HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Name of Palestinian Deportees (part i)
Date: 27 Dec 1992 18:50:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gwydion@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer) says:

>In article <1992Dec27.012529.8948@nysernet.org> astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein) writes:
>>Excellent.  You have shown that one can be both a professional and a
>>terrorist.  Does being a professional excuse one from the consequences
>>of being a terrorist as well?
>
>In all of this condemnation, I have yet to see any proof that the 400
>Palestinians were indeed members of Hamas.  Aside from any discussion
>of whether being a Hamas member is the equivalent of being a hero or a
>terrorist, you still have not shown any convincing evidence that can
>prove that they are actually guilty of what they are accused.  Or does
>being a Palestinian automatically make one a terrorist?
>
>Basalat Ali Raja.
>

An israeli newspaper reports that 6 of the 418 deported palestinians
were deported by misidentity.

no comment.... 
-- 
                  ___________________ cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu _____________
                 (______   _  |   _  |_
_____ H A M Z A ________) |-| |_ |-| | |
Date: Sunday, 20 December 1992 13:34:58 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Inquiry
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Distribution: world

In <1992Dec17.110530.27933@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, muskudar@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Michael Uskudarli)  wrote:
# 1) I was told by a muslim that a muslim can eat anything that is Kosher for
# a jewish person. Ias this true? If it is I am dumbfounded. Thinking that for
# a person (muslim) who regards another person ( a jew) as an arch enemy
# and than to claim that since the torah was actually correct at first and
# than corrupted that they can eat what you can. Do you find this utterly
# weird?

  Not really, and neither dis the (VERY traditional) Egyptian family
  we had as Thanksgiving guests a couple of years ago.  They were
  glad to get a meat meal in the wilds of North Alabama, and all we
  had to do was leave the wind out of the recipes.  Fair trade.

  It was sort of interesting, in many ways.  We left the politics
  off the agenda, in much the same way that my family did when I
  was in my radical days; agreeing that we disagreed and it shouldn't
  get in the way of a family reunion (Abraham, right?)  They had
  rather considerately done some research in advance and admitted
  being surprised at the amount of shared customs, such as ritually
  washing before meals.  It really helped!


# 3) Is it true that in order to be a Jew, you must be born into it?

  This would have been most distressing to both Abraham and Ruth!

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The difference between a chasid and a misnagid
Date: 22 Dec 1992 15:06:04 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec22.021752.23932@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Brian E. Foont) writes:
>His answer were definitely NO.  In addition, his reasoning was that a
>cherem is not made indefintely, even Rav Gershom's cherem would run out
>if it had not become standard practive.  A cherem can be terminated
>by the person against whom it has been placed changes their ways.  

Disclaimer: I don't want to get in the crossfire on this
issue, but I have a question and comment. 

What "cherem" of Rabeinu Gershom are you discussing here? The only
thing that I can think of that matches your remarks is the famous
taqanah of R. Gershom on monogamy. A taqanah is quite different from a
herem. It lasts a fixed period of 1000 years. At that point, if it is
renewed it becomes permanent. It is supposed to be renewed by a
Sanhendrin. Most O Jewish groups seem disinclined to call a Sanhendrin,
and R. Gershom's taqanah has therefore expired (or will expire
shortly--I don't remember the year it was proclaimed, and I'm not sure
how the Julian-Gregorian shift affects the dating). The taqanah has
never been considered binding on Sephardi Jews. My understanding is
that there is little motivation to make the taqanah permanent because
almost all societies in which Jews currently live ban polygamy as a
matter of civil law, and therefore there is no need to add the
religious rule.

-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast
From: astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein)
Subject: Re: All Arabs are guilty
Organization: NYSERNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:52:41 GMT

eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

>In article <1992Dec27.233559.25590@nysernet.org> astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein) writes:
>>   There is enough land there for everyone.  The early Zionists
>>   anticipated living together in peace with the few Arabs who were
>>   already there;  they did not anticipate that the Arabs would want to
>>   drive the Jews into the sea.

> You try to cast the early Zionists as purely peace-loving.

They were, although they did quickly learn that they had to defend
themselves against Arab attacks.

>And you try to make it seem that Palestine was basically empty before
the Zionists came.

Not empty, but fairly sparsely populated.

>The early Zionists certainly hoped that the Arabs wouldn't want to
>drive the Jews into the sea.  They did not, however, all settle in
>Palestine with simplistic views of living in peace and harmony.

True.  They were quickly disabused of such hopes.

>Zionist settlers were routinely equipped and trained in the use of
>arms.  With good reason, as there were often violent disagreements
>with the locals.

You are quite correct.  Every time a new settlement was established,
there would be an Arab attack they would have to defend themselves
from.  Thus, the first thing they did was set up a defense against
these attacks, even before they started building their permanent
housing.
 
>  Many Zionist settlers did try to live with
>neighboring Arabs, even employing them in various tasks.  But when the
>Zionist authorities (those of the Jewish Fund) heard about such
>cooperation, they quickly squelched it.

They weren't trying to avoid cooperation.  They were trying to build a
Jewish nation that would be like all other nations, with Jews
engaged in all the occupations, including the ones they had been
barred from in Europe.
-- 
Alan H. Stein                     astein@israel.nysernet.org
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Date: 2 Jan 93 15:04:47
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: sg04@gte.com's message of 31 Dec 92 15:21:54 GMT

In article <5088@ceylon.gte.com> sg04@gte.com (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund) writes:

   In article 4350@novavax.UUCP, mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman) writes:
   ]When the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law
   ]respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
   ]exercise thereof....",  I see that as meaning that *no* religion
   ]ought to be given more credence--officially--than any other.
   ] 
   ]Permitting the Lubavitchers to put up a menorah in a public
   ]place--and permitting the KKK to put up a cross--does indeed make
   ]"Judeo-Christianity" out to be the Unied States' official,
   ]government-sanctioned religion. 

   Obviously many do not see it this way. I believe that any reasonable
   reader of the establishment clause would conclude that what
   Jefferson intended was the establishment of an official state
   religion. 

I assume that you mean that that was what Jefferson was concerned about?

   One cannot read this law so broadly as to ban religion to the
   private domain. When a person exercizes his right to religion,
   (the first part of the 1st amendment) this can occur either
   privately or publicly. The mere fact a religious act is done
   publicly does not make part of an official religion. Any more
   than playing baseball publicly makes baseball the official state
   sanctioned sport (even though tax dollars do go to baseball in
   the form of publicly supported stadiums).

And exemptions from the antitrust laws, and owners shaking down cities
with threats to move...

   Thus, the state can give permission for individuals to perform
   religious acts in the public domain, and this should not be
   considered the establishment of a state religion. A state religion
   is when one particular religion is given preference in the legal
   statutes beyond the rights of other religions (I.e. I think
   what the constitution was tring to avoind was the official
   Church of England approach).

In which case I assume that you think Cincinnati was correct to let the
KKK put up its cross?

As it happens, the state can't forbid individuals from, say, praying on
public land (via the free exercise clause).  The issue is when public
funds are used to pay for expressions of particular religions.
--
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 lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mwb@jpradley.jpr.com (Michael Brown)
Subject: Re: A self-confessed silly thread: Jewish Rock/Pop Stars
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:55:47 GMT
Organization: Unix in NYC

In article <1992Dec24.163915.11638@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jweber@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (jodi.weber) writes:
>>In article aliki@nova1.stanford.edu (Alexandra Schmidt) writes:
>>Admittedly, many are best described as 'of Mosaic descent' (non-affiliated,
>>but born to Jewish mothers).  Any additions?  
>>
>>Barry Manilow
>>Barbra Streisand
>>Neil Diamond
>>Danny Elfman (drummer, Oingo Boingo)

Howard Kaylan and Mark Volman (The Turtles, Flo and Eddie)
Dick Dale (60's surf guitarist)
Max Weinberg (drummer for the E Street Band)
Rachel Sweet
Phil Spector (producer of the Ronettes, Righteous Brothers et al...)

There was a list in the Rolling Stone Book of Rock Lists that was called
Nice Jewish Boys/Girls that listed rock and roll landsleit.

MB
-- 
Michael Brown          mwb@jpradley.jpr.com or uunet!murphy!jpradley!vtssys!mike
VTS Systems            718-968-1971
871 East 55th Street   Brooklyn, NY 11234
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: The differences, again
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:46:26 GMT

hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
> >hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> >> starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:

> >> The Reform position is not that of laxity, but of study and interpretation.
> >> It does differ in that the Oral Law is not considered to have been given to
> >> Moshe, and I do not see why such a body of law would not have been written
> >> down if it were from God, and my own reading of the Sefer Torah is that
> >> there are parts in which God must at least have been misquoted.  But Reform
> >> does not say that the sages are not to be considered, just that they are
> >> not to be followed as if their words came from God Himself.
> 
> >But is the Torah itself to be followed as if the "words came from G-d
> >Himself"?  Simply put, does Judaism contain a legal system?  Reading
> >what you want, when you want to, and then doing what you choose does
> >not constitute much of a legal structure, IMHO.
> 
> Read what I said, and which you quoted.  If I conclude that there are
> parts which cannot be the literal word of God, it follows that I must
> use all relevant information I can find to try to ascertain what God
> wants us to do.

I reread it.  My problem is that you mix the R approach with your own.
You said that R differs (I assume from O) "in that the Oral Law is not
considered to have been given to Moshe."  Fine.  On that I ask whether
the Torah is in the same category.  If so, I would have expected you to
include that point among the differences as well.  Since you did not,
instead only adding your own view on this, I had ass-u-me-d that R does
attribute the words of the Torah to G-d Himself.  Yet that is contrary
to everything I understood about R.  Have I been that far off the mark?

> But why should a religion be so much a legal structure?

Good question, possibly for another thread.  I was not asking whether
it should be, but whether it is.

> At the time of
> Moses, nobody would think otherwise; it has been stated, and I believe
> quite correctly, that the sacrificial rules in the Torah were there more
> to reduce sacrifices, not to command them...

All valid points.  Are they yours alone, or does R subscribe to them
as well?

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: deportations
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: People's Front of Judea
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:59:52 GMT

We prefer to keep soc.culture.jewish free of debates on Israeli
policy. talk.politics.mideast was created expressly for such
debates (and debates re. other mideastern countries, of course).
Please continue this discussion there.

In article <1992Dec24.221833.4793@nysernet.org> astein@nysernet.org (Alan Stein) writes:
>dat@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Turner) writes:
>
>>Israel's  recent  decison  to  expel  from   their   own   country   410
>>Palestinians,  none  of  whom has been charged with any offence before a
>>court of law, is contrary to the 4th Geneva convention,  and  ignores  a
>>Security Council resolution condemning the action as illegal.
>
>Mr. Turner, besides spouting propaganda, includes several factual
>errors.
>
>First of all, the Palestinian Arabs were not expelled from any
>country.  The territories are unallocated portions of the Palestine
>mandate, not part of any country, and their disposition is subject to
>negotiations.  Hopefully, the Arabs will finally get off the dime and
>start taking seriously the negotiations they keep threatening to pull
>out of.
>
>>This draws our attention once again  to  the  unsolved  problem  of  the
>>ongoing Israeli occupation of the territories seized in the war of 1967,
>>which Israel continues to hold in defiance of both international law and
>>specific United Nations Resolutions.
>
>How easy to forget the refusal of the Arabs to negotiate with Israel
>following the Six Day War, during which it was the Jordanian attack on
>Israel which led to the Israeli capture of that territory.
>
>There's a saying that you can't turn the clock back.  The Arabs could
>have had virtually all that territory in 1967 if they were willing to
>negotiate a peaceful settlement.  They refused, and cannot expect to
>get the same deal a quarter century of intransigence later.
>
>-- 
>Alan H. Stein   -----  AJIN   -----  astein@israel.nysernet.org


-- 
Andrew Solovay    
                "I know that, in America and under capitalism,
                 I am the freest woman in history."
                                --- Camille Paglia
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: ACLU/AJC Menorah Police?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:08:09 GMT


Rabbi Arian comments on the American Jewish Congress' position. I can
supply more details of the event.

It is a large Agam menorah (about 25 feet high--takes a hydraulic lift
of the sort used to change street lights to light it--the sight of
a Rabbi, the Vice-Mayor and Mayor of Beverly Hills being lifted up
to light it was very spectacular.

It is in a public park. There is also a fifty foot tree there that
has been decorated with Christmas lights.

There are no Jewish Stars, Crosses, or Creches involved.

Although the mayor and vice-mayor of B.H. happen to be Jewish this
year, that is, i think, irrelevant, since the lighting has been
done for over ten years.

I think the argument is that the symbols are seasonal/historical
rather than religious, though the traditional blessings over
lighting the menorah were recited. The rest of the evening was
music and dancing of a historical, rather than religious character.

In any case, apparently the thing was decided on freedom of
speech in a public park grounds--the whole thing was paid for
by Chabad, not the city.

David
From: erez@cac.washington.edu (Sheryl Rose Erez)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: how to make sufganiot?
Keywords: cooking, doughnuts
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:17:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec21.191747.8547
Reply-To: erez@cac.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington

O.K.  I have a very scholarly question here: just how does one make 
sufganiot?  My housemates and I want to try, but none of us have ever 
made doughnuts of any sort before.

-Sheryl Erez
erez@cac.washington.edu


> > If you want Hannukah traditions, just fry it in oil, anything fried in
> > oil has symbolic significance.  French fries (home made),  
sweet-and-sour
> > chicken (battered, deep fried chicken lumps, served with a  
sweet-and-sour
> > sauce with stir fried vegitables over rice), deep fried jelly  
doughnuts,
> > ...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Talmud on determining sex
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:01:36 GMT

In article <199212271528.AA21471@das.wang.com> MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>>How do you explain boy-girl twins? ;-)
>
>Just arguing on the basis of the above mentioned Talmudic Theory, this
>is easy.  Boy-girl twins are a  case of two ova being fertilized, each
>by  its  own  sperm, and  possibly  as  the  result  of two  cases  of
>intercourse.  So in one of them the lady had the orgasm first while in
>the other she "came" second (if at all).

A slightly different question:

  I had heard that the reason a woman is "unclean" for two weeks
after the birth of a girl, but only one week after the birth of a
boy, is so she can attend the brit.   I don't know if this is a
"cute" response or a real one.

But I would ask if the "normal" time is one week but a girl causes
the time to extend to two weeks, or if it is normally two weeks but
the birth of a son reduces the time to one week.

So, can the mother attend the brit in the case of a boy/girl twin?
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: afrydman@granpa.enet.dec.com (Avi Frydman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Perfidy
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:22:49 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Dec28.202040.2487@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, bf3833@pyuxe.uucp (80010-feigenbaum) writes...
>I am looking for a book entitled "Perfidy" by Ben Hecht.  The copyright
>date is 1961 and the publisher is Julian Messer.  The publisher is out
>of business however.  The book tells the story of the Kastner trial in
>Israel.
> 
>If anyone can help me get a copy of this book, it would be greatly 
>appreciated.
> 
>Thank you.


I got my copy a few years ago at the ISRAEL BOOKSHOP in Brookline, MA 
                                      (617)566-7113.

It was unavailable for years because of its Labor Party bashing.  When Begin
was elected PM, the book was republished.
From: ag167@yfn.ysu.edu (Barry H. Rodin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Rosenbergs
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:18:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Dec21.211817.15467
Reply-To: ag167@yfn.ysu.edu (Barry H. Rodin)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) says:

>The Rosenbergs, however, were convicted of espionage, not treason.
>
>
The Rosenbergs were NOT convicted of espionage,

They were convicted of _conspiracy_ to commit espionage.

(In a conspiracy trial the gov't does not have to prove that 
the defendants did anything; only that they agreed among themselves
to commit a crime.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: A self-confessed silly thread: Jewish Rock/Pop Stars
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:01:21 GMT

In article <1hau2eINN9p8@morrow.stanford.edu> aliki@nova1.stanford.edu (Alexandra Schmidt) writes:
>Admittedly, many are best described as 'of Mosaic descent' (non-affiliated,
>but born to Jewish mothers).  Any additions?  
>
>Barry Manilow
>Barbra Streisand
>Neil Diamond
>Danny Elfman (drummer, Oingo Boingo)
>Adam Horowitz (Beastie Boys)
>Adam Yauch (Beastie Boys)
>Michael Diamond (Beastie Boys)
>Susanna Hoffs (lead singer, Bangles)
>Michael Steele (bassist, Bangles)
>Bob Dylan
>Geddy Lee (lead singer/bassist, Rush)
>David Lee Roth
	Paul Stanley (guitarist/vocalist, KISS)
	Gene Simmons (bassist/vocalist, KISS)
>Eric Bloom (Blue Oyster Cult)
>Hillel Slovak (original guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers until he OD'ed)
>
>Sorry about the heavy 80's focus--I write whereof I know.
>I have this notion that one or several members of Kiss are Jewish, but not
>sure. . .
>
>			. . .Alexandra
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

	|||				...Your future hasn't been written yet.
       / | \				   No one's has. Your future is what 
    =Mysh+Krysa=			   you make it...    
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Who wrote the Torah?
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 13:45:29 GMT

In article <9212312025.AA17350@cyclone.sbi.com> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
>ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:

>> Conservative Rabbinical authorities share a basic belief that the
>> Torah is divinely inspired;

>So am I right, or am I right?

I was unaware of the precise Conservative view on this, which agrees
with the Reform view.  There is a major difference between divine
inspiration and being the literal word of God.

Even sages such as Rashi found it necessary to take the view that some
parts of the Torah were not to be taken literally.  Even Reform Judaism
does not automatically discard any of the writings in the Tanakh, the
Mishnah, Talmud, Responsa, etc.; they are considered holy books, and
divinely inspired.

There is a big difference between something being written (or dictated
word by word) by God, and being produced under a mortal's attempt to 
understand what God wanted done.
-- 
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)