HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: allender@ils.nwu.edu (Laura Allender)
Subject: Re: sexism
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:25:01 GMT

mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
> This is my first look at soc.culture.jewish, so I'm not sure who is this
> board's intended audience.  
> 
> 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?
> 
> Melanie 
> 

I agree, Orthodox Jewish Law, when interpreted by men for men is
degrading to women.  (How else could men arrange to study all
day while women scrub floors, bathe children, and prepare food.)

There are, however, synagogues & minyans which
take an egalitarian stance and sometimes even a feminist viewpoint.
So leave the orthodox tradition, and you may find common cause 
at a reform, reconstructionist, conservative or modern-egalitarian 
orthodox schul.  Certainly, one of these options will demonstrate ways to
appreciate the non-sexist values and traditions of Judaism.  So throw
out the garbage and embrace the parts of Judaism that are meaningful
in todays society.  Rather then rejecting all of Judaism, take a
more "Reform" stance, and change the rules by making up some rules
of your own.  That is, except the parts of Judaism that make sense
to you, and reject that which is harmful to you.  There is much
to value in our rich traditions, but I'll take a hot tub over
a mikvah anyday!

A personal example:
 
KAM Isaiah Israel in Chicago, has two male rabbi's and one female
rabbi.  We are Reform to the Conservative side -- more Hebrew, etc.
Rabbi Wolf is adamant about refering to G-d as either G-d or she,
and he finds  plenty of evidence to support this claim.  We also
have an excellent woman scholar who teaches several classes for
adults and children that present a feminist & Jewish interpretation
of the bible.  There are places where liberal views coexist with
Judaism -- the difficult task is to find the right place for you.

Note: Reform Judaism is not exempt from sexism either, I was at
a Hillel service sponsered by B'nai Brith and the xerox had 
"Kulam" translated as  "all the children of men" -- like those men
had the children all by themselves!  Grumpf!

Laura
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Adopted children
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:09:58 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <8257@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> eva@Apocalypse.CAD.UCLA.EDU (Eva) writes:

>Arguements that ensued took form of:
>1) How can anyone be sure they are of true Cohen lineage?
>   (for example if three of four generations later, my friend's great
>    grand children assess their last name, assume that past generations just
>    weren't religious, and therefore partake of Cohen duties not realizing
>    that there was an adoption generations ago)

No one today can be 100% sure that they are Cohanim.  It would be a
great mistake for someone to assume that he is a Cohen based on his
last name, and any Rabbi would be sure to point this out.  There is a
family named Cohen in my shul who don't claim to be Cohanim.

>   a) the view in regards to other things (food) is that where there is doubt
>      one does not assume.  If that is the case how can there be anyone
>      claiming Cohen lineage? Where is the proof?

The issue is more complicated than that.  And for that matter, how can
anyone prove that they're Jewish?  Well they can't, but the halacha
deals with how to view a person who claims to be a Cohen or a Jew.

>2) How can adopted children of unknown parents be sure they are Jewish?

Unlesss they can know, they need to convert.  If the parents are
unknown, they certainly can't know.

>3) What are the "laws" concerning adopted children known to have been produced
>   out of wedlock?

Birth out of wedlock does not cause any difficulties for the child.
Perhaps you're thinking of birth due to incestuous or adulterous
relations (which only is a problem if the parents are Jewish - if
they're not, it doesn't matter) which makes the child a 'mamzer' who
can marry another mamzer or a convert (but the children will be
mamzerim) but not a non-mamzer Jew.

And of course how is a child-convert any different from an adult
convert - who's to say that this person doesn't have in his or her
maternal line a mamzer?  The answer is that we can't demand that a
convert demonstrate his or her ancestry all the way back to the time
of the giving of the Torah so we can check for mamzerim, no one could
do that.  Halacha assumes that a non-Jew who wants to convert is in
fact a non-Jew, unless there is reason to think otherwise.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       New signature will appear "acharai hachagim"
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@     
/ nysernet.org 			Jerusalem
From: kkniaz@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Krzysztof W. Kniaz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:54:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Correction: the book I was quoting from (Unequal victims) was
wriiten bt Guttman and Krakowski.
--

Krzysztof Kniaz, University of Pennsylvania |Due to circumstances beyond
Lab for Research on the Structure of Matter |your control, you're master of 
Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA                |your fate and captain of your soul
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Heleocentric Cosmosology
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:31:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <IepT_hi00WBM44poVw@andrew.cmu.edu> jg3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Ari Goldstein) writes:
> though I do need to do a paper I think the subject is going to
>be on how come people thought the world was flat when Aristotle pointed
>out it was a sphere 2000 years earlier.

That's a misconception.  Educated people knew perfectly well that the world
was round.  (The argument with Columbus was over the *size* of the Earth, not
the *shape*, and Columbus was wrong.)

   Robert
From: warren@itexjct.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Intermarriage and the Youth Cult
Date: 11 Oct 92 14:21:32 GMT
Organization: ITEX, Jerusalem, Israel

Those of us who are opposed to intermarriage because Jewish Law
prohibits it remain opposed even if children will not result from the
marriage.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       The entire kitchen		Jerusalem
 |__/__/_/     is a very cold theft.
 |warren@      But the chef
/ nysernet.org is not worried at all.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: * Yeshu ? *
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:01:31 GMT

Gesundheit!

--R
From: janiceg@marvin.Eng.Sun.COM (Janice Gelb)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: sexism
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:54:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: janiceg@marvin.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin

In article 28530@njitgw.njit.edu, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
< In article <1992Oct13.002501.11405@ils.nwu.edu<  allender@ils.nwu.edu (Laura Allender) writes:
< < I agree, Orthodox Jewish Law, when interpreted by men for men is
< < degrading to women.  (How else could men arrange to study all
< < day while women scrub floors, bathe children, and prepare food.)
< 

< 
< 4) Women are "excluded" from prayer sevices because they are not
<    obligated to participate.  Since women have certain obligations to
< the children, they are not obligated to perform mitzvot which have
< specific times (of day) attached to them.  Judaism believes that one
< who has no obligation can not lead one who is obligated.  This is the
< ONLY reason why women are usually not allowed to lead services, etc.
< 
< If you ask why not obligate them, well consider this:  If you're
< taking care of the family (which may involve nurisng the baby at
< 3:00AM, something a man can never do), it would be cruel to obligate
< her to get up in order to pray every morning at 7:00AM.
< 
< If there are any specific sexist actions you'd like me to address,
< post them and I'll see if I know a reason you might not be aware of.

I've heard this argument about women not being obligated because of 
their children, but I've never seen the source for it.  Does anyone 
know its derivation?  Also, does anyone know why it applies even 
to childless women?


********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb                  | (415) 336-7075     
janiceg@marvin.eng.sun.com   | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!) 
********************************************************************************

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: allen@golem.ssc.gov (Michael Allen)
Subject: Re: Whence the minyan?
Reply-To: allen@ssc.gov
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:31:29 GMT

In article <92282.193714CARIAN@auvm.american.edu> <CARIAN@auvm.american.edu> writes:
[...]
   When the twelve spies that Moshe sent into the Land came back and said
   that the Israelites couldn't conquer it, God said "how long must I put
   up with this evil congregation" ('edah raah). But, since Joshua and Caleb
   brought back a minority opinion, the evil congregation is not twelve
   but ten, or 12 - 2. Thus the Rabbis derived that a congregation is ten.

   As to whether this requirement is post-biblical, this is I suppose a question
   of interpretation. I suspect traditionalists would say it is biblical, being
   inherent in the text, though there is no place in the Tanach where it
   says in so many words "thou shalt have a minyan, and the minyan shall
   consist of ten."

   Rabbi Charles Arian
   CARIAN@american.edu
[...]

In fact, the Torah ideal seems to be solitary prayer.  Don't, we after
all, see such people as Abraham, Moshe, and Chana praying alone when
their prayers are answered?  It is, in fact, from Chana that we learn
the proper way to daven the Shmone Esrei.  So why do we now need a
group, and why is it related to the 10 evil spies?  The Rabbis learn
that men have fallen from the level where they can effectively pray
alone.  It wasn't just the 10 spies who spoke against going into Eretz
Yisrael, but all the men of that generation; save, of course four.
The women, on the other hand, maintained their faith and wanted to go
forward.  Therefore when setting up the synagogue service the Rabbis
set the minimum number at 10 men for the Minyan.  In this way a group
of 10 men come together to praise G-d, to help repair the damage done
by that first group of 10 men.  I am not sure when the synagogue
service was completely set (the precise wording of our Shmone Esrei is
about 9th century CE, for example), but the requirement for 10 men to
say certain prayers is a very early Rabbinic ruling.  (See, for
example, Lisa Aiken's book, "To Be a Jewish Women", for more
information.)

I think it is important to learn the traditional reason and history,
rather than asserting what you think "they" might say and concluding
the reason (that you made up for "them") is not good.

--
K'tivah v'Chatima Tova!

===================================================
But those who toiled knew nothing of the dreams of 
        Those Who Planned;                         
And the minds who planned the Tower of Babel       
        Cared nothing for the workers who built it.

	-Metropolis
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
From: matthew@stats.mu.oz.au (Maciek Blasikiewicz)
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 08:53:02 GMT

roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>to cry the same way as about Protocols ? Did you cry or were you
>>at least embarassed with so popular "Polish death camps " ? What

>Ah.  One vague statement in a newspaper, one misplaced adjective, 
>and you consider that equivalent to the _Protocols_?  Please explain.

Oh no. Not by a long shot. In the US, Canada, and Australia, in many
newspapers, TV news broadcasts, and so on, for the past few decades the
term "Polish Death Camps" has been consistently used and even defended
from criticism. (Only last Christmas I heard it used on TV, complained,
and got a response essentially telling me off.) There was even a TV
documentary about Jews and Christians in Australian TV, "Children of
One Father", where we could see a history lesson for jewish teenagers
presenting the Poles, not Germans or Nazis, as those who instituted and
run the death camps. I even have a jewish friend here (with university
education) who believed this.

>That the _Protocols_ are sold with the blessings 
>of a church is a *very* serious indictment of that church, and calls
>for further investigation.

How do you know the _Protocols_ are sold with the blessings of the
church? Did you ask someone in authority in the given church, or is it
merely your guess, Roger?


MB
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:17819 soc.culture.polish:3221
From: avr@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (adam.v.reed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: On "standard" books
Summary: The economic war against the Jews, 1935-1939
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:15:03 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: AT&T

In article <dobo.719208119@swalwell>, dobo@cs.UAlberta.CA (W. Dobosiewicz) writes:
> the Jews would not have won it, would they?
> Summary: if the Jews were in position to win an economic war with the
> government, then either
> (1) Adam is out to lunch,
> (2) the economic pressure against the Jews was not that serious,
> (3) all Poles are assholes,
> (4) all of the above.
> Pick your choice.

Actually, this is Marcus' conclusion, not mine. And I would
suggest an alternative explanation: the Polish dictatorship did
not have any competent economist working for it. Or, to put it
differently, no competent economist in Poland was depraved enough
to work with the government in planning its economic war. I am
not saying that there were no competent economists in Poland, or
that there were no anti-Semitic ones; only that the two sets did
not intersect. Regards,
					Adam
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Weiner's ego deflated
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:22:17 GMT

In <92301@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>In article <emc.718593360@ro>, emc@doe (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>>I'm talking about the Jewish "universe", obviously.  Get lost.

>Look brainless one, if you're pursuing non-Jewish angles to a Jewish
>question as if it matters, you're in the completely wrong newsgroup.

The big key there is "if".  You make assumptions about my postings 
which I have not stated.

Answer the Jewish question then instead of evading it.  What is the 
"universally" accepted concept of Messiah among Jews?  What does
this "universe" consist of?  Are you part of it?  Are you a thinking
Jew or do you leave YOUR brain at the door when you talk about
Jewish thought.  Instead of ad hominem verbosity, address the issues
Weiner.

>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca	
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Re: Intermarriage and the Youth Cult
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:11:43 GMT

In article <ALEX.92Oct10115809@diamond.idbsu.edu> alex@opal.idbsu.edu (Alex Feldman) writes:
>I have detected an anti-intermarriage leaning in some posters in this
>group (alert, eh?), but this attitude always seems to be implicitly or
>explicitly predicated on the children that will or won't result from
>this union.
>
>But not all people who get married have children, and some know
>perfectly well beforehand that they won't, and often can't.  This
>includes (most?!) people in their 60's or older.
>
>Are people who are opposed to intermarriage opposed to it in this
>case?  If so, why all the emphasis on children in other threads?

My own postings have suggested two reasons for opposition to
intermarriage.  The first of these is halakhic; it is forbidden
by Jewish law (at least the Orthodox interpretation).  The
second reason relates to the survival of Judaism.  If (for
whatever reason) there will be no children, the "survival"
argument is moot; the halakhic contraint remains.  The reason
that the survival justification is given so much emphasis is that
the question of intermarriage tends to be asked by those who
would not be convinced by the halakhic argument.



-- 
Eliot Shimoff                  |    n   n   n
   shimoff@umbc3.umbc.edu      |   X + Y = Z .  Easy to prove no solutions
Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu ...  |   for n greater than 2.  Darn.  Can't fit
Better luck next year!         |   it into this little .sig file.  Oh well.
From: silverm@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Jeff Silverman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: sexism
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:43:33 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

>In article <CFMRBYYR@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>>
>>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?

>Let me try to understand: If you believed that the Bible
>is the word of God, how could God's words be degrading in any way ? I
>understand that you have felt a contradiction  between modern Western
>value system and the Bible, but if the Bible is the word of God why did 
>you choose the Western values over the Bible's ?

>>
>>Melanie 
>>

>Dov

Let me try to understand.  Here is a woman, obviously well educated and
intelligent, and she has developed some negative feelings about a value system
which she has grown up.  Now, you come along and try to argue with her
rationally.  I understand why you would do that, because that's the way you
and I have been trained and inculturated (inculturated is a fancy word for
absorbing what your culture tells you).  Well, you aren't going to address
her feelings if you deny them or try to deal with them logically!

Melanie,

	Although you are correct when you say that you feel Judaism is sexist,
I would argue that Jews and Judaism are "less" sexist than the culture which
surrounds us.  The goyim  glorify violence and abuse.  Judaism abhors it.
The Jews rarely accomplished anything with feats of strength, but we did
everything with intellect and values.  In a culture which celebrates the 
mind and not the body, it ought to be easier for a woman to compete.  I would
point to the Song of Songs and some of the psalms (What is the value of a
Woman? etc.  I forget where that is, but then I'm not much of an intellect).
I would also point to some the talmudict dictates concerning women, the
disposition of the dowry (10% has to be set asside for her cosmetics) and
the laws of inheritance.
	Now, I am not going to trivialize some of the requirements and 
restrictions women must face.  But I would like to suggest that for all of
its faults, we're better.  And the reform movement is actively moving in a
less sexist direction.  Sometimes in ways that I myself am uncomfortable
with.
	A woman with your clarity of perception is an asset to us, and I
would hate to lose you to some WASP.
	So think about it.

Jeff Silverman, The Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.
(usual disclaimers)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mk568652@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Mitchell Kotler)
Subject: BIG NOSES
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 22:36:03 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

I'm Jewish so don't get mad but why do so many of us have
large noses?  Is this some ethnic trait?  I know it's not 
all Jews , of course, but I wonder how this whole "nose"
thing got started in the first place.
From: ackermdj@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Help: Orthodox High Schools
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:01:08 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

Does anyone know of a source (either ftp or print) which lists Orthodox
high schools in the U.S.? I'm particularlt interested in ones outside the New
York City area.

Thanks,
Dave Ackerman
ackermdj@msuvx1.memst.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: _Protocols_ at a church?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:14:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.165441.952@walter.cray.com> aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur) writes:
>Well, I think that it would be convincing if somebody also could
>bring us a paragraph or fragment from that book that one considers
>the most anti-Semitic - explaining why that fragment is so anti-Semitic.
>That would clarify a lot for many of us who did not read that book.

It is inherently anti-Semitic to write a book laying out plans to take over
the world, and then putting down "Jews" as the author.  I could certainly
quote fragments from the book: "it's anti-Semitic to say 'x' and attribute it
to Jews when Jews never said it", "it's anti-Semitic to say 'y' and attribute
it to Jews when Jews never said it", etc.  Do you really require this?
--
"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)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: The I-can't-believe-they-got-a-hescher-on-this thread
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)

In article <1992Oct8.025759.17993@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ask@cbnews (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>Is eating a communion wafer cannibalism?   Until a few months ago, 
>the Sisters of Carmel Community of Columbus operated a wafer bakery
>less than 2000 feet from my front door.  [...]  If they were certified
>kosher, I'd have no problem eating them.

Will you be eating Entenmann's Christmas cookies two months from now?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Subject: Re: Hebrew origin of some English words
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 20:56:23 GMT

In article <goldberg.718623628@techunix.technion.ac.il> goldberg@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>
>    I have heard a claim but don't know how to check it, that the name Cholent
>would come from French "chaud-lent" ("hot-slow") which had been used very long
>ago for "cassoulet". Any expert on French cuisine to comment on that ?
>
>>-- Boaza
>    Yaaqov 


I heard this explanation, as well as the following for the origin of the
word cholent:

Chulent is a contraction of 2 Yiddish words - tzol nit - lit. don't pay,
or free. This is in reference to the Talmudic statement, that altough
a person's income is already decided by G-d on Rosh Hashana, Sabbath
expenses are not included in this figure. Thus, effectively it doesn't
cost you anything for the food eaten on the Sabbath. Hence the term
tzol nit - don't pay.

Hayim Hendeles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish