentieth century.  How many subscribers
>to alt.atheism, skeptic, etc. grasp the fact that in science as well as 
>religion belief plays a central, even gating role in one's view of reality.

Putting on my professional hat, when one examines the process of inference
carefully, what is being done is using data to update beliefs.  That we do
not carry this out explicitly, and in fact cannot, is due the the sheer
size of the problem--massively larger than the size of the universe.

God knows His laws of the operation of the universe, but we are commanded
to work at getting approximations to them.  It is only in this way that we
can have mastery over haaretz.
-- 
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)
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:38:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov02.223858.28601@eng.umd.edu> milgram@eng.umd.edu (Judah Milgram) writes:
>[w.r.t. Crown Heights accident in which a black child was killed]
>Is it unusual in New York not to be charged after such an accident?

There are specific criteria used in cases like this to decide whether to charge
the driver; in this case the criteria were not met, so he was not charged.
(This is a routine thing; many such cases come up every year in New York).

   Robert