HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: The two days of R'H and the shofar on Shabbos.
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:54:40 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ad980@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul S. Wolf)

In article <1acj3eINNrm5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ad980@cleveland (Paul S. Wolf) writes:
>What do Reform Jews do when 1 Tishri is on Shabbat, and the sounding
>of the Shofar is not permitted?

Such a question.  They blow the shofar.

Of all their reformations, this is actually one of the smallest, despite
appearances.  Don't forget the actual prohibition is a fence, lest someone
carry the shofar outside an eruv.  The blowing itself is not the problem.
About a century ago, 1 Tishrei fell on Shabbos two years running, and at
least one (Orthodox) rabbi tried to reinstitute Shabbos blowing because
of this.

In contrast, the Reform cancellation of the second day is much more serious.
The two days for RH, are not, as popularly believed, due to the practical
difficulty of getting the word out in time, even in Eretz Yisroel, but
rather because of the sometimes theoretical impossibility of getting the
word out at all.  (This is the root of the uncertainty over whether the
second day is a distinct period of holiness, and thus the "new fruit for
the second day" minhag.)

Since the new month, in Sanhedrin days, was determined by observation
regarding the new crescent moon, 30 Elul was of uncertain status from
nightfall onwards.  The observant would have to observe Yom Tov re-
strictions before any confirmation came in.  And if 30 Elul came and
went without two eyewitnesses, the next day was automatically 1 Tishrei.
Meanwhile, there would be considerable anxiety towards the late after-
noon.  Were a witness to come with just a short time to spare, musaf
and shofar would be missed.  (I think the specific incident that caused
problems was the second witness coming in after the song of the day,
as opposed to the song of the yom tov, had been sung by the Levites.)

The actual adoption of two days of Rosh HaShanah in Eretz Yisroel under
the fixed calender is actually a bit more complicated.  My memory is
vague on this, but there was a period there was only one day of R'H,
and on Shabbos 1 Tishrei, a beis din had to sanction its own Shabbos
blowing, but exiles making aliyot were uncomfortable with this and kept
two days of R'H, just blowing on the second day, and theirs became the
predominant minhag and eventual halakha.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: adkisson@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Rob Adkisson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Hebrew/Yiddish and WP 5.1
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:19:35 GMT
Reply-To: adkisson@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Rob Adkisson)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: adkisson@mickey.cc.utexas.edu

I hope this is the right group to ask!  :-)

Can someone tell me how to set up a WordPerfect 5.1 macro to use the Hebrew
characters?  I can get the characters, I just can't make them go from right
to left.  I end up with a jumble of left to right...

Plese e-mail me directly, because I don't read this group regularly.

Thanks in advance!!!!!

--Rob
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re:  * Jesus Christ? *
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:55:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.164215.10287@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.122623.26063@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@gypsum.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.070524.4767@javelin.sim.es.com>, JHIATT@130.187.170.178 (JOHN HIATT) writes:
>>|> 
>>|>   How does Jesus of Nazareth fail to be the messiah?
>>3.  The messiah is supposed to be a direct descendent of Ruth->David.
>>	I don't know if JC was
>
>Mary was.  

No, she wasn't.  The Christian Scriptures make a big point about tracing
Davidian lineage through to Joseph.  Which is kind of ironic, given that
Christian theology teaches that Joseph had nothing to do with the birth
of Jesus.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: PLEASE!  I need your help!  Help me keep this love alive!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:04:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.183402.29893@umbc3.umbc.edu> shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>
>Your statement is appallingly insensitive, and wilfully ignorant.
>It is inexcusably cruel, and reflects shocking poor taste.  To reduce
>the Holocaust to a quick one-liner suggests your lack of understanding
>of what the Holocaust means -- to Jews and to the entire world, as a
>theological issue, as a philosophical challenge, as a personal tragedy
>(for many of us), and as a calamity for the Jewish people at large.
>

I do not want to get into any argument with you. It is already clear that we
do not agree on basic things.
Now, my comment has nothing to do with poor taste, or, in any case, the example
of poor taste is not mine, but from the previous poster.
About being wilfully ignorant, I can only say that you are making
acusations that sound good but have make no sense.
About my understanding of the Holocaust, I do not how you dare to tell me 
anything about my lack of understanding, based on a one line post that
it seems, you did not understand.  
I do not see how you can make such a general comment, or how can you 
start talking about me that way, unless you can guess what a person knows,
has done, and how he lives his life through a one-line posting.
Not to say that you should analyze your comments about the relation of those
Jews who are intermarried with their culture, and you will find that there, 
too, you are making comments about people whose life, values and actions  you
Do
not know anything about.



>
>
>-- 
>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.

AAP
From: kkniaz@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Krzysztof W. Kniaz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism (Take 2)
Keywords: Invectives
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:22:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct6.152523.253@kth.se> d89-mor@nada.kth.se (Monika Orski) writes:
>
>For many years, the word "jew" has been considered an invective in Poland. It also
>have in Russia and in many other counties. In most countries/languages (eg
>english, french and swedish) it is no longer considered an invective, as racist
>ideologies has been widely rejected. As far as I know, this has not happened in
>polish (despite the fact that there are very few jews left in Poland or maybe
>in connection whith this fact?).
>
>Is this part of a Polish anti-semitism? I think it is.
>
>	m

Indeed many Polish proverbs and common expressions feature a Jew or
relate to a "jewish behavioure". For example: it seemed strange
for peasants that Jews eat or go to church (synagoge) with their
heads covered. Hence few proverbs describe that. 

Indeed there're few Jews left in Poland, however two quite picturesque
Jewish figures are still in use: "the shrewd Jew" and "the wise
Jew". Again both relate to everyday life in countryside - 
peasants were selling products to Jewish merchants, who
naturally tried to make some profit. Therefore one had to be
careful, when dealing with them. On the other hand, those
Jewish merchants knew "world" (if you had never left your hamlet,
the "world" could have been a next town), knew "other peoples" -
so Jewish merchants were sometimes the only source of information
about the outside world. They were "wise".

Note, that few hundred years of living (almost) together, couldn't have gone
without leaving its trace in the language. Personally I don't
think that proverbs relating to Jews, express antisemitic behavioure -
they are just part of language - an old part I'd add. 

What you put in it- that's entirely different story....
--

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: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: meaning of Yom Kippur
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:07:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio

In article <qjdkd1c@zola.esd.sgi.com> amber@sgi.com writes:
>I thought it also had to do with mourning the loss of loved
>ones and others who have died.

On 4 holidays during the year - including Yom Kippur, we recite the
Yitzkor prayers to remember those who have died.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: meaning of Yom Kippur
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:09:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.200709.9797@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>On 4 holidays during the year - including Yom Kippur, we recite the
>Yitzkor prayers to remember those who have died.
  There is an interesting aspect to this. (Mishna Rosh Hashana, first
  two mishnayot) There are four New Years in Judaism, and each is a yom
  din (judgement day) for a particular thing. 

  Pesach is for grain, shavuot for fruit, sukkot for water (how much in
  each case) and Rosh Hashana how these will be apportioned among
  people. For each there is also a "yom kippur." In order to aid
  our concentration on these yimei kippur, we recite yizkor as reminder
  of our mortality. (The last part from a shiur by R. Jay Kelman.)
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:37:25 EDT
From: <CARIAN@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: PLEASE! I need your help! Help me keep this love alive!
Distribution: na
 <1992Sep30.164424.26578@umbc3.umbc.edu>
 <1992Sep30.173814.27117@cbnews.cb.att.com>
 <1992Sep30.213220.6773@umbc3.umbc.edu>

In article <1992Sep30.213220.6773@umbc3.umbc.edu>, shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot
Shimoff) says:
>
>
>I was under the impression that Conservative rabbis (at least in
>Baltimore) require at least a _pretense_ of serious commitment,
>and that a person approaching the rabbi saying "I just want to do
>this to satisfy her parents" would be rejected.  Perhaps I erred;
>it would not be the first time. :-(  Rabbi Arian, where are you?
>
I'll answer the second question first: I'm busy writing sermons for
Yom Kippur and don't have as much time to follow the debates about
Polish anti-semitism as I usually do :-(

Conservative rabbis most certainly require "at least a _pretense_
of serious commitment." We would not accept a candidate who indicated
to us that they were merely going through the motions.

Of course there is always the possibility that people will lie their
way through. However, my own inclination is to err on the side of
acceptance, *as far as allowing the process of study to begin* while
being somewhat strict as far as allowing the process to conclude and
bringing the candidate through the bet din.

People who lack serious intent might still seek to begin the conversion
process, but they are not going to put up with the study requirements
and observance requirements. They will eventually drop out.

Art Kamlet's original point is correct in that we will accept candidates
whose *original motivation* is an involvement with a Jewish person. If
that remains their *sole* motivation, and they do not intend to live as a
Jew, they will not be allowed to convert.

Rabbi Charles Arian
CARIAN@american.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: lhsux@swingset.bae.bellcore.com (Lorne Schachter)
Subject: Re: Artscroll Tractate Megillah
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 12:32:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.203047.18067@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, alu@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (Alan Lustiger) writes:
|> I was happy to find out that Artscroll has extended their "sale"
|> on their English translation of the Talmud Mesechta Megillah.
|> Evidently someone has financed this sale, which is going on until
|> October 9. It is normally $40 but you can get it now for $15.
|> 
|> It is available both from Jewish bookstores and directly from
|> Mesorah Publications (sorry, I don't have the number here, but
|> they are in NYC.)
|> -- 
|>                		Alan Lustiger
|>     |_ | |             	AT&T Bell Laboratories ERC, Princeton, NJ
|>      /   |( 		attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu or lustiger@att.com
The phone number is 1-800-Mesorah (catchy, isn't it).

						Lorne
From: mike@heegard.math.nwu.edu (Michael R. Stein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: structure of piyyutim (was Re: Hazzanut)
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:39:47 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, Northwestern University

In article <2616@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>Maybe this isn't a question about chazzanim, but one thing that I've
>always wondered about is why we have prayers that have a clear
>structure, they're printed that way in the machzor, but we read them
>another way.  Take, for example, this piyut which appears a number of
>times during Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur
>
>atah hu elokenu			beshamaim uvaaretz.
>gibor v'naaratz,		dagul mervavah.
>and so on for 9 more lines
>
>Notice periods at the end of the lines, they're found in Machzor Rinat
>Yisrael.  And it seems that they belong there.  So what do they say in
>your shul?  In every shul I've been at they read "atah hu elokenu",
>then "bashamaim uvaaretz gibor v'naaratz" (note: this is *not* a
>rhyme, even if it was, the other pairs don't rhyme), "dagul mervavah
>hu sach vayehi" and so on.
>
>Why?

About 10-12 years ago our rabbi, based on conversations with one of the
other rabbanim in our shul, required all our ba'alei t'fila to chant the
"responsive" piyyutim the way they are printed in the machzorim, which is
also the way they make sense: e. g. the chazzan says "atah hu elokenu
bashamaim uvaaretz gibor v'naaratz" and the congregations responds with the
next line, etc.  This was partly based on the discussions in the
Goldschmidt machzor (a "critical" edition which, among its other virtues,
supplies the missing lines from many piyyutim such as "hayom t'amtzenu",
all the "melech evyon" verses, etc.).  This has now become our firmly
entrenched shul minhag (despite some initial grumbling from the ba'alei
t'fila).

In the meantime, Koren has publish a 3-volume set of machzorim based on
Goldschmidt, and they address this question directly in the introduction,
calling the custom Warren decribes a mistake arising from the desires of
chazzanim and printers (my from-memory paraphrase).




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Stein					  mike@math.nwu.edu
Department of Mathematics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-2730
From: naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: * Jesus Christ? *
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:35:23 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

> JOHN HIATT writes:
>>  I do not want to ask an intensely detailed question so I'll ask as simply
>>as possible:
>>  How does Jesus of Nazareth fail to be the messiah? 
> The simple answer is that your question is totally irrelevant for
> this (s.c.j.) newsgroup. 
> If you want to believe that the self-styled preacher Joshua, or
> Shabbatei whatever, or Mohammed, or any of the hundreds or thousands
> of other people who have lived or are living on this planet who have
> claimed they were the Messiah, is in fact so, go ahead, but what does
> it have to do with Judaism? 
> This Joshua, who you treat as the Messiah (and who you have elevated to
> Assistant God status), was but one of many people in his own time who
> claimed such a status (it must've been the in-thing to do at the time
> for those who were looking for quick popularity, and quick death from
> the Romans).  Do you expect the Jews of today to research the claims
> of each of these attempts at self-created martyrdom?  And even if you
> do, why should we? 
> Stan Krieger                 All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even

Actually the original Hebrew for "Jesus" is Yeishu which is a shortened form
of Yeishua not Yehoshua(Joshua). The character "Jesus the Nazarene" appears
to be based on the historical character Yeishu Ha-Notzri (this is indeed the 
original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene"). Trouble is, this Yeishu lived about
a century before Christians claim that Jesus lived. It is known however that 
he was heavily confused with a Roman period false messiah named Ben-Stada.

I recently wrote a long newspaper article on the subject of refuting Christian
missionaries and the Jesus myth. If anyone is interested in this article they
can email me and I will email them a copy.

Colin Naturman 
*****************************************************************************
* Baby Doc Naturman                                                         *
* USS Enterprise                           "It's life Jim,                  *
* Final Frontier                                  but not as we know it."   *
* naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za                                                 *
*                                                       Spock of Vulcan     *
*****************************************************************************
From: janiceg@marvin.Eng.Sun.COM (Janice Gelb)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re:  * Jesus Christ? *
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:03:44 GMT
Reply-To: janiceg@marvin.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin

In article 91431@netnews.upenn.edu, rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.122623.26063@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@gypsum.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>>2.  The messiah is supposed to bring an era of peach among all men.
>
>Aha! Now I understand why Isaiah talks about turning swords into plows: so we
>can all become peach farmers!
>
>(But do you really need plows to grow trees?  Perhaps further study is needed.)
>

To quote from a button I saw recently:  "And they shall beat their
swords into ploughshares, for when you hit a man with a ploughshare, he
knows he's been hit!"


********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb                  | (415) 336-7075     
janiceg@marvin.eng.sun.com   | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!) 
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Re: PLEASE!  I need your help!  Help me keep this love alive!
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:24:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.201829.2812@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.152611.20469@umbc3.umbc.edu> shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>>The second reason may be more compelling, and is rooted in biology
>>(e.g., Richard Dawkins "Selfish Gene") and anthropology (e.g., the
>>cultural materialism of Marvin Harris).
>
>It is a common misconception that because there are biological or
>anthropological reasons for something, that these reasons therefore translate
>into moral imperatives.  They do not.  There are sociobiological explanations
>for prejudice and hatred too; surely you would not claim morality for them on
>these grounds.

I wasn't suggesting morality at all.  The essence of the biological
analogy follows Dawkins, and runs as follows:

   If there is one single property that must be important for a 
   gene to be successful, it is that the gene must do whatever
   is necessary to ensure its own reproduction.  Genes (at least
   successful ones) are reproduction machines.

   By analogy, if there is one important feature of a successful
   (that is, surviving) religion (or any other social movement),
   it is its ability to ensure its own reproduction.

There is no claim for morality, either explicit or implicit.  But it
does answer the  question of why Judaism opposes intermarriage; if
Judaism didn't, there would be no Judaism.




-- 
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.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: matthew@stats.mu.oz.au (Maciek Blasikiewicz)
Subject: Re: On Polish and Jewish nationalism
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:13:11 GMT

mark@fenris.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger) writes:

>So far, those Poles whom I have noticed to have expressed an opinion
>with regard to the Israel/Palestine question seem almost by reflex to
>assume that Israel is in the wrong.

Surely, it is not important what they assume, but whether their
assumption is correct. Is it? If not, then why?

>This despite the fact that the PLO and Hamas have these nasty habits of
>killing random Israeli women, children and men, seemingly every chance
>they get.

How many palestinian children have been killed, say, during 1991 by
Israel's army/police? How many jewish children died at the hands of
Palestinians during the same period?

>But a mention of antisemitism might not be out of line when confronted
>with such a reflex anti-Israeli point of view. After all, I would
>suspect that an antisemite would be quite well motivated to side with
>almost anyone against Israel.

Am I correct when I infer from the above that:
	critical of Israeli policy  <==>  antisemitic?

>--Mark

MB
From: haneins@acf3.nyu.edu (shirley hanein)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: PLEASE! I need your help! Help me keep this love alive!
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:32:06 GMT
Organization: New York University




IMHO, there has been lots of bashing going on. i don't care about AAP's
intermarriage, or stan's comments on it (i think it was stan who
commented, forgive me if it isn't).  the issue is poor dave. he's in the
middle of something that he probably didn't bargain for. in fact, he's
not the one with the problem. he's not having doubts about his faith.
it's his LOVE who does. she's the one we should be addressing.

if she has any ties to judaism then she wouldn't have gone out with him
in the first place.  obviously, she is the one who is not serious in
her commitment to judaism. it's not dave. he's willing, maybe for the
wrong reason but he's willing.

a
i am a young, single woman living in new york city (jew capital of the
US) and i haven't found a whole lot of jewish guys that i want to date.
(I AM NOT PICKY) however, i won't go to the extreme of going out with
someone not jewish (at least anymore, as i am at an age where marriage
is an issue). there are lots of jewish guys out there, religious or not.
if dave's LOVE would have taken some time she may have found someone
jewish. 

maybe she should get herself to israel. 

later,
shirley
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish