A couple people recently expressed interest in a thread where they could ask me (or whoever else wants to help ) "I'm just curious" type questions about Jewish practices, customs, etc. (I'll still be happy to answer them by email or IM, of course.)
This thread is NOT for politics or attacks on anyone's beliefs. Please take 'em elsewhere.
Spiffy Disclaimer Thingy: I am not, nor have I ever been, a rebbetzin (rabbi's wife). I think I may have played one in a school play once . . . All my posts in this thread, unless otherwise noted, will represent my understanding of 'normative' (whatever the heck that is ) Orthodox Jewish practices. If I provide a link, it means I think there is helpful information on the topic; it should not (necessarily) be taken an an endorsement of the owner of the linked page or of his/her beliefs.
First topic: Shmura matzah -- more than you ever wanted to know!
Matzah can be eaten all year. However, for the eight (seven in Israel) days of Pesach (Passover), it is the ONLY type of bread that can be eaten. Any product made from the five grains (wheat, oats, barley, rye, spelt) which has been allowed to leaven (this is generally defined as having spent more than 18 minutes after having liquid added, and not having been baked) is chametz -- usually translated "leaven" or "leavened bread."
To avoid any possibility of flour that is to be used for Pesach matzahs becoming wet, only flour that has been watched to prevent this can be used. 'Ordinary' matzah is made from flour that has been watched since it was ground. "Shmura" (lit. "watched") matzahs are made from grain that has been watched since it was harvested.
While the majority of shmura matzah is hand-made -- which results in large, slightly uneven, round matzahs -- machine-made shmura matzah has become fairly common in the past 10-15 years. It looks much like the Manishevitz matzah many people are familiar with -- square, flat, and about half the surface area of a hand-matzah. For reasons I do not understand, they tend to be a bit darker in color than non-shmura matzahs. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
To be Shmura, does it have to be watched by a person or can it be monitored by video, with one guy overseeing several batches at the same time?
How was the figure of 18 minutes reached?
P.S. does it have to be watched by a rabbi?
[ January 15, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Do Jewish people eat babies like the Mormons do?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Why is conversion discouraged?
Is the stricture against seeing/painting nudes, such as found in My Name is Asher Lev, universal? In other words, was Asher's dillema real?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
First, thanks for the Bat-Mitzvah help. The cover sheet of the service bulletin had a Rabbinical quote explaining how Bat-Mitvah is not a verb, etc.
I was going to retype it in a thank you, but left it at the synagogue.
My Matzah question. Will I burn for ever because I enjoy Matzah with ham on it?
What is the carb count on it?
Buttered Matzah---mmmmmmmmm
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Great thrad rivka! Thanks for answering my question.
zgator!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: To be Shmura, does it have to be watched by a person or can it be monitored by video, with one guy overseeing several batches at the same time?
Ok, I was unclear -- "watched" does not mean LITERALLY someone standing there 24 hours a day (I like the remote surveillance idea, though! *giggle*). Grain secured in a weather-tight silo owned by a reliable person (who need not be a rabbi) is fine.
quote: How was the figure of 18 minutes reached?
It's a many-page-long discussion in the Gemara, but I don't really know the details. I can try to find out, though, if you like.
quote: Do Jewish people eat babies like the Mormons do?
Zan, yes.
But only their own children or grandchildren (or cousins, nieces, etc.). They're so yummy, how could you help but eat them up?
quote: Why is conversion discouraged?
There are many reasons. Among them: 1) Having the entire world be Jewish is not seen as an ideal -- not for Jews, and not for non-Jews. Having the entire world recognize and serve God -- which Jews do by following 613 commandments and non-Jews by following 7 types (it was recently pointed out to me that it's actually more like 30 separate commandments) of commandment -- IS the ideal. From here:
quote: Unlike many other religions, Judaism does not demand that all people convert to the religion. Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes the "7 Laws of Noah" earns a proper place in heaven. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not.
2) Strongly discouraging conversion helps ensure that all who do convert do so for love of God and Judaism, not for other reasons. Conversion cannot be undone, and it is FAR FAR better to be a non-Jew who keeps the Noachide laws than a Jew who has chosen to keep all 613 and then throws that away at a later date.
quote: Is the stricture against seeing/painting nudes, such as found in My Name is Asher Lev, universal? In other words, was Asher's dilemma real?
Ok, I have not read the book, so I will guess at the context.
Is there a stricture against seeing nudes? Absolutely. How it's interpreted when it comes to art varies. Some will not go to any museum that displays nudes of any kind. Some will go and try not look at those pictures. And there are some who don't feel that a painting is the same as an actual naked person, and say it should be allowed. That last one is not widely accepted in Orthodox circles though, AFAIK.
Dan, you are very welcome.
As far as the ham, matzah may be eaten by non-Jews with any condiments they wish. Anyway, Judaism doesn't believe in hell. OTOH, the carb count is fairly high. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
What is "spelt"?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
What criteria are used to decide if some person is or is not THE messiah?
And are most jews really still waiting for the messiah? I mean, is this anticipation an active part of the faith?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Is it true, as I've heard, that there are rules against body modification? I remember a friend once telling my that they were required to leave this world in the same condition that they entered it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You don't have to go into the 18 minutes if you don't know the gist of it. I was just wondering if the 18 minutes had to do with the flight from Egypt rapidness or if it was based on pre-microscope assumptions about microbial behavior.
So if you're making matzohs and your sister calls on the phone you will probably have to chuck it and start over, right?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Oooh, I like this thread.
I saw a new patient last month for a physical, so I took a thorough history. She was wearing a wig because, she said, Jewish women have to keep their heads covered after marriage. Do most Orthodox women do this? It was a really awful wig, btw.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
rivka,
I love this thread! I love that you are so cool about answering questions. I love Hatrack. Awesome.
Anyway, my questions (not surprisingly) have to do with food. Mmm...kosher food. Love the Hebrew Nat'l dogs, and the matzoh. So! Please, the circle k on packaging is for kosher, right? What is the circle U? And I think I know what parve is..but *why* is parve important to know? (Parve is neutral, right?) Is there something called "neuf" that means "totally not kosher"? I think I read it as an insult in some novel somewhere.
Very interesting stuff. Thank you.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I know quite a few people, like our beloved Mrs. M, who are both Jewish and agnostic. I suppose she'd be a better person to ask, but how does that happen?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do Orthodox Jews view Kabbalah? If you can, I wouldn't mind reading up on commentary on the subject. . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yay! People like the thread, and have interesting questions.
*rolls up sleeves and digs in*
quote: What is "spelt"?
From Merriam-Webster: "a wheat (Triticum aestivum spelta) with lax spikes and spikelets containing two light red kernels." It's mostly used as animal feed now, AFAIK, but I've seen it for sale at health food stores (along with millet and other grains your average American has never tasted ).
quote: What criteria are used to decide if some person is or is not THE messiah?
quote: And are most jews really still waiting for the messiah? I mean, is this anticipation an active part of the faith?
Very much so! One of the Rambam's (Maimonides) 13 principles of faith, which are part of the daily prayers, is, "Ani ma'amin be'emunah shelaimah b'viat hamoshiach" -- "I believe, with a complete belief, in the coming of Moshiach." It's a popular song, too. It's telling, I think, that I know at least half a dozen different tunes to sing it to.
quote: Is it true, as I've heard, that there are rules against body modification? I remember a friend once telling my that they were required to leave this world in the same condition that they entered it.
That's a strong oversimplification. Some modifications are required -- circumcision, for example; and many are permitted -- hair dye, ear piercing; others are prohibiting -- deliberate scaring, tattoos. Like many things in Judaism, it's not so simple.
quote: You don't have to go into the 18 minutes if you don't know the gist of it. I was just wondering if the 18 minutes had to do with the flight from Egypt rapidness or if it was based on pre-microscope assumptions about microbial behavior.
*thinks* I think it's both, actually. Now I'm curious . . .
quote: So if you're making matzohs and your sister calls on the phone you will probably have to chuck it and start over, right?
Very few people make their own matzah, although some do. I never have.
quote: She was wearing a wig because, she said, Jewish women have to keep their heads covered after marriage. Do most Orthodox women do this? It was a really awful wig, btw.
Yes, most do. I tend to wear a snood or a hat more often than a wig, but that's personal preference. As far as the awfulness of the wig, they vary. Some people's can be spotted as a wig across a large room; others are very, very convincing -- and usually very, very expensive!
quote: Anyway, my questions (not surprisingly) have to do with food. Mmm...kosher food. Love the Hebrew Nat'l dogs, and the matzoh.
Jews? Food? Is there a connection? Just so you know, most people who keep kosher won't eat Hebrew National, since they "self-supervise." I hear they're pretty good, though, so you should enjoy!
quote: Please, the circle k on packaging is for kosher, right? What is the circle U?
They are the two most common kosher symbols. The "circle k," usually referred to as the O-K is the symbol of the O.K. Laboratories; and the "circle U," or O-U, is the symbol of the Orthodox Union. There are MANY other organizations/symbols, mostly specific to products from certain cities. Here's a relatively comprehensive list. Oooh, Rabbi Eidlitz updated it since I last checked!
quote: And I think I know what parve is..but *why* is parve important to know? (Parve is neutral, right?)
Parve (also spelled pareve) is indeed neutral -- neither milchig (dairy) nor fleishig (meat). It's important to know because parve items can be served with either a milchig or fleishig meal, which is useful. More information about kosher symbols can be found at the linked symbol page, at the bottom.
quote: Is there something called "neuf" that means "totally not kosher"? I think I read it as an insult in some novel somewhere.
Could you mean treif? It technically only refers to one very specific (and fairly uncommon) type of non-kosher, but in the last few hundred years has been popularized as meaning anything that is not kosher. It is, as you noted, occasionally used insultingly.
quote: I know quite a few people, like our beloved Mrs. M, who are both Jewish and agnostic. I suppose she'd be a better person to ask, but how does that happen?
I'm afraid I'm not the right person to ask. However, I will quote a favorite book of mine. It's called Brushstrokes and was written by Gary Levine.
quote: "It wasn't a big rebellion or anything," [Tzipporah] said. "I'm just not as sure as I was, as I'd like to be all the time. Sometimes I wonder about it, that's all."
"But you still practice all the laws and things," said Paul. "The fact that you're not sure hasn't stopped you from practicing."
She shrugged. "Well," she said to Paul, "has the fact that you're not sure stopped you from not practicing?"
quote: How do Orthodox Jews view Kabbalah? If you can, I wouldn't mind reading up on commentary on the subject. . .
Linky the first "First in a series" Let me know if you'd like more, although Aish (second link) has a LOT on it. Ooops, almost forgot! Must include something of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's. He had a gift of making the esoteric comprehensible.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
How come I can't find Brushstrokes on Amazon.com? *pouts*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Probably because it was printed in 1982 by a publisher so small they don't even use ISBNs?
They don't seem to have a web page , but here's their info (from Superpages Online) Moznaim Publishing Company 4304 12th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11219 (718) 853-0525
Oh, and look! I guess they do use ISBNs after all. From Mount Zion Books:
quote:Brushstrokes: A Novel. 1982 Moznaim Publishing Corporation. Gary Levine. Trade Paper ISBN 0-940118-65-3 179p. $ 6.00
Wow! I paid $8 for mine over 10 years ago. Here's their order form. Yay! I've been trying to figure out how to get more copies of this book for a while. I never see it at the Jewish bookstores. I'm going to check out their site and order a few copies too. Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
quote: I know quite a few people, like our beloved Mrs. M, who are both Jewish and agnostic. I suppose she'd be a better person to ask, but how does that happen?
I would say that some people consider their Judiasm to be a cultural thing, rather than a religious thing. They celebrate the holidays, eat the foods, tell the stories, support Israel, etc. Just like I have a friend who considers herself Irish, even though she has never visited the country.
P.S. My name is Tzippora. I need to get that book!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
What GradStudent said. my girlfriend's family, in particular are largely cultural Jews. The two segments overlap greatly.
-Bok
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Absolutely, Grad Student (my oldest is also Tzippora ) and Bok, but I think kat's confusion might come from the fact that Mrs.M self-identifies as Orthodox and agnostic.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I used to know this girl whose mother was Jewish and father Catholic.
She used to tell me she had no choice in the matter, she had to be Jewish. If only her parents' religions were reversed, she could choose her religion for herself. She regretted that lack of choice a bit.
I had trouble grasping this. If she believed in Judaism, then she might as well be Jewish. If she didn't, then why should she care what her mother or father believed? Be Catholic, or Baptist, or anything she wanted. I tried to point this out but she was insistant that she had no choice at all.
Your explanation of the 613 commandments for Jews and 7 laws for non Jews makes me understand, a bit. Perhaps that is what she meant. She is in a different boat than someone non-Jewish like me. Still gives me a headache thinking about it.
What about organ donation?
What about cremation?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
What are gefilte fish? And why does the name make me want to laugh?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Cremation is bad, I believe. Goes along with the body mutilation restriction. [EDIT: Err, now that I think about it, I believe it's different, there are some rather particular funeral rites in Judaism, buried in a sanctified Jewish cemetary, wooden caskets only, must be buried 3 (??) days after death. rivka will answer, rivka knows all!]
Jewishness, for lack of a better term, always is passed through the mother. So even if she were a practicing Catholic, she would still be, in one sense, a Jew.
Dunno about the organ donation though.
-Bok
[ January 16, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Tell us about the unveiling. I hadn't heard of it until I was 30, and I was amazed at how different it sounded from normal stuff. Also, I think I was pregnant at the time so the tradition that prohibits an expectant mother from attending stuck out.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Theca, traditionally, a child is born Jewish if their mother is Jewish. The Reform movement, I think, now accepts as Jewish someone whose father is Jewish but not their mother.
quote: Gefilte fish is a cake or ball of chopped up fish. My brother's girlfriend describes it as Jewish Scrapple, although I suppose that is not very helpful to anybody outside of the Philadelphia area. It is usually made with white-fleshed freshwater fish, such as carp or pike. The fish is chopped into small pieces (a food processor is good for this), mixed with onions and some other vegetables (carrot, celery, parsley). The mixture is held together with eggs and matzah meal. It is then boiled in broth for a while. It can be served warm or cold, though it is usually served cold with ed horseradish and garnished with carrot shavings. Sorry I can't produce a better recipe than that; I don't eat fish.
The word "gefilte" fish comes from German and means "stuffed." Some variations on gefilte fish involve stuffing the fish skin with chopped up fish.
quote: And why does the name make me want to laugh?
You are easily amused. So am I -- I like to think it makes life a little smoother.
quote: rivka will answer, rivka knows all!
Well, actually, rivka has a pretty good idea of where to look it up -- Google knows all!
quote: Tell us about the unveiling. I hadn't heard of it until I was 30, and I was amazed at how different it sounded from normal stuff. Also, I think I was pregnant at the time so the tradition that prohibits an expectant mother from attending stuck out.
Link I'm familiar with the custom of pregnant women not entering a cemetery, but can't find any links.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks, Rivka!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks rivka!
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
This is great! Thanks!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Great thread, Rivka.
My question: Since Jews observed the spring holydays (Passover, Unleavened Bread eight days) as spelled out in the books of law, and I know you observe Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanna (Day of Atonement) -- do you also have a week-long observance in the fall for what was called the Feast of Booths in the old testament? I believe it ended with Rosh Hashanna....
quote: Do Jewish people eat babies like the Mormons do?
No, no, zgator! Baby eaters are those New Orleans people -- you know, King Cake and all that........
FG
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
No question at this time. I just wanted to say that spelt was the primary grain eaten in the Roman Empire. Most people prefer the taste of wheat to that of spelt, when given the choice. I like both of them.
Also, may I just say how delighted I am by the fact that that there is such thing as a snood. Or rather, how delighted I am that there is something called a "snood" in the world. It's so pleasently Dr. Seussian; puts me in mind of a sneed. I haven't thought of snoods in years, and I'm glad you reminded me of them.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:My question: Since Jews observed the spring holydays (Passover, Unleavened Bread eight days) as spelled out in the books of law, and I know you observe Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanna (Day of Atonement) -- do you also have a week-long observance in the fall for what was called the Feast of Booths in the old testament? I believe it ended with Rosh Hashanna....
By the way, I am also a Jewish agnostic. Not orthodox, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Farmgirl, Mike (thanks ) already provided a good link (I would debate some of the details it provides, though -- Succot (also pronounced Succos) and Shemini Atzeret/Simchat Torah together last nine days (eight in Israel), not eight; and the taking of the four species was common practice long before the second Temple period). Here's another, which provides some additional details. An overview of the Jewish calendar helps set the holidays in context.
Noemon, I had not known that. Interesting. I've had spelt as part of multigrain breads, but never alone.
I understand that there is also a popular computer game called "Snood." I rather think someone should program an Orthodox game of the same name, where you go around pulling snoods over people's heads.
[ January 16, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I thought that snoods were a small equine breed favored by the Soviet Union. They had a band of midgets that road them into combat. They were so small they could sneak under enemy radar.
Haven't you ever heard of "Little Reds Riding Snoods"?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Gee, one bad pun and it kills this good thread.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
"Puns don't kill threads, people do."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Puns don't kill threads. People kill punsters.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If I had wanted bad jokes in this thread, I would have told Bob the other criterion for recognizing the messiah.
A sticker on his shirt that says "Hi, my name is MOSHIACH."
Anyway, the rebbetzin takes Shabbos off. Maybe people will have more questions next week.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I am Soooo getting that shirt!
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Are you allowed to work somewhere that sells un-kosher food, or are there moral dilemmas with supporting something you don't believe in? Or can you not touch un-kosher things at all?
[ January 16, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's a bit vague, Da_Goat. Do you mean, could I work at a McDonald's?
Assuming that is the sort of thing you mean, then the answer is probably not. But the problem is not the handling of non-kosher meat.
Actually, let me start by making a distinction between meat that is not kosher (either because it comes from a non-kosher animal, such as a pig; or because it was not slaughtered in a kosher manner, which means all non-kosher beef, etc.) and meat that has been mixed with milk, or other dairy. The former I cannot eat, but can get benefit from -- so I could sell it to a non-Jew, or feed it to a pet; the latter I may not own, nor get benefit from.
So much for cheeseburgers.
But what about a non-kosher restaurant that has no items that contain both meat and milk? Perhaps vegetarian? Still a problem. While selling such items to non-Jews would likely not be a problem, selling them to Jews who don't keep kosher would. Their choices are not my responsibility -- unless I aid and abet them.
On a more practical level, why would I want to work in a place where I was surrounded, all day, by food I could not eat? And you thought dieting was hard!
[ January 17, 2004, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My question:
Many of these rules seem insanely strict and wholly arbitrary. What's the point?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I considered ignoring the question, per my request in the opening post:
quote: This thread is NOT for politics or attacks on anyone's beliefs. Please take 'em elsewhere.
Instead, I'll link to various related answers. And if Tom, or anyone else, would like to debate the matter, I'll be willing to do so -- elsewhere.
<thinks this is a totally cool thread>
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Sorry for the vague explanation, rivka, but you answered my question(s) exactly. Thank you!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
<<<<<aka>>>>> Glad you approve.
Da_Goat, cool! I'm not so good at the whole mind-reading thing, but every once in a while I get it right. Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Goats have rather simple minds, so don't get cocky; it's not much of an accomplishment.
[ January 18, 2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
How do you feel about non-Jews celebrating Passover? A church I once went to had a service where they passed around various parts of the seder (I don't remember how much because I was a young child then). I think we might have had lettuce dipped in salt water, matzah, and grape juice (instead of wine--some members of the congregation didn't approve of alcohol).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've been at a seder table with non-Jews, and enjoyed having them there. As far as non-Jews making a seder of their own, I admit to not seeing the point, but figure I don't need to.
OTOH, I've heard of churches using a seder as a missionary tactic, and that I would take issue with.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The Passover-celebrated-by-Christians thing is usually a Maundy Thursday thing, during the Christian Holy Week. Some churches figure that since the Last Supper was likely a Seder (Jesus was crucified near/during Passover), it hads a bit more authenticity to the Last Supper rememberance.
I know my church did it at least a couple time... Along with the requisite glasses of wine Only time we used wine for church purposes, even.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What is the Jewish perspective on Adam and Eve's doings in the Garden of Eden? As in, what would the world be like if they had never taken the fruit?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laughs* Oh good, an easy question. That's actually the subject of much debate, Scott, and has been for thousands of years.
I'll see if I can find links to some of the common views.
"This thread is NOT for politics or attacks on anyone's beliefs."
Just to be clear, Rivka, I wasn't attacking your beliefs. I was genuinely trying to understand why you chose to believe that God cares deeply -- even to the point of costing someone salvation -- about things that even you freely admit are not only trivial but ultimately whimsical.
Your links provide an answer which helps make your acceptance of this whimsy clearer, but I must admit that it's one that I -- as someone who does not start from a position of faith -- can't quite accept.
The reason I asked about whether or not you would have converted to Judaism if you had been introduced to it late in life is tied into this, to some extent, and also into your previous discussion of Jewish "recruitment" (or lack thereof); the idea that God's commandments DON'T actually matter, except insofar that they matter to God, is one that I cannot believe would be easy for anyone passionate about their faith to reconcile with their own philosophies.
I guess, ultimately, I'm just amazed by the variety of different answers produced by Jewish apologists: God laid down hundreds of tiny restrictions so that we can't go a single day without obeying at least one of them, thus generating a tiny good deed that makes Him happy; we can't actually know what's a big deal and what isn't; breaking these laws gives us the opportunity to confess our sins, which teaches us a number of moral lessons; salvation comes through a combination of good works and constant thoughtfulness of God, and trying to obey hundreds of very specific rules ensure that we are regularly forced out of the material world to consider our faith -- often with every purchase. I was wondering if most Jews find these arguments internally consistent, and believe that they would be effective in convincing someone who is not already inclined to strict Judaism.
I've been trying to understand the fundamentalist mindset, lately -- Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. And of them all, to be honest, fundamentalist Judaism confuses me most of all -- which is probably why my questions are on their face so direct and offensive.
[ January 19, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
There is a world of difference between Orthodox and fundamentalist, I think.
I know you weren't asking me, but I feel like answering anyway. I dunno, maybe just know the tree by its fruit. rivka is already the answer to the question of why. She's just so great. Can't you feel it? Don't you think she must be doing something right to be that way?
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Oh! Oh! Rivka! I must tell you something! I went to temple on Saturday for the first time.
Deep breath.
*meekly* wow.
I have so many thoughts in my head but am unable to verbalize them to my satisfation. I will try to convey a few feelings at least.
Well, maybe I should give you a little Val history first...Birth: mother (at the age of 18) refused to have her daughter baptised, saying it would be my decision when the time came. I went through school never really understanding why my Christian friends were "unavailable" on Sunday mornings.
In middle school, I met the most wonderful teacher, Ms. Derry. In her English class, she opened the doors to the wonderful world of literature. An entire semester was devoted to learning about the Holocaust. We read the Diary of Anne Frank, Night, Day, and many others. I emersed myself in studying unlike I have ever done before. This was the year that Schlinder's List came out in the theaters. As extra credit, we could go see the movie and write a report. I jumped at the chance.
I sobbed the entire night. My mom told me recently that she remembers that time. It was the first time I ever came home after a movie and walked straight into my room and didn't say a word. I couldn't say a word. There were no words for what I was feeling.
That was my first taste of real human suffering, something I never had never experienced. The next great emotion was compassion. I made it my duty to read more on the subject and encourage my friends to learn about it to.
High school proved to be, well, to put it mildly, distracting. I strayed from my studies and became a tried and true teen, self-absorbed and immune to the world. After high school I met a friend of a friend who was Orthodox Jew. She answered a few of my questions but she moved back to New York to be with family, so I never got a chance to learn more from her.
Fast forward 4 years to Hatrack...met Rivka... Rivka spent quite a few hours answering my questions via AIM and most recently, email. Now, it came to be that I have been having lots of money problems lately and my mom said I could earn a few bucks by cleaning her house once a week. I was cleaning the basement bookshelf and what book was staring at me but, Choosing a Jewish Life ? I read it in one night. I asked my mom the next day why she had that book, see my mother is not a religious person. She said that our mutual friend Sarah had converted a while back and she loaned that book to my mom to answer some common questions.
I called Sarah. She was so excited that I wanted to learn that she invited me to attend a study group and services at Temple Israel on Saturday. Ok, cool! Saturday morning I was greeted with bagels and warm faces. We spend the study time reading and discussing the finer points of Moses' birth and first conversation with God. These people encouraged each other to ask questions and debate! This was a very strange thing to see. As a child my grandmother would sometimes let me attend mass with her. A debate, before or after services would never happen.
The service itself was confusing at times but enlighening never the less. Afterwards, I was invited by several women to attend a Friendship Tea next week and of course I said yes! These women (and men) were so kind to me. They wanted to know everything about me and were really interested. I felt welcomed, to say the least.
Well, there it is. My first Jew experience. Thanks for listening.
[ February 11, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Valentine014 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, first off, I was hoping -- and willing to believe, based on prior experience -- that you were probably not intending to attack. Might I suggest a more tactful phrasing of such questions in the future? Words like "insanely" tend to raise my hackles, I can't speak for anyone else.
I also do NOT agree that these 'small' details are trivial OR whimsical. Nor do I agree that they do not matter! I would agree that they may SEEM so to us. But then again, the forgotten kiss on the way out the door when running unusually late might seem insignificant to the husband who is sure his wife knows he loves her, so what's the big deal? While she sees it as not minor at all. (Not a great analogy, but all I'm coming up with at the moment.)
We can guess at what is "minor" and what "major" -- but I believe we cannot know.
And the word "salvation" has connotations that make me very uncomfortable. Judaism does NOT believe it's a single all-or-nothing choice. Very few people are fully evil or fully good -- most of us are an admixture of both. The goal is to tilt the scales toward good, as far as we can, as often as we can. It's tied into why we don't believe in heaven or hell.
quote: The reason I asked about whether or not you would have converted to Judaism if you had been introduced to it late in life
*blink* When did you ask that?
quote: I guess, ultimately, I'm just amazed by the variety of different answers produced by Jewish apologists
What you see as a variety of answers, I see as many facets of the truth, as a gemstone has many faces. And I left out the more esoteric ones . . .
aka, wow! I have rarely had so enthusiastic a reference. Can I have potential employers call you? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wow, Val. Thank you so much for sharing that with me -- with us! I'm so glad you had such a great experience. And you know I'm always happy to answer questions.
(((((Val)))))
Posted by jana at jade house (Member # 6101) on :
Thank you for your willingness to link to or directly answer questions about your religious body of beliefs. I think, had I not come into the LDS Church, that I might have found the study of the Torah as satisfying as I do the Standard Works in the LDS library.
I was particularly enlightened by the rabbinical articles about the Fall of Adam and Eve. So much of the thinking in the articles parallels my own. I really enjoyed the readings.
Thanks again. Jana
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Oh, and thanks for that link to Jew Facts. Very helpful and a few friends say that is a great one!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, he has a great site. Very balanced, and incredibly thorough!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jana, I'm glad you like the links. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"rivka is already the answer to the question of why. She's just so great. Can't you feel it? Don't you think she must be doing something right to be that way?"
Um....Sure. Except that I also know a lot of great Mormons, Muslims, atheists, and Baptists. All of these religions are mutually exclusive; you cannot be both a Mormon AND a Jew, for example.
So if you, Anne Kate, believe that rivka must be right because she's so great, why are you a Mormon? *blink* I mean, is she right, but not quite right enough? Does that mean she'd be greater if she were LDS?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, do you really believe that everyone in the world should have one BEST career? One BEST method of showing caring to their spouse? One BEST method of raising their kids -- ALL their kids the same way?
How one-dimensional.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Oh LDS people are also Jewish, didn't you know? Or pretty close, anyway. We keep a somewhat modified version of the commandments, and we believe the messiah has already come but really it's very much the same spirit. Nobody ever said the spirit was only for the LDS.
I think the fullness of my own understanding, at this point, is so limited by circumstances as to make me quite unwilling to contend with anyone over details of doctrine. If I'm following the path I'm being led to follow, to the best of my ability, then that's my job. I have no authority to decide the correct path for anyone else, though of course I would always be glad to teach anyone (who sincerely wants to learn) anything they want to know about my own faith.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, do you really believe that everyone in the world should have one BEST career?"
Are you really arguing that the instructions of God are meant to be followed -- or not followed -- as each individual wishes, and that there are no consequences to this behavior?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No. But neither do I believe that He expects everyone to follow the exact same path.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Don't get me wrong: as a former Baha'i, I once believed very strongly that there were multiple paths to the same truth.
However, I don't see anything in the scripture OR philosophy of the religions I mentioned that would suggest that these paths are even compatible, much less complimentary.
To bring this back to Orthodox Judaism, how is it possible to argue that God cares deeply about, say, keeping kosher -- but doesn't actually care whether you think the Messiah was hanging out in pre-Columbian America? Or that there's this guy in Rome who presumably has a direct line to God Himself, but keeps giving messages that don't line up with what this guy in Utah has to say?
These seem like enormous distinctions to me, and far more relevant than, say, whether or not it's okay to wear wool and linen simultaneously. If worrying about the fine points of that doctrine is important, how can worrying about the big picture not be at least as important?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Do Jewish scholars report any "borrowings" from other ancient religions or societies in the Torah?
I've read, for example, that there's a lot of Hammarabi in Moses' laws. I don't know enough to judge for myself, but I wonder if that one's true and if there might be others -- like similarities to Egyptian myths and legends (but not the actual religion of ancient Egypt).
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
To me the point is the effect it has on the follower. Whatever causes a good effect is good. There are different systems. Some are better than others. Some are better for some people than others. One is best for me, and that's the one I am trying to find and follow.
Oh, and rivka, feel free to put me on your resume as a reference. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, ak. I'm picturing trying to explain who you are to a potential employer though . . .
Bob, since we believe that the Torah was given, word for word (in the case of the Five Books; it gets more complicated with the Prophets and Writings), by God, it seems unlikely that Orthodox sources would do so.
Tom, I would make a major distinction between beliefs and actions. I consider the latter far more important, and think He does too. You seem to feel that beliefs are more important. Well, you're entitled to that belief. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Bob, we read parts of the Code of Hammurabi for one of my classes last semester. The resemblence between it and parts of Leviticus is striking. However, there are also some significant differences. For example, the laws mostly seem to apply to the upper class (or more likely, free men as opposed to servants or slaves). Also, the dietary and spiritual aspects of Leviticus are missing, if I recall correctly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rivka, thanks for your linkage.
Why does God distinguish between Jews and Gentiles?
[ January 20, 2004, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Ever hear of Hamurabi? ‘The Code of Hamurabi’ (18th century B.C.E.) is one of the oldest known legal codes on record. I heard from Rabbi Simcha Wasserman, zatzal, that Hamurabi was most likely a dropout from the academy of Shem and Ever.
That was great! Thanks rivka.
quote:The underlying conceptual differences between the Torah and Hammurabi's code demonstrate that there was no borrowing between the two systems. The Torah's law has fundamentally different values and cannot have been based on Babylonian law. The Torah views the law as G-d-given and human life as sacred. This is entirely different from Hammurabi's man-made law that views life as an economic asset. The two laws may look similar in some respects but their underlying postulates are so different that one cannot have been based on the other.
Very nice!
And thanks too, Shigosei.
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
Rivka, great thread! Thanks
I always wondered, how can you keep all 613 Mitzvot nowdays? Especially the ones related to the Temple, kohein etc.?
And what is the scriptural base for not having to keep all the 613 Mitzvot?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If Joe Lieberman becomes President of the United States, and there's a national emergency on the Sabbath, is he allowed to work? Or should he hand off the country to the Vice President (in which case, does he need to choose a Gentile as a running mate?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Rivka, thanks for your linkage.
quote:Why does God distinguish between Jews and Gentiles?
Why does he distinguish between men and women? Same answer -- different primary responsibilities. Lots of overlap in both cases though.
quote: It's politically correct to insist that everyone is the same -- Jews, gentiles, men, women, blacks, whites, Irish, Chinese -- a whole rainbow of colors swirled into one great gray stew of uniformity. But how drab! The Bible's position is viva la difference!
Every nation, every tribe, every person has something unique to offer. We contribute most if we maintain our individuality.
.
.
quote: I always wondered, how can you keep all 613 Mitzvot nowdays? Especially the ones related to the Temple, kohein etc.?
And what is the scriptural base for not having to keep all the 613 Mitzvot?
quote: There is an interesting question that often arises when we consider the importance of fulfilling all 613 mitzvot in the Torah: Isn't it odd that there has never been a Jew capable of keeping all 613? There are mitzvot that apply only to a Jewish king, a High Priest, an ordinary priest, a Levite, a Jewish judge, one who resides in the land of Israel, a homeowner, a man, a woman, and the list goes on. Who is capable of performing all 613?
Some suggest that by studying about those mitzvot that are not applicable to ourselves, we are considered to be actually involved in them. The Or HaChaim, however, offers a different solution. He explains that, in truth, each and every Jew does fulfill all the mitzvot in the Torah, for he or she is connected and one with all of the Jewish people.
.
.
quote: If Joe Lieberman becomes President of the United States, and there's a national emergency on the Sabbath, is he allowed to work? Or should he hand off the country to the Vice President (in which case, does he need to choose a Gentile as a running mate?)
Well, it's something he'd have to take up with his rabbi beforehand (and I believe he did so before the last election, when the issue was raised).
But my educated supposition: Life-threatening emergencies? No problem. Not life threatening? There are many possible scenarios, but two things to keep in mind: Some things may be done for a community on Shabbos that may not be done for a person (or few people); most things that the President would need to do in an emergency situation are probably not actual Sabbath violations (or the violation can be worked around, like having someone else make a phone call, write, etc. -- which likely allowed because of the communal need aspect).
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Something I've wondered about: are figs kosher? (Quick search on google seems to indicate yes.) I ask because they are pollinated by tiny wasps that remain in the fruit and are usually consumed. Or does this somehow fall under the "one sixtieth part" caveat?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Something I've wondered about: are figs kosher? (Quick search on google seems to indicate yes.) I ask because they are pollinated by tiny wasps that remain in the fruit and are usually consumed. Or does this somehow fall under the "one sixtieth part" caveat?
Yes, they're kosher -- in fact, they are one of the special fruits of Israel (a status that means we say a special blessing on them, eat them before other fruit, and so on).
The one-part-in-60 only helps if the 1/60 is not distinct, so it doesn't help for a visible bug. *shudder* However, the species that requires wasp fertilization is NOT the fig we mostly eat.
quote: The common fig is a much more important variety which emerged during classical times. The fruit produce twice a year, with neither crop needing to be caprified. Thus freed from the need of the fig wasp, who cannot stand cooler climates, the fig tree began to spread northward, reaching Britain in the early 16th century. During the same period, it arrived in North America, where it became firmly established in California. In 1769, the Franciscan mission at San Diego was founded and began to grow a Spanish black common fig which, under the names of Mission, Black Mission, and Franciscana, is still one of the leading varieties.
In any case, in those species that DO require caprification, guess what happens to wasp which dies in the fig? It dissolves in the highly acidic juices, and is absorbed. Yum! Bug juice!
Because bugs can be an issue in figs, they must be examined much more carefully than other fruit, even if there is no outward sign of an infestation.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote: I ask because they are pollinated by tiny wasps that remain in the fruit and are usually consumed.
EEEWWW and you never told me??!?! Get those figs away from me!
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
rivka, I think I would be classified as a "fangirl"? Or is that only something you can be for guys? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh bring us some waspy pudding. Oh bring us some waspy pudding Oh bring us some waspy pudding!
We want it right now!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Talk to imogen, ak. I'm pretty sure she declared herself the head of my fan club a while back. She's probably willing to pass on the mantle by now. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
rivka, do Orthodox Jews believe in any places to go besides Heaven and Hell in the afterlife? Is there a Purgatory or "limbo" (that's where they set the bar really low).
Or reincarnation even???
And what is Heaven like?
Also Hell?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Ahh I finally have a question.
Does Orthodox Judaism have a stance on the reform jews? As in, is there an official, "Yes, the Reform Jews are still okay" or "We don't know what's up with those Reform Jews"?
Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of my jewish friends are Reform. I have one friend whose family is orthodox but he's not practicing, and another friend who describes his judaism as 'the real one' aka he's from Israel and bases his practices off of that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Bob, I've got a couple of books from various undergrad. religious studies classes that focus on parallels between ancient near eastern myths and the Torah. I'll look when I get home tonight and get you some titles and authors.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
I think it's ironic that the special fruit of Israel has problems with WASPs.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Here is one of the books I was talking about Bob.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Here is another. This one has a pretty funny review too!
quote:I read Gilgamesh after I read the Iliad and they Oddyssey, and now i see where Homer got most of his ideas.
That Homer was such a hack!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Theres a book called "The Gift of the Jews" that talks about the remarkable underlying difference between early Judaism and other mid-eastern mystical beliefs. It's interesting reading.
I'd be interested in Rivka's thoughts on it if she's read it.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: rivka, do Orthodox Jews believe in any places to go besides Heaven and Hell in the afterlife? Is there a Purgatory or "limbo" (that's where they set the bar really low).
Or reincarnation even???
And what is Heaven like?
Also Hell?
Actually, we don't even believe in heaven and hell, at least not as the words are commonly used. You will sometimes see the English words used, for lack of a good alternative.
As I told AJ here, some of the issues are semantic. Also, many of the discussions in the Gemara, and elsewhere, are highly allegorical. We simply lack adequate frame of reference for a NON-allegorical description, I think.
Here's one description of the World to Come. Note the allegories.
quote: Does Orthodox Judaism have a stance on the reform Jews? As in, is there an official, "Yes, the Reform Jews are still okay" or "We don't know what's up with those Reform Jews"?
Reform Jews are certainly "ok" -- whatever you mean by that.
Reform Judaism, OTOH, is more problematic. They have some very different beliefs -- such as they do not believe the Torah was dictated by God -- and thus different practices. The primary complication is that a Reform marriage, divorce, or conversion is not seen as halachically valid, which can lead to some really sticky problems.
I'd like to reemphasize that I don't think it is my place to judge anyone else's religious practices (unless they infringe upon me). I figure He'll sort it all out.
quote: I think it's ironic that the special fruit of Israel has problems with WASPs.
Yeah, you should have seen some of the search results.
quote: Theres a book called "The Gift of the Jews" that talks about the remarkable underlying difference between early Judaism and other mid-eastern mystical beliefs. It's interesting reading.
I'd be interested in Rivka's thoughts on it if she's read it.
I have heard of it, but have not read it. I think I saw an interesting analysis of it somewhere -- I'll see if I can find it later.
[edited to update Hatrack link]
[ March 16, 2006, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Rivka, thanks for all of this wonderful information, and thanks for all of those great questions, too. Great chance to learn here.
This may sound trivial, but here goes:
What's the difference between Hebrew and Yiddish? I understand they are different languages, but why the difference?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: What's the difference between Hebrew and Yiddish? I understand they are different languages, but why the difference?
Well, that's rather like asking why there is such a language as English -- a complex combination of historical social, cultural, and other factors.
Hebrew (or rather, biblical Hebrew, "Lashon haKodesh" -- the holy tongue) is the language of the Torah (except for one volume in Aramaic), the prayers (although one CAN pray in any language, or none), and the majority of Jewish writings.
Yiddish gradually spread as a "common" language, a language of the streets, of commerce. There is some debate as to the actual geographic origins and timeline, but here's what seems (from my searches today, I can't claim to have any linguistic background) to be the generally accepted theory. Jews of Sephardic origin don't usually speak Yiddish -- they have Ladino instead.
There's a new 'language' often referred to as "yeshivish." It's a pidgin blend of Yiddish, Hebrew, and English. It makes me cringe, and I can (usually) understand it!
Okay, I've got another question. (This is not asked to be divisive in the least, but out of curiosity.)
What is the Jewish take on Jesus or even is there one? For example, I've been told that in the Muslim faith Jesus is seen as someone of exceptional wisdom, but is not a divine prophet like Mohammad. On the other hand, the Christian doctrine doesn't seem to have an official stance on Mohammad, Buddha, Lao Tzu or other religious figures.
I'm interested because, as a Christian, my religion is entwined with Judaism and we revere that as the root of our faith and system of beliefs.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
*bump for the rebbetzin*
Also: what is the difference between Orthodox Judaism and Hasidic Judaism? I bring this up because I am reading the Faye Kellerman books (Yay to the hatracker who recommended them whose name I forget!) and the characters seem to agree that there is a difference. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: What is the Jewish take on Jesus or even is there one?
Well, we think he was wrong. And the past 2000 years worth of anti-Jewish actions that have been committed either in his name or in attempts to convert us haven't exactly helped things . . . [Edit: I found this link and thought it was relevant.]
quote: Also: what is the difference between Orthodox Judaism and Hasidic Judaism? I bring this up because I am reading the Faye Kellerman books (Yay to the hatracker who recommended them whose name I forget!) and the characters seem to agree that there is a difference.
jexx, it's like squares. All squares are rectangles; not all rectangles are squares. From here:
quote: Orthodoxy is actually made up of several different groups. It includes the modern Orthodox, who have largely integrated into modern society while maintaining observance of halakhah (Jewish Law), the Chasidim, who live separately and dress distinctively (commonly, but erroneously, referred to in the media as the "ultra-Orthodox"), and the Yeshivish Orthodox, who are neither Chasidic nor modern. The Orthodox movements are all very similar in belief, and the differences are difficult for anyone who is not Orthodox to understand.
I also want to back up, and add something to my answer to Suneun's question. I focused on the differences between Orthodox and Reform Judaism -- I think it's important that I emphasize that there are many common points as well. The concept of tikkun olam -- repairing the (physical) world -- has always been an intrinsic and important part of Judaism. It is something that Reform Judaism, to their credit, has devoted incredible amounts of time, money, and energy to.
[ January 26, 2004, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
HI RIVKA! I have just moved in with a friend (Jewish) and she and I were talking about mezuzahs and how expensive the scrolls are. For that reason, we only have one on the front door. I checked on ebay and, holy cow! they are expensive. My question is, how do I know they are the real deal and how can I tell if I'm getting ripped off? Do you have a reliable place I would be able to order a few kosher scrolls?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:The primary complication is that a Reform marriage, divorce, or conversion is not seen as halachically valid, which can lead to some really sticky problems.
...And the fact that Reform Judaism started recognizing patrilineal descent a few years ago, which brings up some really sticky problems of who is Jewish and who isn't.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Orthodoxy is actually made up of several different groups. It includes the modern Orthodox, who have largely integrated into modern society while maintaining observance of halakhah (Jewish Law), the Chasidim, who live separately and dress distinctively (commonly, but erroneously, referred to in the media as the "ultra-Orthodox"), and the Yeshivish Orthodox, who are neither Chasidic nor modern. The Orthodox movements are all very similar in belief, and the differences are difficult for anyone who is not Orthodox to understand.
Just curious - which are you? Well, I'm assuming you're not Chassidish. Are you modern orthodox or yeshivish? Somewhere in between? What kinds of schools do you send your children to?
Posted by Arya (Member # 6160) on :
<----- Is a Modern Ortho
Anyone who is MO or higher in religious standards tend to send their kids to Jewish private schools. You will get the occasional religious Jew in a public school, but it's unlikely. If the person is that religious, then they would want their child to have a Jewish education along with a secular one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, mezuzah scrolls ARE expensive -- they take hours upon hours of painstaking work by a trained sofer (scribe). Unfortunately, you are correct that not all for sale are valid. I only know reliable places to buy them in L.A. (and in Jerusalem, as it happens); I assume you want to find them online? Do NOT buy "used" ones. Ones that have been put up on doors (where they are exposed to sun, heat, moisture, cold, etc.) need to be checked (by a sofer, to ensure than none of the letters have blurred, cracked, etc.) every few years. So buy new ones -- ebay may not be the best place to be sure you're doing that.
I know Eichlers is a reliable place to buy them, but I'll see what else I can find.
reader, I'm somewhere on the continuum of Modern Orthodox / Yeshivish. And I don't know why you assume I'm not Chasidish -- I happen not to be, but I have many friends and former classmates who are. (Being Chasidish/Yeshivish is more a question of birth than choice, although I'm simplifying.)
As Arya said, most Orthodox families (me included) send their kids to private religious elementary, middle, and high schools. Some go to "regular" colleges; some do not. I did (I went to UCLA); one of my brothers went to Touro (which like the more well-known Yeshiva University, combines an Orthodox environment with secular education) and also attended yeshiva (lit: school, in this case, specifically post-HS education); one of my brothers has not attended college, and has spent 8 years (and counting) post-HS in a yeshiva in Israel; my third brother is following a path similar to the oldest one, except at a different yeshiva, and he's also taking classes at a local "regular" college that has an arrangement with his yeshiva about credits for classes and such.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
My question about schools wasn't public school vs. religious; I assumed you sent your kids to private religious schools. I was wondering whether, for example, you sent your girls to Bais Yaakov or a less yeshivish kind of school.
As to my assuming you weren't Chassidish.... Well, of course you might have had a Chassidish background, with all the accompanying traditions and separate "laws" - but when I said Chassidish, I meant the kind of Chassidish where the children go to special schools for that particular Chassidus. The chances of finding someone like that on the Internet, here at Hatrack, is slim to nil.
To be honest, I'm not quite sure what I'm doing here. (I'm Orthodox, in case you haven't figured that out yet.) Well, I know how I found my way here; I use the Internet almost exclusively for doing research for college (Touro, as it happens ) and for searching for book-related information, as I'm an avid reader, and in doing a search for OSC's books, I came across this site. At first I stuck to the writing tips and so forth, but then I discovered these forums, and as I love debating, I found myself occasionally posting in the more discussion/debate geared threads. Still, let's just say that this is not the kind of site my friends would be visiting....
By the way, I found the yeshivish translation of the Gettysburg address hilarious. I've never actually read the yeshivish dictionary, but I've been wanting to for a while now. It annoys my mother to no end when my brothers use too much of it, especially when it's in reply to a question asked by a non-Jewish doctor!
Edited to fix tags.
[ February 08, 2004, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: reader ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:My question about schools wasn't public school vs. religious; I assumed you sent your kids to private religious schools. I was wondering whether, for example, you sent your girls to Bais Yaakov or a less yeshivish kind of school.
Ahh, ok. Well, I live in Los Angeles, so while there is SOME choice among the various Orthodox schools, it's not like Brooklyn (or Monsey, or Lakewood, etc.) where there are MANY options. For example, there are only two Chasidish elementary schools (the Chasidishe Cheder and the Lubavitch school(s)) -- and both are pretty recent. Less than 10 years old, iirc.
Anyway, the school my kids go to is pretty yeshivish. And I did go to Bais Yaakov (here that's HS only), although my sister, for various reasons, attends a different HS.
quote: As to my assuming you weren't Chassidish.... Well, of course you might have had a Chassidish background, with all the accompanying traditions and separate "laws" . . . The chances of finding someone like that on the Internet, here at Hatrack, is slim to nil.
Tsk. You'd be surprised. I've met all kinds of people on online forums -- including some very Chasidish ones.
quote: To be honest, I'm not quite sure what I'm doing here.
Maybe it's the fun, intelligent people? That's what keeps me here.
quote: Still, let's just say that this is not the kind of site my friends would be visiting....
Ditto. But that's never stopped me before!
Anyway, my email and AIM id are in my profile. Feel free to drop me a line, anytime. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Talk to imogen, ak. I'm pretty sure she declared herself the head of my fan club a while back. She's probably willing to pass on the mantle by now.
Not a chance! I remain the head, and founding member.
Though you can be vice president if you want, ak.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Are there dues?
If so, where's my cut?
Chocolate will be accepted in lieu of cash.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<places one special dark chocolate bar in front of her personal shrine of rivka>
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
::feels smug that her personal shrine already has a chocolate rivka statue on it::
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I actually have a question this time...
It came about after talking to some friends of mine who have just come back from Thailand, and reading a while back about your (rivka's ) requests for kosher suppliers at chicago/kamacon...
How can Jewish people who observe strict kosher rules travel widely? I would imagine that some countries (especially those in the developing world) would have little to no kosher food sources. (Though, of course, I may be wrong on this ). Does this curtail travel?
[ February 08, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Arya (Member # 6160) on :
Mmmm... vegetarian food...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, I have some personal experience in traveling places that have no locally available kosher food. (Thailand, BTW, is not one of them -- there's a kosher restaurant, last I heard!) Does it curtail travel? Nope, not really.
Does it entail shlepping along an extra suitcase full of canned goods and crackers, and then living off those, plus fresh fruit, vegetables, and whatever other local supplies don't need supervision? Yep -- been there, done that. Spent a week in a tiny village in East Germany (back when there WAS an East Germany) once. I'm pretty sure we brought stuff for the week in NZ too. (There IS an Orthodox community in NZ, but we were nowhere near it, iirc.) In France, because the plain baguettes -- by law -- contain only specific ingredients (all of which are kosher), we were able to buy fresh bread twice a day. Mmmmmm.
Could I bring food to Chicago? Sure -- as I mentioned, I've done it before. It just seems silly in a city that HAS many kosher markets and restaurants for me to do so. Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Hope you don't mind me popping in, Rivka; I figured I'd add in my own perspective on the eating only kosher and travelling issue.
First, within America it isn't much of an issue, because many of the largest manufacturers of food are under the supervision of Jewish agencies (such as the OU or OK) and are thus available in any major grocery store. This includes cereal, bread, canned foods, and much more. The only real issues are prepared food and meat. So, for example, when my family goes on vacation, we pack along our pots and pans and take along some meat and milk (separately, of course!) in an ice-chest, along with some specific items, and we stay at a place where we have our own kitchen. "Kashering" a stove-top is very easy - all you have to do is turn on the fire and let it burn for a few minutes - and then we can cook as usual.
Travelling abroad, of course, is more difficult. What my father does (he travels every so often for work-related purposes) is to buy those amazing air-tight food meals that last for two years without refrigeration and come with their own chemical thingy to heat them up. There's a brand that's kosher, and they're absolutely perfect for travelling, because they come in several varieties, can last without refrigeration, and don't need a stove or even an electricity source to heat them up. Each meal contains a main dish, a soup, a vegatable.... My father takes a bunch of them along with him for each supper, and for lunch and breakfast, he take along food that can be eaten cold.
So... eating only kosher definitely does make it harder to travel to places where no kosher food is available, but in a way, it also saves money - because you can't go to restaurants whether you'd like to or not! Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:The chances of finding someone like that on the Internet, here at Hatrack, is slim to nil.
Who says? My best friend is a Lubavitcher hasid and I have sent her links to Hatrack in the past. She gets around on the internet, when her computer is working. Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Who says? My best friend is a Lubavitcher hasid and I have sent her links to Hatrack in the past. She gets around on the internet, when her computer is working.
I suppose I should have been more specific. Lubavitcher Chassidim are radically different than Chassidim of groups such as Skeverer, Belz, Ger, etc. "Regular" Chassidim try to keep themselves as separate as possible, while Lubavitcher Chassidim work actively to try to convince non-religous Jews to become religious, and are thus very much involved with the secular world.
So... when I said Chassidish, I was excluding the Lubavitch. Still, as Rivka wrote, I suppose it would be possible to find a Chassidish person here on hatrack; it would just be very, very, very unlikely.
Posted by shadowmaker (Member # 6155) on :
What's with the dreidel?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
What exactly is the Talmud? If I am correct, the Hasidim are more devoted to the thorough study of the Talmud, but it seems important to Orthodox Jews as well. Why is studying it so important?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
reader, please feel free to weigh in. Those self-heating meals are GREAT -- I keep a couple in the car for emergency/earthquake supplies. But they didn't use to be available (the time period I did lots of traveling during was 12-25 years ago). Also, we used to go places for a week to a month -- bringing along a month's supply of those for all of us would be prohibitively expensive, not to mention require another 3-4 suitcases instead of just the one.
quote: So... when I said Chasidish, I was excluding the Lubavitch. Still, as Rivka wrote, I suppose it would be possible to find a Chasidish person here on Hatrack; it would just be very, very, very unlikely.
I'm going to have to get my online friends who are Vishnitz, Karlin-Stalin, and Bostoner, etc. to post to Hatrack now . . . You are overgeneralizing. Chasidim are individuals, like anyone else. There are quite a number online. And since Hatrack is a magnet for people who are a bit unusual, where ELSE would they end up?
quote: What's with the dreidel?
Could you be more specific, please?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: What exactly is the Talmud? If I am correct, the Hasidim are more devoted to the thorough study of the Talmud, but it seems important to Orthodox Jews as well. Why is studying it so important?
First off, Chasidim ARE Orthodox.
quote: Orthodoxy is actually made up of several different groups. It includes the modern Orthodox, who have largely integrated into modern society while maintaining observance of halakhah (Jewish Law), the Chasidim, who live separately and dress distinctively (commonly, but erroneously, referred to in the media as the "ultra-Orthodox"), and the Yeshivish Orthodox, who are neither Chasidic nor modern. The Orthodox movements are all very similar in belief, and the differences are difficult for anyone who is not Orthodox to understand.
And actually, it could be (and has been) argued that Talmud study is more important, generally speaking, to Yeshivish Orthodox than Chasidish.
In any case, the Talmud is the written version of what was originally (and is still referred to as) the Torah She'b'al Peh -- Oral Law. It has two main parts, the Mishnah and the Gemara (which actually includes the Mishnah, and then a detailed discussion of each line thereof).
quote: Many things are not explained in the Torah Shebiksav [Written Law, what you would call the OT]. Hashem gave the explanations to Moshe Rabbeinu on Mount Sinai together with the written Torah. These explanations are called the Torah Sheb’al Peh, the Oral Torah, because they were meant to be passed from teacher to student. In the years after the destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash (Holy Temple) there was a danger that the Torah Sheb’al Peh would be forgotten. Therefore, our Sages, led by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (The Prince), assembled a basic outline of the Torah Sheb’al Peh into a series of books called the Mishna. The Mishna was completed in the year 188 CE. The Mishna was intended to serve as a memory aid so that it would be easier for students to remember the Torah Sheb’al Peh. The Mishna was primarily an outline and did not include the in-depth analysis and explanation behind the laws. These explanations are called gemara. About three hundred years after the completion of the Mishna there was a risk that the gemara would be forgotten. Once again, our sages, now led by Rav Ashi and Ravina, compiled the gemara into a written work as a commentary on the Mishna. This completed work is called the Talmud. The Talmud is therefore the complete collection of the Mishna and the gemara.
Also look here and here.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Thanks rivka and reader
quote: Does it entail shlepping along an extra suitcase full of canned goods and crackers, and then living off those, plus fresh fruit, vegetables, and whatever other local supplies don't need supervision?
My mind is boggling: last time I went overseas with my family, they required a ridiculous amount of luggage as it was. Even the porters and taxi drivers commented in amused disbelief... I can't imagaine what they'd be like if they had to carry *food* as well... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
imogen, bringing substantial amounts of food is not always necessary. There are Jewish communities (and thus (usually), local supplies of kosher food) in or near many travel destinations. For example, when we spent the summer in Wales, we got a bi-weekly shipment from a kosher butcher/market in London.
What is required (or at least, strongly recommended) is figuring these things out in advance. The Internet has made doing so MUCH easier and quicker.
And living on produce is always an option.
[ February 08, 2004, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Since the dreidel question wasn't answered I suppose my pathetic Reform Jew self can answer it. The dreidel is the basis of a game played by spinning it. The letters on the dreidel; shin, hey, gimel, and nun mean, "A Great Miracle Happened There." "There" being Israel, "A Great Miracle" being the story of Chanukah of the great victory by the Maccabees and one day's oil lasting for eight. When the game is played you spin the dreidel, if it lands on shin you must put one in the pot, if it lands on nun nothing happens, if it lands on hey you take half, and if it lands on gimel you take the entire pot. I hope that answers all.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
And I believe the dreidels in Israel (so my Reconstructionist girlfriend claims) are slightly different, so that the Hebrew is translated as "A Great Miracle Happened Here". For obvious reasons
-Bok
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Just in case it's the history/origin of the dreidel that you're looking for, and not an explanation of "playing dreidel":
During the period in which the Chanukah miracle took place, the Jews were under Greek subjugation. The Greeks had no desire to kill out the Jews (strangely enough) - they "merely" wanted to destroy our religioun and integrate us into the "enlightened" secular Greek culture. As such, they outlawed several integral mitzvos (commandments). One of the things they forbade was the teaching of Torah. For many Jews, the idea of complying with this was unthinkable. However, the punishment of studying the Torah was death. What to do? At last a solution of a sort was found. A group of children would head out to the hills together with a teacher and find a secluded cave to study in. One of the boys would always be mounted as a guard. Whenever he would see someone approaching, he would warn the others, and they would all hide away their books and take out - ta da - their dreidels, and pretend that they were merely on an outing with some adult supervision, playing childish games that the mighty Greek officials certainly wouldn't interested in.
Hence, the dreidels.
Also, the letters on the dreidel don't actually mean "A great miracle happened there" - they're the initals of the words which mean that. (You knew that, I know. I'm merely being nit-picky. )
And yes, in Israel the letters on the dreidel are nun, gimmel, hey, pey, with the pey taking the place of the shin. (Trying to write out the names of Hebrew letters in English is really weird.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
nfl, no put-downs are allowed in this thread. That includes of oneself, please, ok? Thank you.
*seeing how well nfl, Bok, and reader are handling the dreidel question, the rebbetzin takes the day off* Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Bok, I was going to include that but forgot. Reader, yes you are being nitpicky. Rivka, why can't I insult myself? I feel perfectly justified in doing so. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rivka, you're wonderful.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
nfl, in the first post I asked that all attacks be taken elsewhere. If I make an exception for you . . .
kat, .
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
rivka, I have had a question about Passover and what exactly is done to celebrate it. Got a good link? I gave a sort of general answer, but thought you might be able to come up with a good descriptive link, and directed my questioner here for more info.
Come on, ya gotta come through for me. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I have a question.
You were talking about the difference between the broad groups "Reform" and "Orthodox". Then you were talking about that group that feels that their duty is to bring non-orthodox jews back.
Clearly there are all kinds of subgroups as well. Between the subgroups, how much mixing and matching goes on? Is it normal from change from one version of Orthodoxy to another? What does happen if a "Reform" jew decides they want to become Orthodox. Does only that one sect accept them?
Is that enough? I was actually fairly surprised at how hard it was to find what I was looking for. Most sites talk about all the work involved in getting ready FOR Pesach, or just about the Seder. If there's something more in particular you'd like, I'll see what I can find.
quote: You were talking about the difference between the broad groups "Reform" and "Orthodox". Then you were talking about that group that feels that their duty is to bring non-orthodox jews back.
What does happen if a "Reform" jew decides they want to become Orthodox. Does only that one sect accept them?
AJ, first of all, anyone with a Jewish mother (or who converts under Jewish Law) is 100% Jewish, regardless of level of observance, association/identification with a particular group, etc. So someone who was not Orthodox -- whether they were Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist or were completely unaffiliated -- would be joyfully welcomed by Orthodoxy. In fact, ALL Orthodox Jews believe in kiruv rechokim, bringing back those who have become far. However, the methods and emphases vary (somewhat) from group to group, and not everyone can make it their primary goal. Nor is that necessarily advisable. But there are few (if any) Orthodox Jews who have no involvement in organizations who do kiruv; and a lot do "amateur" kiruv too.
And the goal is NOT exclusively getting those who are not to become Orthodox. The goal is to teach Jews who have not had the opportunity to learn about their heritage as much as they would like to. There are many many classes available in most Jewish communities for those who are interested. And the goal of most is simply to make information -- on history, heritage, Law, texts, philosophy, etc., etc. -- available to those who want it.
Knowledge increases available choices. Not everyone chooses to become Orthodox -- and that is something only they can decide. Some accept some aspects and not others; some find it difficult to change their lives so much, but put their kids in religious schools; some make no outward changes in their own lives but are more aware and knowledgeable.
quote: Clearly there are all kinds of subgroups as well. Between the subgroups, how much mixing and matching goes on?
Within Orthodoxy, the "mixing-and-matching" varies. While the majority of Chasidim marry Chasidim, and Yeshivish marry Yeshivish, there are many exceptions. Sephardim marry Ashkenazim too, although the majority are more comfortable with those of more similar backgrounds.
quote: Is it normal from change from one version of Orthodoxy to another?
Generally, not between Chasidish/Yeshivish (there is a strong component of following family tradition, and sticking with the customs of your family); but I am aware of specific cases where it has happened. However, people frequently become more (or less) observant over time.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
To contribute my two cents:
quote:Clearly there are all kinds of subgroups as well. Between the subgroups, how much mixing and matching goes on? Is it normal to change from one version of Orthodoxy to another? What does happen if a "Reform" jew decides they want to become Orthodox. Does only that one sect accept them?
As Rivka pointed out, there's no need for "acception" - a Jew will always remain a Jew, and any group at all would be more than happy to welcome a Jew into their midst.
One thing that might be confusing you is the difference between the various sects of Christianity and the various "sects" of Orthodox Judaism. Within the Orthodox community - excluding the Modern Orthodox community, I suppose - the offical view is that the various groups - the various kinds of Chassidus, Ashkanazim/Sephardim, Yeshivish - are all equally valid paths. In fact, the "group" that an Orthodox person belongs to usually has mostly, or only, to due with their family's heritage. Ashkanazi/Sephardi, for example, is determined solely by ancestry. On the other hand, switching from Yeshivish to Chassidish, or vice-versa, or switching among kinds of Chassidus, is possible, and does occur. (Each separate Chassidish group was originally created by a group of people forming around a spiritual leader, and new kinds are still forming.) Also, marrying from one Chassidish group to another occurs very frequently. I have a friend whose sisters all married into a different kinds of Chassidus, and all were different than her family's Chassidus.
quote:But there are few (if any) Orthodox Jews who have no involvement in organizations who do kiruv; and a lot do "amateur" kiruv too.
Oh, definitely! There are yeshivos (schools) where people who are interested in becoming orthodox can go to study, and the orthodox community hosts these students for Shabbos and Yom Tov (Holidays).... I have friends who go to Russia during the summer as volunteers to be counselors in camps for Russian Jews who are interested in Judaism.... My mother is always on the lookout for Jews who are interested in learning more, and will invite near-strangers over for Shabbos.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
I just wanted to add that while the Yeshivish and the Chassidim are generally separate communities, they is a lot of mutual respect.
I will be fed in a few weeks at a Chabad House in Texas, because there are no other kosher places to eat and I need to go there for a conference. No problem.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
While Reader and Rivka did a good job explaining the Orthodox side they left out Reform and Conservative. From that perspective there really are no subgroups and virtually no hierarchy at all. There's a nationwide organization for Reform, Conservative and even Reconstructionist Jews but they hold no real authority. Each "temple" or "synagouge" holds its services in a slightly different manner but there is no real crossing of beliefs nor any chain of synagouges so if I were to move I couldn't go to the local version of my old synagouge except that it might still be reform.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What's the significance of the little house feast? A friend of mine growing up (I think she was reform) remembered that fondly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
nfl, I can't speak for reader, but I simply don't know enough about official Reform or Conservative policies (or lack of same) to comment.
pooka, I think you mean Succos/Succot. Link Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
nfl:
Like Rivka, my knowledge of the Reform and Conservative movements is quite limited. I do know that Reform was first and that Conservative branched off from Reform, and I do know what the first change made by the Reform movement was, but that's about it.
Also, the question asked was, as I understood it, specifically about the various groups within the orthodox community.
I do have a question now, though. I found your post confusing; when you say that from the point of view of the Conservative and Reform there are no subgroups, do you mean that within Conservative, there are no subgroups, and within Reform, there are no subgroups?
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
In what esteem are the parts of the Bible besides the Torah held? (They are called the Prophets and the Writings, right?) How often would the average Orthodox jew hear them quoted, read from them, etc?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, we read thru the entire Chumash (the five books) over the course of a year, focusing on one parshah (portion?) each week (public readings occur on Monday, Thursday, and Shabbos). So, generally, people tend to be most familiar with the Chumash.
On Shabbos, after the parshah is read, there is a complementary (usually dealing with related themes) haftorah -- a selection from the Prophets. So there tends to be a fair amount of familiarity with those portions of the Prophets. Familiarity with all the Prophets is something that some focus on, but not all.
Similarly, those portions of the Ketuvim (Writings) that are read on specific holidays -- the Five Megillot (Rut (Ruth), Esther, Eichah (Lamentations), Shir haShirim (Song of Songs), Kohelet (Ecclesiastes)) -- tend to be better known, although it varies. Esther and Rut tend to get studied as part of preparing for Purim and Shavuot, respectively.
Tehillim (Psalms) is special in that we use it for extra prayers. In case of happiness, sorrow, to pray for the sick, or simply to get closer to God -- we say Tehillim. Some make sure to say a certain number of verses every day; some simply say Tehillim whenever they can manage it.
ALL the volumes of Tanach are essential; all contain amazing insights. The problem is simply finding the time -- and a good teacher -- to learn all of them with. I know that I am not satisfied with my familiarity with many of them; finding classes that I can manage to shoehorn into my schedule is something I do my best to manage.
Happily, in the past few years, more and more online classes and sources have become available. These are far from comparable to in-person, of course, but they're a start, and easier for me to manage right now.
[ February 12, 2004, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
rivka, thanks for the Passover links - they were great!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Great! Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Thanks for answering my question. I was specifically wondering about the more Orthodox traditions. I've done a lot of reading on Jewish/Israeli history, but never actually known any Orthodox Jewish people personally (other than here at hatrack) though I know several Reform type. None of them are observant though.
One of my supervisors recently married a Jewish woman, and I know he was thinking about converting, though I wasn't sure if converting to "Reform" Judaism was less stringent than something more orthodox. Anyway I know there is one orthodox Jewish man that works in my company. He wears the skullcap and prayer shawl and has a beard. I was thinking of asking him about the "where can we find kosher food" question for the ChicagoCon. But I don't see him in the halls that often, and I didn't want to offend him by asking, so I asked my supervisor if he thought it would be an okay question. (We just went through a major "harrasment training" session and I'd rather err on the side of paranoid.) My supervisor said it was an honest question and he didn't see how it could be possibly offensive.
So I'm planning on asking him about where to get kosher food next time I see him, if you guys think it is ok too.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I certainly wouldn't be offended if I got a question like that from a co-worker.
If you prefer, I have a list of kosher places in Chicago. Might be easier?
Anything with the CRC (Chicago Rabbinical Council), O-K, or O-U is definitely fine. Anything else I can find out about. Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
AJ's post just reminded me of a question. Are Orthodox Jewish men not supposed to talk to unrelated adult females? Or is that just certain men or certain Rabbis? Or did I just dream that rule up?
If there is some truth to it can you give some examples? What if I walked up and talked to someone? Or what if it was a job-related question?
Also I have been trying hard not to ask questions about menstruating women. I guess I just failed, because I DO want to know about rules for women who are pregnant or menstruating, and what they have to do afterwards. I'll erase this question if you want me to.
I was talking with someone who grew up in a kosher home and she was talking about how often she made kosher mistakes involving the china. Whenever she got caught they made her bury the bad china in the backyard. Is there a reason she had to bury it rather than throw it away, or give it away? She said there must be entire sets of dishes buried back there by now.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:... Whenever she got caught they made her bury the bad china in the backyard. Is there a reason she had to bury it rather than throw it away, or give it away?
I am 99.99% sure that china or earthenware dishes that become nonkosher can just be thrown away. (Metal items can be made kosher again by inserting them into boiling water so that all surfaces of the item encounter the boiling water at once.) The kinds of items that must be buried are Torah Scrolls, seforim (holy books?), and other printed items of that sort, and certain objects that are used specifically to perform a mitzvah, such as Tzitzes (fringes).
quote:AJ's post just reminded me of a question. Are Orthodox Jewish men not supposed to talk to unrelated adult females? Or is that just certain men or certain Rabbis? Or did I just dream that rule up?
Various categories of orthodoxy can be very different in this area.
Modern Orthodox: No issue at all with married men speaking to married ladies, and not much of an issue with unmarried boys and girls speaking to each other either. Most modern orthodox schools combine boys and girls at least for Secular subjects, though some split up for high school.
Chassidish: (This is a general rule for the "real" Chassidim, the ones who live in separate communities mostly, and definitely does not include Lebovitch) Men will do their best not to talk to women except for business related purposes, and even then, some will try to avoid looking at the woman they're speaking to. It depends on the person, though; some Chassidish men have no problem with talking to women for anything related to business at all.
Yeshivish: In general, married men won't have long conversations with women unless the man's her rabbi or teacher (whether officially or unofficially). Asking a man a quick question isn't at all an issue though, at least not in most circles. (Of course, there are some Yeshivish men who won't speak to women at all, but these are mostly certain groups of people who live in Israel (Meah Shearim, Briskers, some Yerushalmim...). You'll find some Yeshivish men like this in America as well, though. Results will vary.
If the parties involved aren't married, the "rules" become a bit stricter. Especially among the very Yeshivish, unmarried boys and girls have little to no contact with each other - separate schools and everything. Let me use myself as an example. I'm in college (girls only), and I haven't spoken face to face with a boy near my age who wasn't one of my brothers (except perhaps for a couple of words - such as, "You have a phone call" or "Excuse me" - to brothers' friends or friends' brothers) since I was about 12 or so.
Obviously, this will change when I start dating.
quote:If there is some truth to it can you give some examples? What if I walked up and talked to someone? Or what if it was a job-related question?
As long as the man isn't wearing obviously Chassidish garb, you're almost definitely okay asking a quick question. Even if the man IS Chassidish, if he's working with you or near you, it's obviously okay to talk to him about work related matters - and all the more so if he's not Chassidish.[/quote]
I'll leave the rest for Rivka.
[ February 13, 2004, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: reader ]
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Rivka, I still think you need to see The Seventh Sign starring Demi Moore.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was all but done with a reply, and my computer froze.
Ok, take two.
quote: Are Orthodox Jewish men not supposed to talk to unrelated adult females? Or is that just certain men or certain Rabbis? Or did I just dream that rule up?
If there is some truth to it can you give some examples? What if I walked up and talked to someone? Or what if it was a job-related question?
Well, reader already (quite thoroughly ) covered the various ways it is applied. It all comes from a suggestion that men not have "unnecessary" conversation with women. The differences come primarily from interpretations of what precisely that means.
However, work-related conversations are pretty universally accepted as "necessary." Similarly, most things you might ask of a stranger -- such as directions somewhere -- would also be clearly necessary.
quote: Also I have been trying hard not to ask questions about menstruating women. I guess I just failed, because I DO want to know about rules for women who are pregnant or menstruating, and what they have to do afterwards. I'll erase this question if you want me to.
Link If you (or anyone else) have more specific questions, I'd prefer to answer them privately.
quote: I was talking with someone who grew up in a kosher home and she was talking about how often she made kosher mistakes involving the china. Whenever she got caught they made her bury the bad china in the backyard. Is there a reason she had to bury it rather than throw it away, or give it away? She said there must be entire sets of dishes buried back there by now.
I've heard of the custom, but I can find neither source nor comment. I know that it is not what I was taught to do -- I would toss the item (assuming it could not be kashered). Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
This past weekend Juliette's cousin became a bat mitzvah, and we went to the ceremony and the party afterward. (Did I get that right?) I had a couple of questions.
First, what's the difference between a cantor and a rabbi? Juliette's not Jewish, though her father is, so she didn't really know, but said one difference she knew about was that cantors sing. Certainly, the cantor at the ceremony sang. Does a bat mitzvah ceremony always involve a cantor, or is there sometimes a rabbi? Or both?
Second, my father-in-law has mentioned before that when he was young and in Hebrew school, the language was different. For example, I know reader just used the term "shabbos," but Juliette's Israeli cousins, as well as her more closely located cousins, say "shabbat." Or are those two different words? Also, my father-in-law has also said that back in the day, the term was "bas mitzvah" rather than "bat mitzvah." So, at some point in the past 60 years or so, there has been a change in the language, written or oral, or both. Do you know when and why that happened?
Finally, and I guess this is less a question than a statement, but:
quote:first of all, anyone with a Jewish mother (or who converts under Jewish Law) is 100% Jewish, regardless of level of observance, association/identification with a particular group, etc.
Might this be the reason that being Judaism is often (mistakenly) considered to be a race or ethnicity? For example, my older brother's mom is Jewish. My dad was raised as a Presbyterian and is currently not particularly religious. Now, I'm not sure about the specifics of my brother's theological beliefs, but he doesn't go to temple and, in general, he doesn't really follow any Jewish rules. I think he does celebrate Hanukkah with his mom's family, but that may be the extent of his involvement with Judaism. He may or may not believe in a deity at all; I've never actually asked. Is he still considered Jewish? If a person's mother is Jewish, what does it take for that person not to be considered Jewish? (OK, so I guess there really were some questions in there.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The bas/bat thing is actually a difference of tradition between two large groups of Jews (The Ashkenazi/Sephardic thing, I think). I think you find that similar reasons are the reason for the other differences.
-Bok
[ February 13, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:This past weekend Juliette's cousin became a bat mitzvah, and we went to the ceremony and the party afterward. (Did I get that right?) I had a couple of questions.
First, what's the difference between a cantor and a rabbi? Juliette's not Jewish, though her father is, so she didn't really know, but said one difference she knew about was that cantors sing. Certainly, the cantor at the ceremony sang. Does a bat mitzvah ceremony always involve a cantor, or is there sometimes a rabbi? Or both?
I know practically nothing about Reform/Conservative Bat Mitzvahs, as the Orthodox don't celebrate Bat Mitzvahs in the way that the Reform/Conservative do. However, I can tell you what the difference is between a cantor and a rabbi. A rabbi is the spiritual leader of the congregation, is the one who gives lectures/speeches, and is the one who is consulted on religious matters. A cantor, on the other hand, is simply the man - whether official or not - who leads the prayers, which often includes singing. The rabbi is not usually the cantor, but he may occasionally take on the cantor's duties.
quote:Second, my father-in-law has mentioned before that when he was young and in Hebrew school, the language was different. For example, I know reader just used the term "shabbos," but Juliette's Israeli cousins, as well as her more closely located cousins, say "shabbat." Or are those two different words? Also, my father-in-law has also said that back in the day, the term was "bas mitzvah" rather than "bat mitzvah." So, at some point in the past 60 years or so, there has been a change in the language, written or oral, or both. Do you know when and why that happened?
As Bokonon explained, the difference is actually a difference in the tradition of Sephardi/Ashkenazai, and these differences have been around for hundreds of years. (The difference isn't in the language, btw; it's in the pronunciation.) In more recent times, the Sephardi pronunciation has become popular among the Reform Conservative, and Israelis, even among those who are Ashkenazai, because Israel uses the Sephardi pronunciation. As to WHY Israel chose the Sephardi pronunciation.... I've always heard that it was because the Zionists were trying to separate themselves from the "Shtetl Jew" back in Europe. Since the Zionists had broken away from religious Judaism, and considered the Eastern European religious Jew to be "unenlightened," they were not very friendly towards them in general, and so they preferred to use the Sephardi pronunciation, which would separate Israeli Hebrew from the Hebrew that was being used in the Shtetls. Since the Reform and Conservative(nowadays) and even the Modern Orthodox tend to be Zionistic, most adopted the change in pronunciation as well. In the Chassidish and Yeshivish circles, however, the pronunciation used is determined solely by ancestry - which is why I speak Hebrew with "s" where others might say "t". (When I was in Israel, I spoke with the Israeli pronunication and accent, simply because that was what I was hearing all the time and that was what was being used, but in America, when I speak Hebrew, I speak with the Ashkenazi pronunciation.)
quote: quote: ------------------------------------------------ first of all, anyone with a Jewish mother (or who converts under Jewish Law) is 100% Jewish, regardless of level of observance, association/identification with a particular group, etc. ------------------------------------------------
Might this be the reason that being Judaism is often (mistakenly) considered to be a race or ethnicity?
Actually, Judaism is partly a race/ethnicity, as all Jews except converts are descended from the same ancestors. I suppose you'd call it a mixture of a nation and a religion.
quote:For example, my older brother's mom is Jewish. My dad was raised as a Presbyterian and is currently not particularly religious. Now, I'm not sure about the specifics of my brother's theological beliefs, but he doesn't go to temple and, in general, he doesn't really follow any Jewish rules. I think he does celebrate Hanukkah with his mom's family, but that may be the extent of his involvement with Judaism. He may or may not believe in a deity at all; I've never actually asked. Is he still considered Jewish?
Yes. Definitely.
quote:If a person's mother is Jewish, what does it take for that person not to be considered Jewish?
It is absolutely impossible. Once someone is born a Jew, it doesn't matter what they do - even if they were to convert to another religion - they will still be considered Jewish. Even if a person's father had no Jewish blood at all, and his mother's father wasn't Jewish, and his mother's mother's father wasn't Jewish - as long as his maternal ancestry is Jewish, he's Jewish, no matter what. It is theoretically possible for a person to have 15 non-Jewish great-great grandparents and 1 Jewish great-great grandmother, and still be Jewish.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What does it mean to be Jewish?
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Is that tongue-in-cheek, or a serious question?
If it was a serious question, I would definitely need you to rephrase your question to be a bit more specific. Perhaps rivka would be willing to take it on as is, but my mind-reading skills are not quite developed enough yet.
Edited because I left out the not.
[ February 13, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: reader ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I'm very serious. *thinks* I mean, if its possible to be Jewish because one relative fifteen generations back was, and when you don't believe the doctrine, then what does it mean? I am trying to be respectful - it's very different of how I have concieved of religion. Please educate me. Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
I see. I didn't realize the question was in response to my post; thanks for clarifying.
quote:No, I'm very serious. *thinks* I mean, if its possible to be Jewish because one relative fifteen generations back was, and when you don't believe the doctrine, then what does it mean? I am trying to be respectful - it's very different of how I have concieved of religion. Please educate me.
This is because Judaism is unique in that it is BOTH a nation and a religion. We do not look for converts; Judaism is meant for Jews, people who are descended from the Jacob you know of from the Bible.
Other religions would, theoretically or even in practice, be more than happy to have the whole world convert to their religion, regardless of ethnicity. Judaism is different; if someone truly wants to convert for the right reasons, they are accepted, but in general, Judaism does not want the general world population to convert. Our hypothetical example, the person who does not believe in the doctrine and who has only one Jewish great-great-grandparent, would still be considered Jewish according to Jews, and Orthodox Jews would try, if given the opportunity, to convince him to become religious. Being Jewish means that, according to Judaism, one has the obligation of fulfilling certain specific mitzvos (commandments), and that failure to do so carries with it consequences. (Obviously, if the person doesn't know he's Jewish, or never had the oppurtunity to even think of becoming religous, they're not at fault. Also, a person who begins life in a religious family is obviously expected more of than someone born irreligious.)
Now, it's quite possible that this hypothetical Jew would not consider himself Jewish, and would in fact be a fundamentalist Muslim and a suicide bomber to boot - but WE would still consider him Jewish. According to Judaism, he would still be Jewish.
I know this explanation is rambling a bit; are you getting the gist of what I'm saying? I'll be happy to clarify if you have any more questions.
[ February 13, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: reader ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, you're saying being Jewish means having a heritage and being under certain obligations that cannot be set aside.
Thank you. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
kat, defining what it means to be a Jew is a puzzle that has fascinated many people (some of them Jews) for many years. I think reader has done a good job of answering your question. But I'd like to quote Brushstrokes -- again.
quote: "Opinions on everything," said the Rabbi, "from the most basic to the most peripheral. There are any number of opinions on everything."
"How?" said Paul. "Give me an example."
"Okay, let's deal with a very basic idea: What does being Jewish mean? Basic enough?"
"Basic enough."
"The opinions are: Jewishness is a religion. Jewishness is a culture. It's a heritage. An ethnic group. A language. A nation. My favorite is that Jewishness is a people."
"What's a people?" said Paul.
"They define it as something which is undefinably more than a religion, a culture, a heritage, a language or a nation."
Paul laughed. "You're making it up," he said.
"Heaven forbid!" said the Rabbi. "It's a respected sociological opinion."
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Here's another one rivka baby...
I have wanted to get my pierced for a while now and I do believe it is going to happen right after I get my tax return back. Now aside from any personal feelings, is it wrong of me to want to get it done before my conversion proceeds any further?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
My girlfriend reccommends you ask a rabbi, Val. If it is permanent (will not heal back if the piercing is removed), it could be quite serious (as in, you cannot be married in a Jewish cemetary, for one). Ear piercings are okay, I am told, because they heal back.
-Bok
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
I have heard that if the ring is taken out for extended lengths of time, it does close up, but wow, I really think I want to make sure about that little detail before taking this any further. Thank you very much!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think jews get married in their cemetaries Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Valentine - If you don't mind me asking, are you converting with Reform/Conservative, or with Orthodox?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I have wanted to get my pierced for a while now and I do believe it is going to happen right after I get my tax return back. Now aside from any personal feelings, is it wrong of me to want to get it done before my conversion proceeds any further?
Tongue-piercing, eh? *shudders* Ok, my personal feelings first: EWWWWWWW! GROSS! (My apologies for all those who have chosen to go that route, but I have a deep, visceral reaction to tongue piercings. ) Have you discussed this possibility with your dentist? Are you aware of the large potential for infection (your mouth is the germiest part of your body), scarring, and damage to your teeth?
As far as wanting to do it now, I do agree with Bok's girlfriend regarding consulting a rabbi, although not for the reasons he stated.
First off, I assume he meant that you could not be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Outside of the Dream Scene in Fiddler on the Roof, you won't see very many Jewish women in bridal gowns in cemeteries.
Secondly, sorry Bok, but that is a MYTH!!! I have never figured out where it got started, and I hear it all the time, but it JUST AIN'T SO! Jews with piercings, and tattoos, etc. CAN be buried in a Jewish cemetery. It is forbidden for a Jew to GET a tattoo, and possibly certain piercings (and whether they will heal up or not is entirely irrelevant, as far as my understanding) -- but that does NOT translate to being banned from Jewish cemeteries. See here.
*deep breath* Sorry, this is one of the "everyone knows" things that simply isn't true that really bothers me.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Reader: I have been studying with Reforms but am very open minded at this point.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Rivka,
I'm resurrecting this thread because my son and I got in a discussion this week about something in the old testament, and he wanted me to ask someone who was Jewish, because (his words)"they have kept the original text much better -- they know the original writings, not the English translations only, and can tell you different ways the words COULD have been translated".
So that means I ask you.
We were discussing the creation in the first chapter of Genesis.
quote: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
I remember being told somewhere, at some time in my childhood, that the translation of "the earth was without form and void" in the original language proposed it was "in chaos" -- and that this was possibly a "re-creation" rather than a first creation of our earth.
What did the original language say -- and IS this translation only one possibility? Could it mean other things?
Farmgirl
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have another question.
My paternal grandmother was Jewish. She was a very special woman. I could tell you stories that would leave you laughing for hours.
My wife and I agreed that her name is one option for the children we seek to adopt.
However, my mother's side of the family is not Jewish. This means that I am not Jewish, officially, I believe.
My father is another very special person. He is a great source of strength and love in my life. My wife adores him, and he adores her.
We both would like to include his name as one option for the children we are adopting, but I am unclear if that is acceptable.
I know my Dad would be thrilled, but I don't know about others in the more Jewish part of my family. None would ever be considered very religious. However, I have noticed that far stronger, far harder to break than any religious covenant is custom.
What is the official call on naming children after living relatives?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was thinking last night about reviving this thread in honor up the upcoming holiday of Purim. Guess I must've sent out vibes.
Farmgirl, one of the most basic rules of Torah study is that there is rarely (if ever) only one way to look at any passage. That goes double for the pivotal ones like the first few verses of Genesis.
Ok, first I'll see what the Artscroll translation says:
quote:1 In the beginning of God's creating the heaven and earth [note: the more common English translation "In the beginning, God created" is indeed proposed by some commentaries; however, the way I've given it is considered p'shat, the more literal meaning of the words] -- 2 when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters --
Ok, the words you are asking about, I think, are "tohu va'vohu" -- whose meaning is among the most debated in the entire Torah (not surprisingly, I think, especially since these words are not used elsewhere, and matching them with roots is difficult and ambiguous).
Explanations run the gamut: completely empty (total vaccuum?); an empty template; a muddled mix; etc. There are explanations that are consistent with translating the words as "chaos/chaotic." Moreover, there is a midrash that our world is the seventh (and final) world, each one created, existing, then destroyed and built atop. (Like many midrashim, how literally to take this is debated.)
Dan, according to Jewish tradition, "Jewishness" goes via the mother, so you would indeed not be Jewish. (Reform has a different view, I understand.)
Before I can answer your question, there is one important things I need to know. Are your relatives Ashkenazi (where the custom is to name after dead relatives only) or Sephardi (where the custom is to name after living relatives as well)?
Regardless, this is likely to be something that varies strongly from family to family -- you might have to ask your relatives how they would feel to get a reliable answer -- I would just be guessing. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Thanks, rivka.
This gives us more to discuss tonight.
FG
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
What is midrash / midrashim (that you refer to above?)
FG
edit: nevermind -- I looked it up. Thanks
[ March 03, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
For us reform Jews we generally consider anyone with a Jewish parent and considers themself Jewish to be Jewish. Certainly anyone raised Jewish since birth or close to it would be considered Jewish. I have a friend whose father is Jewish and mother is Christian and even celebrated Christmas and Chanukah and is considered Jewish by my temple, he was also Bar Mitzvahed. I also have a cousin whose father, my uncle, is Jewish and whose mother is nothing but he has always been raised Jewish and I'm sure he will be Bar Mitzvahed. However, since Dan doesn't seem to consider himself Jewish and he hasn't even been Bar Mitzvahed I'm sure my temple would require an official conversion to consider him Jewish.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Bump for Beverly.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Ooh, glad you bumped this thread for beverly, because I was thinking about it today and I forgot when I finally got on the 'rack, but now I remember!
Rivka, will you answer a semi-personal (non-squicky) question?
Do you wear a headcovering? A scarf or a wig? I know that some orthodox jews wear a wig over their real hair but I never understood that, because you are still showing hair! What's that about?
And also, if you do wear a scarf, would you be interested in a West Point scarf? Because we have a really nice one at the store (black with gold crests on it) that I think you might like.
Thanks for this thread, it's very interesting.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Aw, heck. I'll admit I didn't read this whole thread, though I skimmed through most of it. I saw some answers to my questions, but here are my questions anyway. Answer as much as you feel like answering:
quote: There's a couple of things I've always wondered. First, I know that in older times, the Jewish people made animal sacrifices. When did this end and why? What is the current doctrine on the subject? Did the change happen when the temple was lost?
Also, what is the Jewish belief about the Messiah. Is this still an important part of Jewish doctrine? Is this a being still waited for? I know there are some smaller groups of "Messaianic Jews". How do they fit in? And does Jewish doctrine on these subjects differ in different kinds of Judaism?
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Oh! I know the answer to this question! I have already asked her this. She does. I have seen pics too (SoCal Gathering thread, sorry, too lazy to link you).
[ March 18, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Valentine014 ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Is that a thread on this site? And which question?
edit: doh! didn't see the post above mine!
[ March 18, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Sorry, beverly, I was answering jexx's question but didn't refresh first.
And hi! Nice to meet you! Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hello! Just showin' my newbieness and ineptitude. Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
My Judaism story is on the second page, I'm new to all of this religion stuff. Rivka has been such a doll answering all of my silly questions.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Beverly, I'm not an expert but I think the answer to your first question is that the sacrifices were only supposed to be performed by specially ordained priests using special rituals and that knowledge has been lost. I also think they were supposed to be performed at the Temple but I'm sure. Anyone who is sure feel free to correct me.
I know more about the Messiah. Every Passover Jews are supposed to leave out a cup of wine for Elijah. If wine disapears this is a sign of the coming of the Messiah. This is the true fundamental difference between Christiananity and Judaism. Christians believe the Messiah has already came, Jews believe he has not. Messaianic Jews are NOT Jews. They're simply Christians who were once Jews and like to continue to do Jewish things like celebrate Chanukah. I personally, as do many Jews I know, consider them to be a quasi-cult. We feel this way because of the pressure they put on members to remain members and the lies and deception they use to gain members.
Jewish doctrine doesn't really differ at all. Regardless of denomination we all value the Bible and the Talmud. Some groups are simply more strict than others.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
And what a perfect time to share my newest milestone.
Last night I went to the Women's Seder at the Jewish Community Center in Omaha. I can't tell you how much fun I had, dancing, singing, drinking too much wine (I mean, four glasses, too much too fast).
I got to light the candles and I have never been so nervous. My hands were shaking but everyone was so nice and gave me lots of warm smiles.
The music they had was amazing. We danced all around the room, holding hands. There was this girl there dressed in the prettiest long, flowing skirt, the image of Miriam. Now, I know what to wear for next year.
I was wondering though, if anyone you knew was there, Rivka, but couldn't remember your brother's name. It would've been nice to make some common contacts. But maybe at the next major event I go to.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Newfound, what do you mean by the lies and deceptions they use to get new members?
It was years back, but I remember talking to a lady co-worker who was Jewish. I guess we were talking about the Jewish Messiah because she suddenly turns to me and whispers, "By the way I think Jesus was the Messiah." This shocked me a great deal and I pondered on it afterwards, but I never had the opportunity to talk to her about it again. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Do you wear a headcovering? A scarf or a wig?
As Val already answered (thanks! ), I do cover my hair. Usually I wear a snood (think cloth bag with elastic at the open end) -- I have quite a collection. They're really easy to put on, stay on quite well, and are comfortable. But I sometimes wear hats, and for formal occasions -- and sometimes just cuz I feel like it -- I'll wear a wig.
quote:I know that some orthodox jews wear a wig over their real hair but I never understood that, because you are still showing hair! What's that about?
Well, there are some who agree with you, and won't wear a wig -- just scarves or hats or such. But as someone who can usually spot a wig from across the room, and who thinks my natural hair is nicer than the loveliest wig, I happen to disagree. The idea is that a married woman's hair should be special for her husband; not that she should make herself look unattractive.
quote:And also, if you do wear a scarf, would you be interested in a West Point scarf? Because we have a really nice one at the store (black with gold crests on it) that I think you might like.
Cute! But I gave up wearing scarves years ago -- I can never get the suckers to STAY TIED! My mom doesn't have a problem with 'em. Go figure.
quote: First, I know that in older times, the Jewish people made animal sacrifices. When did this end and why? What is the current doctrine on the subject? Did the change happen when the temple was lost?
I know I've seen good links on this, let me see if I can find some . . .
nfl already answered much of your second question; you might also want to check out my response to Bob (on the first page) to a related query.
Val, cool! Glad you had such a good time. I rarely have wine for all four cups -- I dilute with grape juice.
The only people I know in Omaha are you, my brother, his wife, and their daughter. My SIL's name is Rocheyl.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Beverly, first it should be noted that while I and most Jews I know think it is impossible to simultaneously believe Jesus is the Messiah and be Jewish holding that belief doesn't make you a Messianic Jew. A Messianic Jews, Jews for Jesus, Hebrew Christians, or whatever actually are groups. These groups often tend to target young Jews and try to convince them that they should join their groups. Their most common tactic is to lie. This usually consists of making false claims about Bibical passages, either made up or common mistakes in translation that are now universally recognized by Jews and Christians alike as being incorrect translations.
Their story: Jews for Jesus Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Rivka, (or anyone who can help me out with this) I understand that the Jews do not believe that the scriptures Christians view as Messianic are necessarily that. I appreciate, on that link you gave to Bob, the list of scriptures that describe the Jewish Messiah, that is very helpful.
But I do not understand how Jews reconcile two passages from Isaiah in particular (with which I am sure you are familiar) Isaiah 7:14-16 (behold, a virgin shall conceive....) and chapter 19:6-7 (unto us a child is born... shall be called... The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father....) When taken together, I do not understand how they can be taken any other way. I used to think in my more naive youth that these scriptures must not be part of Jewish cannon. But I know better now.
Would it be so harmful to the Jewish religious beliefs to believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Especially in the light of the Christian doctrine that His work isn't finished and that He will eventually fulfill all the things that were not completed in His mortal life.
edit: nfl, do these above two passages fit under those that are supposed to be translated incorrectly? Do you have a site that explains about incorrectly translated passages? Is it on the links you gave me, and if so, where? Mostly what I see there is issues about the way the group was run, not their doctrine.
[ March 19, 2004, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Ah, thank you rivka for answering my questions. As always, interesting and enlightening.
So the point of haircoverings is not so much that hair is not allowed, just your hair is for the enjoyment of your husband. Very good. I am understanding more. And of course your own hair is more beautiful than any wig! But I have always slightly envied wig-wearers (lots of the African-American ladies I know wear wigs on occasion, some very fancy and beautiful!), as the ones I have tried make me itchy and look funny. I'm too cheap to buy a really good wig (that would not be itchy, and would look nice).
I also liked snoods when I had longer hair. I have a really nice dark brown one that is attached to a clip (it wouldn't be any use to you, it's not big enough!). Someday I shall grow my hair long again, just to wear that snood!
Oh well about the scarf, it was just an idea I had. (I can never keep them on, either)
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Beverly, you included in your argument one of the infamous mistranslations. Correctly translated the passage says, "Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son." For centuries this false translation has been commonly referred to as "proof". And I'm reading it as I type from the Tanakh.
Its possible, I haven't looked, that the ex-Jews for Jesus site discusses the mistranslations. Until someone does find a site you'll have to trust me, ask others with relatively recent translations, or find another site.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Also, the way the groups are run is indicative as to how they are quasi if not entirely cult.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
newfoundlogic, so you are saying that where I have the word "virgin" the original word was more like "young woman"? I can believe that might be true. I would like more info though.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It isn't "more like", it is "young woman". Rivka, since she actually knows some Hebrew should be able to verify this. If I remember correctly the mistranslation originally arose when Jewish scholars had to forcibly translate the Bible into Greek or a form of it. The Greek word they chose for "young woman" also means "virgin". Knowing the story of Jesus, English translators inferred "virgin" instead of "young woman". The only source I have immediately at my disposal is the Tanakh sitting on my lap but I'm sure the basis of the story is true and I'm positive about the actual translation.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Found a good reference to what you are talking about. Here is the quote:
quote: Isaiah 7:14 according to some religious liberals:]
Many religious liberals would interpret the passage, as follows: The author of Matthew quoted the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint contains a translation error made when the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 was converted into Greek. Isaiah used almah to describe a young girl who would give birth. In Hebrew, an almah is a young woman of marriageable age. If he wanted to refer to a virgin, he would have used the word bethulah. The creators of the Greek translation, the Septuagint, mistranslated the Hebrew almah into the Greek parthenos, meaning virgin. The authors of Matthew and Luke were probably unable to read Hebrew; they would have relied on the Septuagint translation. They based part of their writing on the error in the Greek. They were obviously creating a story in order to make the prophecy come true. Isaiah's prophecy was that the child Immanuel was to have been born in 742 BCE, the first year of King Ahaz's reign. Ahaz, the king of Judah, faced the combined armies of Syria and Israel. Isaiah explained to Ahaz that he should not form an alliance with Assyria. In support of this advice, God would provide a sign: a young woman would conceive and bear a child who would be named Immanuel. 2 The sign would have only have been effective if it happened almost immediately. It would not have given a lot of support to Isaiah's prophecy if more than seven centuries passed before it was fulfilled, over 700 years after King Ahaz' death. Isaiah was clearly not referring to some event that would occur centuries later. When he referred to the far future, as in Chapter 11, he typically used a phrase such as "In that day." The translation of the Hebrew name Immanuel, (Greek Emmanouel) as "God with us" in Matthew 1:23 implies that the name-holder is divine. The name really means "God is with us," meaning that God will support us. The name makes perfect sense if the child's name was to indicate to King Ahaz that God is on their side.
Luke 1 states that Mary would call her son Yeshua (Jesus in Greek). He is called Yeshua throughout the Christian Scriptures -- not Immanuel.
This analysis shows that Jesus, born to a virgin, was not prophesized by Isaiah. Rather, Isaiah must have been referring to a young woman who gave birth to a son circa 742 BCE -- a very normal occurrence. He predicted that she would call his name Immanuel. Many births to young women would have probably happened at that time. But, there is no mention either in the Bible or in the historical or archeological record that positively refers to an Immanuel having been born. It may or may not have come true. But the prophecy certainly was unrelated to Jesus' birth.
And looking around I suppose the correct translation isn't as "universally accepted" as I thought.
Edit to add: I guess you didn't even need my source.
[ March 19, 2004, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Would it be so harmful to the Jewish religious beliefs to believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Especially in the light of the Christian doctrine that His work isn't finished and that He will eventually fulfill all the things that were not completed in His mortal life.
quote: I have a really nice dark brown one that is attached to a clip (it wouldn't be any use to you, it's not big enough!).
Oh, you mean a hat-snood (some of my friends wear them with a hat (especially baseball caps) and the combination does the trick)! Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm looking around in my own set of scriptures and there is a footnote from chapter 7 pointing to chapter 8:4, a child born (sounds like the son of Isaiah and "the prophetess", whoever that is). So, I assume those who hold with what I quoted above probably believe this is the same child. It makes sense in the context. The above passage talks about this being an immediate sign concerning a war situation, and the child mentioned in ch 8 seems to be a sign of the same thing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Rivka, on the link you gave me, this was particularly helpful:
quote: C. TORAH OBSERVANCE
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Your thoughts on Isaiah 9:6-7? I don't have enough info for a google search, at least not without difficulty.
Edit: sorry, I originally had in here the wrong chapter.
[ March 19, 2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Nevermind, I found it. It was on the same site that Rivka linked to. I understand your perspective on these verses now. Thanks!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*test*
I think I broke this thread! The pagination is all weird.
[Addit: *phew*! Posting to it seems to have fixed it.]
[ March 21, 2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hey, I thought of another question. Do Jews believe in a sort of "end of the world" or "apocolypse" or something along those lines? I was thinking of this because of the story that Ela told from her workplace. The people were talking about signs that they interpreted of heralding the return of Christ, and it got me wondering if Jews believe that when the Messiah truly comes there will be some apocolyptic type of events around that. Or in other words, would a Christian and a Jewish apocolypse look very similar?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Or in other words, would a Christian and a Jewish apocolypse look very similar?
If rivka doesn't mind, I can take this one.
Basically, no, they would not.
From Ela's thread:
quote:Rapture. This is a Christian doctrine that holds that before the Second Coming of Jesus, all faithful Christians (living and dead) will ascend through the air to be with Jesus in Heaven. It is not the Second Coming itself (as Jesus will not set foot on earth), but a precurser. There is a further doctrine that holds that the Rapture marks the beginning of the Great Tribulation, a seven-year period that will end with Armageddon and/or the Second Coming. The GT will begin with the Antichrist coming to power and various horrific events will occur.
There is no one accepted version of the Rapture, Great Tribulation, Armageddon, and Second Coming and how and when they will occur.
quote:the Rapture doctrine was based on 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 and that the Great Tribulation doctrine came from The Revelation to John
The Jewish End of Days doctrine is considerably different. It contains no Rapture or Second Coming of Jesus, for the obvious reason that we do not believe that Jesus was the mosiach (messiah). There is also no Great Tribulation or any specific period of suffering that will foretell the coming of the mosiach.
Here is some info from the Judaism 101 site ( www.jewfaq.org ), which I think is awesome:
quote:However, traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The moshiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (achareet ha-yameem), which is the time of the moshiach; thus, the concept of moshiach was known in the most ancient times.
The term "moshiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The moshiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days.
The word "moshiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "moshiach" will be used throughout this page.
The Moshiach The moshiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The moshiach is often referred to as "moshiach ben David" (moshiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5) He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.
and...
quote:What Will the Moshiach Do? Before the time of the moshiach, there shall be war and suffering (Ezekiel 38:16)
The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).
Olam Ha-Ba: The Messianic Age The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically to the time of the messiah.
Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people. (Isaiah 2:4) Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity.
All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).
and finally...
quote:Jews do not believe that Jesus was the moshiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the moshiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Isn't jewfaq amazing? I love that site! Thanks, MrsM. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, Mrs. M! That does a very good job of answering my question.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What are the different kinds of mitzvahs, and which can non-Jews participate in?
I went to a Jewish funeral today. Our secretary's mother passed away. I must say I liked the service far more than nearly any Christian funeral I've been to though my own Grandmother's wasn't too bad.
I'm pretty sure they were Reform not Orthodox. I wasn't aware that helping shovel the dirt was considered a mitzvah, because it is a gift that the person can not repay. It is a neat idea. Anyway we all Jewish and non-Jewish alike put our shovelful in. It was actually a moving experience for me even though I didn't know the woman in life.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Any mitzvah performed for the dead (including assisting with the burial, as you did) is called chesed shel emes -- a kindness that is true -- because, as you mentioned, there cannot be any expectation of a return favor.
As far as mitzvot that a non-Jew cannot keep, very few are coming to mind. Most are not required in the way they are of Jews, but that's not the same as not permitted.
[Edit: UBB tags]
[ March 23, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
How can I not post the 200th in this thread?
Okay. What is the origin of the word kibbitz? What does it actually mean?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I started a thread that hit five pages!
quote: What is the origin of the word kibbitz? What does it actually mean?
Well, it means to bother someone, tell them how to do stuff or run their life -- like a back-seat driver, but more general-use. As for the origin, I assume it's German, but let me see what I can find.
Hey Rivkah! Im an OSC lover, just stumbled upon the board and found your post! Im an Orthodox Jew as well! I think its hysterical that you are educating, and I'd like to commend you because so far your responses have been very good! Its amazing the misconception people have... Keep up the book, id love the check back!
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:As far as mitzvot that a non-Jew cannot keep, very few are coming to mind. Most are not required in the way they are of Jews, but that's not the same as not permitted.
There might be others as well, but keeping Shabbos, for example, is definitely not permitted. But that means not doing ANY melocha at all, which is not going to happen accidentally! People who are in the process of converting to Judaism, and thus keeping the mitzvos as practice, must deliberately do a single melocha on shabbos - such as flicking on and off the light switch just once.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sholom aleichem, Armoth. Glad you approve.
reader, yeah, I was subbing at the local Bais Yaakov this afternoon, and polled the office staff on the question -- no one could come up with anything besides Shabbos. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Im actually pretty sure that non-jews arent permitted to vigurously study torah...for instance talmud study. Im not sure of the exact laws, but i know its a gemara somewhere...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Is it that a non-Jew is not permitted to study, or that a Jew may not teach them? In any case, I know for a fact (because I've asked) that this applies to only certain specific topics, like the nitty-gritty details of halacha. (Which is exactly what the majority of the gemara is, neh?)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
*nod* Once again, im not sure. Rav Mordechai Willig's brother: Rav Dovid Willig is my rebbe. I will be sure to ask him tommorow. What is interesting about Judaism that is very different than all other religions is that Judaism places all people within their own roles. Jews are Jews, they shouldnt seek to convert the world. The Jews are supposed to remain the world's minority. However, non -jews (as rivkah taught) have their own seperate sets of commandments to keep. Its all about role recognition! THe role of a jew vs. the role of a non - jew. Its like there are Jews, Noahites, and non - jews... cool, huh
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There's no "h" in my name. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Whoa, another orthodox Jew on Hatrack? Where have you been hiding for the past year?
**Ela**
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
sorry...rivka*
Ive been hiding under the massive amount of work I have to do! I cant wait for next year, im going to Israel for yeshiva!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
A few more questions: What role does the knowledge of the Hebrew language have in Judaism? Is it more important to the Orthodox Jews? Is it essential?
Also, what do you think of the musical "Fiddler on the Roof"? I ask because for many it is one of our few sources of information about Jews. Do you find it accurate? Offensive? Laughable? Is it "Hollywood-ized"? I have always loved the musical.
Actually, I have always felt an emotional connection to Jews and Judaism because my first love was a sweet, Jewish boy. Unfortunatly (at least unfortunate to some) after much inner struggle, he declared himself to be Pagan and eventually agnostic. I don't think he much associates himself with his heritage anymore. But emotional ties made in one's early teens do not fade easily! Edit: <==referring to my emotional connection.
[ March 23, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
beverly:
quote:What role does the knowledge of the Hebrew language have in Judaism?
Speaking as a new student of Judaism, I can tell you that even in the Reform temple I go to (which leans hard toward Conservative), not knowing Hebrew has been a minor obstacle. I have realized how important it is for me to learn it, as a matter of fact, I had my first lesson last night. This site has been a gem.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: What role does the knowledge of the Hebrew language have in Judaism? Is it more important to the Orthodox Jews?
Well, it is preferable to pray in Hebrew, Tanach is in Hebrew, the majority of scholarly Jewish works are in Hebrew . . . My impression is that being able to speak/read Hebrew is not as emphasized among the (American) non-Orthodox, but I don't really know.
quote:Is it essential?
What do you mean by that? I would consider a Jewish school curriculum that did NOT include learning Hebrew to be incomplete. However, for those who come to Orthodoxy as adults, learning Hebrew can be quite difficult -- even impossible. So they do their best -- perhaps pray in a different language, learn from translations, etc. No ideal, perhaps, but then neither is my frequent mangling of Hebrew grammar and vocabulary when I actually attempt to speak it.
quote: Also, what do you think of the musical "Fiddler on the Roof"?
I adore it -- I have it on tape, and two versions of the soundtrack.
quote: I ask because for many it is one of our few sources of information about Jews.
I know. I've used as a frame of reference to explain what it means to be an Orthodox Jew to online friends. (Most memorable was the one who asked if I was Jewish like Anne Frank or Fran Drescher. I said neither (since neither was at all Orthodox) -- think Fiddler. )
quote: Do you find it accurate?
Mmm, mostly. There's a fair amount of over-simplifying-to-the-point-of-inaccuracy, though. And while Russian Jewish villagers would have been somewhat superstitious, that was exaggerated, IMO. (But it's not like Yentl, where certain bits are so ridiculously (and unnecessarily) implausible that I want to throw things at the screen.)
quote: Offensive?
Not particularly, except maybe some of the stuff with Perchik.
quote: Laughable?
Occasionally.
quote: Is it "Hollywood-ized"?
A bit, of course.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
A few questions Kaddish/Kaddesh I realized that I've read about it a lot in books but I don't know if there are multiple funeral prayers or just one.
The one they did was responsive with the family and the rabbi.
Also the rabbi appeared to be making significant gestures during the Kaddish, I think he deliberately positioned himself facing towards Isreal (as much as he could) at one point, and he looked back behind him at one point apparently deliberately.
Also is the Shema(sp?) included, because if so I missed it the part that goes "Hear O Isreal the L-rd our G-d the L-rd is One"
(could you give a brief summary of the history meaning etc of the Kaddish?)
And which names of G-d can you use in every day and which can't you? This rabbi when interspersing English paraphrases with the Hebrew used the English word "Lord". Does this vary between Reform and Orthodox?
I mean how do you teach your children about "God" if you can't say a word that gives the general idea?
AJ (sorry there is so much in one post)
[ March 23, 2004, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Just in quick response to the hebrew question, Hebrew - Lashon Hakodeh (Holy Tongue) is essential to most bible study. Many words are lost in translation, and many commentaries arent even available in any language other than hebrew. Hebrew is very rich and holy, there are secrets in the letters and pronounciations that are also obviously lost in transaltion.
Bannana, i dont have the sights that Rivka does, but ill give you what I know to tide you over.
Kaddish is the mourner's prayer, said mulyiple times throughought the three prayer services each day by the mourner (someone whose close relative died within the past 11 months). I believe the idea is to sanctify the soul so that it remains protected from the jewish form of hell (for lack of a better explanation), as acc to jewish tradition (debated), a person's soul can only remain their for 12 months, and we dont assume that ppl nowadays are evil enough to remain there for more than 11.
Shema is not a part of Kaddish and the history? Im guessing it dates back to talmudic times as it is written in Aramaic, not hebrew (that language also has a degree of holiness).
Names of god? We cant use any in everyday language. Jews use the hebrew words for "The Name" "Hashem" or "The holy one blessed is he" "Hakadosh Baruch Hu"; but never one of his true names. We teach our children about God, by using the name God or Hashem.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's very interesting about the language having hidden meaning in its very form that is lost in the translation. I can better appreciate the value in knowing it and what is missed out on without it.
Valentine, that site is so cool! If I ever decide to learn Hebrew, I will definitely go there.
Oh yeah, I forgot about "Yentil". I love the music for it, but I can understand that one being a bit problematic for accuracy. It is so "loaded" for lack of a better term. I still get a twisted sort of pleasure out of it.
Good to know that "Fiddler on the Roof" is pretty straight on. I will keep that in mind next time I watch it. (I never get tired of that one!)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Kaddish/Kaddesh I realized that I've read about it a lot in books but I don't know if there are multiple funeral prayers or just one.
quote: The one they did was responsive with the family and the rabbi.
Kaddish is always said responsively, whether the Mourner's Kaddish or not.
quote: Also the rabbi appeared to be making significant gestures during the Kaddish, I think he deliberately positioned himself facing towards Isreal (as much as he could) at one point, and he looked back behind him at one point apparently deliberately.
It is traditional to pray facing east, toward Yerushalayim. There are points at which the speaker does bow their heads briefly -- maybe that's what you saw?
quote: (could you give a brief summary of the history meaning etc of the Kaddish?)
quote: The origin of the practice is not easy to find. It seems to derive from a tradition, which tells how Rabbi Akiva once met up with the soul of a dishonest tax collector. The soul was deeply depressed, since he was suffering for the sins that he'd committed while on earth, and he told Rabbi Akiva that his suffering would cease if one of his sons would recite Kaddish, so causing the congregation to respond by praising God's name.
Rabbi Akiva taught the son what to say, and we are told that the son's recitation of Kaddish did, indeed, relieve his father's soul from torment.
quote: And which names of G-d can you use in every day and which can't you? This rabbi when interspersing English paraphrases with the Hebrew used the English word "Lord". Does this vary between Reform and Orthodox?
Well, in English I would use the word "God" (which I don't consider one of His names) without any concern. "Lord" is fine, but a bit archaic for my taste. But I mostly refer to Him as "Hashem" (literally, "the Name") or other non-Names ("haKadosh Baruch Hu" -- the Holy Blessed One, "Aybishter" -- literally "the Boss," I think, and other variations in Hebrew and Yiddish). As far as teaching kids how to say His names in prayers and such, it is permitted to say them to teach.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Just in quick response to the hebrew question, Hebrew - Lashon Hakodeh (Holy Tongue) is essential to most bible study. Many words are lost in translation, and many commentaries arent even available in any language other than hebrew. Hebrew is very rich and holy, there are secrets in the letters and pronounciations that are also obviously lost in transaltion.
In addition, praying in Hebrew as opposed to another language has the benefit of an intrinsic holiness even if the meaning is not understood by the one praying, whereas when praying in another language, the prayer is only meaningful if you understand and concentrate on it; any word which you don't concentrate on is "lost" so to speak. Also, I'm pretty sure that certain blessings (or maybe all blessings?) can only be recited in Hebrew.... I'm not absolutely positive about that, though. However, we definitely consider the Hebrew itself - not the Modern Hebrew of Israel, necessarily, but the original form - to be holy.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The movements in the mourner's kadish that you saw was probably when the mourner takes three steps back, bows to the left, to the right and then forward. Those are specific movements in Kadish...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
When are the movements done corresponding to the words? I was looking at the rabbi at an angle, so he could have easily been bowing more sidways than backwards.
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I started a thread that hit five pages!
Oh, pfffft, anybody can start a thread that hits the five page mark. What's exceptional is that you started a thread that hit five pages without veering wildly off subject. You've steered this thread for a full five pages. Now that's impressive!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And on a side note how does this respectful treatment of the dead affect archeological digs? I seem to remember that sometimes the Orthodox Jews in Isreal get upset over the subject.
Or could you say that since the memory of the dead at an archeological dig has been lost you are bringing back what you can via archeology?
AJ
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Kadish at the end: Bow. Take three steps back. [bow left] Oseh Shawlom bim'ro'mawv (He who makes peace in his heights) [bow right] Hu ya'aseh shawlom awleinu, (May he make peace upon us) [bow forward] v'al kol yisroel v'imru: Amein (And upon all Israel, and Respond: Amen)
in response to archeological digs? Speaking totally from my own knowlege, the only reason i can think people would be opposed is because of the jewish law to honor the resting place of the dead. It cannot be tampered with, for it is disrespectful to the dead. I dont think they would think that digging up things to remember them and honor them by it would be considered very respectful to the bodies they are digging up...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What is Yiddish? How is it related to Hebrew?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wow been browsing around jewfaq
quote: As part of the wedding ceremony, the husband gives the wife a ketubah. The word "Ketubah" comes from the root Kaf-Tav-Bet, meaning "writing." The ketubah is also called the marriage contract. The ketubah spells out the husband's obligations to the wife during marriage, conditions of inheritance upon his death, and obligations regarding the support of children of the marriage. It also provides for the wife's support in the event of divorce. There are standard conditions; however, additional conditions can be included by mutual agreement. Marriage agreements of this sort were commonplace in the ancient Semitic world.
The ketubah has much in common with prenuptial agreements, which are gaining popularity in the United States. In the U.S., such agreements were historically disfavored, because it was believed that planning for divorce would encourage divorce, and that people who considered the possibility of divorce shouldn't be marrying. Although one rabbi in the Talmud expresses a similar opinion, the majority maintained that a ketubah discouraged divorce, by serving as a constant reminder of the husband's substantial financial obligations if he divorced his wife.
The ketubah is often a beautiful work of calligraphy, framed and displayed in the home.
AJ, cool, no? Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yeah, im currently learning Ketubot (a section of talmud), it discusses all the laws of the Ketubah, and practically any other law that has anything to do with it. I wonder if i'll ever finish...
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Ketubahs are indeed supercool. They are binding in US courts, by the way.
My wedding day was so windy that both glasses of wine were blown over and splashed all over my Ketubah (which is read during the wedding ceremony)! Luckily, the matting covers the wine stains.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's a lovely ketubah, MrsM. Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Thanks, rivka!
Rabbi Schranz wanted to surprise me, so he wouldn't let me see it before the signing. Being a control freak, I was really nervous about it, but it's just what I wanted.
Before the ceremony, Rabbi Schranz joked that our Ketubah would be extra binding because the groom and both the witnesses are all lawyers.
Edit for style.
[ March 24, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Mrs.M ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
very nice. Does a sofer have to write a ketuba? I dont think so. Do you know Rivka?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
See, I thought they did. Mine was written by one.
rivka will tell us.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I dont think that they halachikally need to since they are just a shtar (jewish document). However, Sofrim probably DO write them as practice for real holy works. Thats my guess.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rivka thought not, because there are cheap ones which are mass-produced. Or is that only the betrothal documents? *thinks*
No, it certainly doesn't HAVE to be written by a sofer -- I know of at least two that had to be rewritten at the last minute because things ran unexpectedly late and sunset passed. Moreover, I know several women who write and illuminate ketubot, and women cannot be sofrot. And I don't think they're written on parchment -- any document that would require a sofer would require parchment, I think.
However, I think they often ARE written by a sofer.
*searches*
quote: It may be printed; more often, it is hand written in beautiful calligraphy and illuminated by a sofer, or scribe.
If I had to guess, I'd imagine that the reason that a ketubah needn't be written by a sofer is that it is not, in and of itself, a holy document -- it's a legal document. Its use as part of the marriage ceremony is what makes it special.
(A get (bill of divorcement) does have to be written by sofer, and on parchment.)
[Edit: Oops! Nope, I was wrong about the requirements of a get. link]
[ March 24, 2004, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
I'd guess that they're usually written by Sofrim simply because it's usually the Sofrim who can write Hebrew in really nice calligraphy.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yeah, I knew figured practiced on shtarot, like a "get" or a Ketubah. Interesting thought that sofrim can only write on parchment. It makes sense that the holy things that require a sofer also require that they be written on parchment.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A get is NOT practice. The letter-perfect-ness of a get is at least as strict as that of STaM.
After all, if there is an error in a mezuzah, it can be fixed later. An error in a get could have some serious halachic consequences.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
how is a get different than a shtar? A get is a shtar kinyan (Status causing document) rather than a shtar raayah (Proof document). It happens to ALSO be a shtar raayah, but still, if it was good enough to divorce her the first time, and two eidim signed it, then obviously it was unflawed. Shouldnt it just have the same scrutiny as a shtar?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A get that is flawed can affect the children of a later marriage (and their children, and their children's children for all generations). After it is checked and given to the now-divorced wife in the proper manner it is DESTROYED so that no one can ever come later and claim to have found a mistake.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Are you sure? I highly doubt what youre saying. In many times in the gemara in gittin, women have used their get's as shtaray raayot, proof documents to proove they are divroced so they can remarry. I doubt theyd destroy the document. I understand that a flaw in a document can invalidate her children, but I dont think we are machmir to the point of hilchos sofer. Rather, it is subject to the laws of shtar, which are pretty safe. Still, im not 100 percent sure. What are your sources?
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
It might not be necessary to have it written on parchment by a sofer, by it is definitely necessary to have it written by someone who knows all the halochos and knows what he's doing, because as rivka mentioned, an invalid get is an extremely, extremely serious thing. There are certain people who are actually experts in the subject, and unfortunately work only with gitten - though of course most such people spend much of their time involved in convincing Jews who aren't religious or aren't so religious just how important it is to get a get.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: What are your sources?
Personal experience.
A divorced woman receives a document from the beis din attesting to her divorced status (actually, the man gets one as well), but the beis din keeps the get, after all the necessary procedures are concluded.
quote: Every divorced woman must have a letter from the divorcing rabbi signed by two witnesses and certified by the rabbinical court or other witnesses. If she does not have it, or heaven forfend loses it, she must get some documentation immediately.
Here is a discussion of the differences between a ketubah and a get.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Hey, riv. I just wanted to let you know that my roommate loves your thread. (rivka has more fans!) I see her reading it all the time. She and I have lots of conversations about the questions asked here.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Hey rivka.
Me and Val were talking and I have a question about Shabbat. This isn't the first time me and her have been talking and she didn't have an answer to my question (I am very inquisitive), but first time I haven't been too lazy to post it.
See, we were talking about Shabbat and that it would suck for those who have to work until 5PM on fridays in the winter. You know, since the sun goes down at around 4:15PM during that time of year.
She said that's not the case, and that they use the Hebrew Calender's set times to start Shabbat (light their candles).
But I thought that was odd. I would think that the sun actually having set would be a big deal. I mean, the Hebrew calender doesn't use daylight savings time. The clock here might say 4:15, but its actually 5:15 in normal time (not adjusted), and also the sun has clearly set.
She admitted that she wasn't finding a clear answer on this, and wanted me to post in here and ask you .
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
In as much as it's still Shabbos for Rivka, I figured I might as well answer.
Shabbos starts at sunset, whatever time that may be. Thus, when we change to daylight saving's time, the next week, Shabbos begins an hour later, and the opposite when we switch back. So yes, there are certain points during the winter when Shabbos can start as early as 4:30 or so, depending on where you live. There might be two months in total where Shabbos is early enough (even if it starts just after 5:00) where you'd have to leave work early. If you commute, or if your job ends later than 5:00, you'd probably have to leave work early for most of the time that we're not on daylight saving's time.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
First of all I'd like to say that this thread is great! I know you posted a little earlier about working during Pesach. I'm reading Daniel Deronda for my English class, and I came across a passage that I thought was interesting, and wanted to know how it fit in with an the rules of orthodox Judaism, it's set in London in the 1860's, and Daniel, a non-Jew, is speaking with a Jewish pawn broker about pawning a diamond. The pawnbroker's response "Well, you know, this evening is the Sabbath, young gentleman, and I go to the Shool. The shop will be closed. But accommodationis the work of charity; if you can't get here before, and are any ways pressed--why I'll look at your diamond." Later that evening Daniel goes to the man's house for a Sabbath dinner, and then they conclude the business deal. So the two things I had to ask were, what is Shool? What types of work are permitted on the Sabbath? You mentioned life saving work, and this book seems to imply charity is allowed. Does this mean a doctor can work on the Sabbath? I'm just curious regarding the work, and trying to decide how close to orthodoxy this pawnbroker is, as it makes a difference for the story, as well as being genuinely interested in this. Thank you.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Shul is Yiddish for synagogue.
And from jewfaq.org:
quote:The Torah does not prohibit "work" in the 20th century English sense of the word. The Torah prohibits "melachah" (Mem-Lamed-Alef-Kaf-Heh), which is usually translated as "work," but does not mean precisely the same thing as the English word.
Melachah generally refers to the kind of work that is creative, or that exercises control or dominion over your environment. The word may be related to "melekh" (king; Mem-Lamed-Kaf). The quintessential example of melachah is the work of creating the universe, which G-d ceased from on the seventh day. Note that G-d's work did not require a great physical effort: he spoke, and it was done.
The word melachah is rarely used in scripture outside of the context of Shabbat and holiday restrictions. The only other repeated use of the word is in the discussion of the building of the sanctuary and its vessels in the wilderness. Exodus Ch. 31, 35-38. Notably, the Shabbat restrictions are reiterated during this discussion (Ex. 31:13), thus we can infer that the work of creating the sanctuary had to be stopped for Shabbat. From this, the rabbis concluded that the work prohibited on Shabbat is the same as the work of creating the sanctuary. They found 39 categories of forbidden acts, all of which are types of work that were needed to build the sanctuary:
Sowing Plowing Reaping Binding sheaves Threshing Winnowing Selecting Grinding Sifting Kneading Baking Shearing wool Washing wool Beating wool Dyeing wool Spinning Weaving Making two loops Weaving two threads Separating two threads Tying Untying Sewing two stitches Tearing Trapping Slaughtering Flaying Salting meat Curing hide Scraping hide Cutting hide up Writing two letters Erasing two letters Building Tearing a building down Extinguishing a fire Kindling a fire Hitting with a hammer Taking an object from the private domain to the public, or transporting an object in the public domain. (Mishnah Shabbat, 7:2)
All of these tasks are prohibited, as well as any task that operates by the same principle or has the same purpose. In addition, the rabbis have prohibited handling any implement that is intended to perform one of the above purposes (for example, a hammer, a pencil or a match) unless the tool is needed for a permitted purpose (using a hammer to crack nuts when nothing else is available) or needs to be moved to do something permitted (moving a pencil that is sitting on a prayer book), or in certain other limited circumstances. Objects that may not be handled on Shabbat are referred to as "muktzeh," which means, "that which is set aside," because you set it aside (and don't use it unnecessarily) on Shabbat.
The rabbis have also prohibited travel, buying and selling, and other weekday tasks that would interfere with the spirit of Shabbat. The use of electricity is prohibited because it serves the same function as fire or some of the other prohibitions, or because it is technically considered to be "fire."
As with almost all of the commandments, all of these Shabbat restrictions can be violated if necessary to save a life.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
To my knowledge, charity that violates the Sabbath is probibited. For example, we don't use money on Shabbat, so we don't bring any money to shul for the Tzdakah (charity) box. However, charity that doesn't violate the Sabbath is fine - like inviting an elderly widower to share Shabbat supper.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So how does this no electricity or fire fit in with modern day heating and airconditioning?
Also are peanut butter and jelly sandwiches kosher and why or why not? (I heard a peanut butter and jelly being disucssed as non-kosher by some Jewish children today and was intrigued)
AJ
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Banna, maybe they meant not kosher for passover?
One guy at my school wouldn't use his card to swipe into the dorms during shabbat. I think he knocked and had someone down the hall come open the door for him.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yeah, pb-and-j is not kosher right now because of the bread, at the least (and possibly the jelly and peanut butter too, depending on if it has corn syrup or not, and whether the person in question is an Eastern European Jew or not).
I couldn't think of any other reason it isn't kosher though.
-Bok
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Today in LDS Sunday school we talked about King Benjamin addressing the Nephites, and the Nephites' response to his address.
quote:...they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us...
This response of the crowd in unison occupies the text of four verses.
I thought it was interesting that such a large crowd could synchronize such a lengthy response, word for word.
I wondered if there is a Jewish tradition for oral recitation from the congregation, and if the text of such recitations has been recorded, and if such a Jewish text, if it exists, approximates the Book of Mormon text.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not sure I understand your question(s), but I'll do my best. If I'm not answering what you asked, let me know and I'll try again.
quote: I wondered if there is a Jewish tradition for oral recitation from the congregation
Certainly. The best example would be the Hallel, songs of praise, which is recited on the first day of each (lunar) month, and on the holidays. Most of it is recited responsively, with the person leading the prayers saying one part, and then the congregation either repeating it back OR responding with the next part.
But even in the daily prayers, there are short prayers like that. The Kedushah is responsive, so is the Kaddish.
As for possibly parallel verses, I can't make your link work. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Well at least at my synagouge there is a lot of interaction between the rabbis and the congregation during the service. Frequently in the service the congregation will read outloud together (in English).
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Sorry about the broken link. That's wierd. LDS.org lets you set personal bookmarks for their online scriptures, but I guess it's tied to a browser cookie.
Rivka: are any of the congregation's recitations spontaneous?
As you may know, there is no recitation in LDS meetings, so the idea of the congregation talking during a meeting is foreign to me. Oh wait, we do say "amen" after each talk and prayer, but that's all.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I wondered if there is a Jewish tradition for oral recitation from the congregation, and if the text of such recitations has been recorded, and if such a Jewish text, if it exists, approximates the Book of Mormon text.
quote:are any of the congregation's recitations spontaneous?
If rivka doesn't mind, I can answer these. Our daily prayers are written in a book called a siddur. None of them are spontaneous.
It's interesting, how world views differ. As I was reading your post, I was thinking to myself that it would be the Book of Mormon that approximates text from the siddur and/or other Jewish texts as they pre-date the Book of Mormon by thousands of years.
Posted by djscngt (Member # 6520) on :
A friend recently pointed out this thread to me. Love it!
"And the past 2000 years worth of anti-Jewish actions that have been committed either in his name or in attempts to convert us haven't exactly helped things . ."
Let me personally apologize for all the stupid things Christians have done to Jews (and other faiths) over the years. I have never understood how we expected people to understand God's love at the end of a sword (or gun or laser beam for that matter).
[ May 03, 2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: djscngt ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rivka never minds help. And I agree with Mrs.M's answer.
djscngt, welcome to Hatrack. I'm glad you like the thread. I don't believe that all Christians are responsible for the actions of those who lived in the past -- I was simply explaining why Jews are often wary of Christianity. 2000 years of history is a difficult thing to get past, neh?
So while I don't believe that you need to apologize, I very much appreciate the spirit of your apology. Thank you. Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Rivka, you are amazing. Perhaps you could address the issue of messianic judaism. I'm curious how this is viewed withoin the overall Jewish community. Also, according to tradition does the government of Israel (i.e. Ariel Sharon's administration) have any religious authority/significance, or is it merely a political distinction. For that matter, how prominently does the stat of Israel figure in modern judaism?
Let me second djscngt's apology. Sometimes, we Christians can be really dumb.
[ May 03, 2004, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: IdemosthenesI ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Perhaps you could address the issue of messianic judaism. I'm curious how this is viewed within the overall Jewish community.
There was a conversation between nfl and beverly on page 4 of this thread regarding messianic Judaism. Summary -- most of them are not Jews (about 80% or more of most congregations), but Christians trying to convert Jews to Christianity. So we don't view them particularly positively.
quote: Also, according to tradition does the government of Israel (i.e. Ariel Sharon's administration) have any religious authority/significance, or is it merely a political distinction. For that matter, how prominently does the stat of Israel figure in modern judaism?
It is quite clearly a secular government, and has little, if any, religious significance. However, the Land of Israel, under any government, has tremendous significance to Jews in every era. It is our homeland, the direction toward which we pray, and we pray -- as we always have -- for peace within its borders.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Mrs. M:
quote:...it would be the Book of Mormon that approximates text from the siddur...
Sure. I'm not asking anyone of the Jewish faith to concede that these Book of Mormon people actually existed, and I'm not trying to convert anyone to Christianity. I'm trying to get a feel for how "Jewish" is this response of the congregation as recorded in the Book of Mormon.
If the congregation's response is not at all typical of practicing Jews, then I am left to conclude that the Holy Spirit gave each person in the congregation the same words of the covenant and prompted them to recite the words aloud. I don't know if there are any recorded cases of such a miraculous simultaneous recitation in the Christian Bible or in any other recorded scripture. Maybe Joshua with the trumpeters at the walls of Jericho...
It would be interesting to know if there was a precedent for this.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Skil, it may be that the English translation of what they said is considerably more verbose than what was actually said. Or that the poetic structure of his speech could only be responded to in the affirmative by that response.
P.S. Just in verse two, there seems to be an inconsistency between them crying with one voice and the king sending among them. The former suggests what you describe, the latter suggests more a process of extracting information.
Of course this story was abridged and then translated.
[ May 03, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Why don't Jews pray on their knees?
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Why don't Jews pray on their knees?
Actually, we do - twice a year, the holiest times of the year, on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. Why not more often? Well, I believe kneeling during prayer (among Jews) was once more common, long ago; I think part of the reason it was stopped was because so many other religions adopted the practice, but I'm not absolutely sure on that. Hopefully Rivka knows more; otherwise, I can ask one of my brothers later tonight, when they get home. (Also, Jews are forbidden to kneel on stone floors, as it might seem as though we're worshipping stone, as was common in days gone by.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Why don't Jews pray on their knees?
I remember learning about this a long time ago. As I recall (and a quick web-search confirmed), this question is actually the subject of extensive debate in the Gemara. However, the conclusion seems to correspond to what I found here:
quote: What distinguishes the Days of Awe from all other festivals is that here, and only here, do HaShem's people kneel. They do not kneel to confess a fault or to pray for forgiveness of sins, acts to which this festival is primarily dedicated. They kneel only in beholding the immediate nearness of HaShem, hence on an occasion which transcends the earthly needs of today. The congregation now rises to the feeling of HaShem's nearness as it sees in memory the Temple service of old, and visualizes especially the moment when the priest, on Yom HaKippurim (the Day of the Atonements) this once in all the year, pronounced the ineffable Name of HaShem, and the assembled people fell on their knees.
Yeshayah (Isaiah) 45:22-25 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am HaShem, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In HaShem alone are righteousness and strength.'" All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame. But in HaShem all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult.
That is, we do not kneel in ordinary, everyday prayer, when we pray to confess sins, ask forgiveness, and so on. Only when we especially feel His nearness -- as we do on the High Holy Days -- do we kneel (as opposed to bowing, which IS part of the daily prayers).
This also, I think, answers the question of why it was common in the times past -- when the Temple existed -- but not now. For surely when in the Holy Temple, His awesome presence was felt -- and so they knelt.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Again differences between Reform and Orthodox. We never kneel. Not as a matter of idealology, we just don't.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
skillery, I wasn't trying to be snippy and I hope I didn't come across that way. I certainly didn't mean it in a my-tradition-is-older-than-yours-and-you-must-acknowledge-it-or-else way.
I really respect and admire your curiosity.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Thanks Mrs. M. And thank you for responding to my question.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
rivka, would you mind popping into the 5 things that PISS me off working in restaurants thread? Jaiden is working at a hotel that serves pork at Kosher functions and I think that you are by far the best person to explain how horrible that is. Thanks.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Peanut butter and jelly notk kosher? Well Peanut butter is kosher... Jelly is kosher... Bread is certainly kosher... yeah, since i ate peanut butter and jelly for lunch yesterday, i can say with certainty it is quite kosher. Perhaps from a vendor or something, where maybe extra things were added in bread and stuff, it might not be kosher. But kosher bread? yeah, thats a kosher sandwich.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Armoth, the peanut butter and jelly sandwich question came up during Pesach . . .
Anyway, most brands of jelly are not kosher (although quite a few are) -- and almost no grape jelly is; some peanut butter is not kosher (although all the national brands I know of are); and in places outside NYC, almost none of the bread sold in the average supermarket is kosher.
So, the average PB&J sandwich is presumably NOT kosher -- even when it's not Pesach.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
*Shrug* Thats not completely true. First of all, many of the breads in the super markey may be kosher, but dont want to pay commission to the OU or some other hechsher. Though my family purchases strictly OU certified items, they are technically kosher. Same goes with Grape Jelly, you have to look for the OU on it, as you must with Peanut butter. Thats the way everything is. In my response, i was only stating that PB and J CAN be kosher, not that it always is (like a fruit, or a vegetable). In fact, most store items needs to be checked for the OU. So yes, PB and J sandwhiches are kosher. Not from your average vendor, but you could put your own one together with the kosher ingredients.
Realize that god didnt make brands of grain, fruit or vegetables non-kosher. Only living creatures. So if your things happen to include non kosher ingredients from those creatures...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Considering that the average loaf of bread almost certainly contains at least small amounts of animal fats (almost certainly not kosher), and possibly milk as well, not to mention (small amounts, generally) of a number of other non-kosher items, I think there's a lot more than they "don't want to pay commission to the OU or some other hechsher." Especially since said "commission" is a tiny fraction of most companies' costs. They are NOT usually "technically kosher."
And with grape jelly (and anything else containing grape juice), there is very little available that is kosher -- technically or otherwise.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
yes, but its silly to say that all PB and Js arent kosher. The average chicken is not kosher because not shechted properly!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Who said that? I was just trying to explain why someone could have claimed that a particular PB&J sandwich -- or many such, or even most such -- might not be kosher.
And definitely, most chickens aren't kosher. Which explains why I don't buy Foster Farms. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
::bumped for punwit::
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Ok, I've apparently displayed my ignorance on a different thread. I'll ask you to help me understand. In a thread Paul Goldner started he said his religion was jewish and his faith was atheist. I questioned that. A subsequent poster indicated that was ignorance on my part. My problem is that if you don't believe in the existance of God, how can you claim to be a devotee of a specific religion that inherently worships a God.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Personally I would say that he is Jewish in an Ethnic sense and Aethist in a religious sense. This is wear you really have issue of semantics because Jews unlike members universalizing relgions such as Christiananity and Islam are bound not just by religious beliefs but by genetics as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
To elaborate on nfl's answer, Judaism traditionally defines someone as Jewish if their mom is Jewish (or they convert). Period.
To be a practicing Jew -- or a believing one, which may or may not be the same thing -- is an entirely different matter.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Let me ask you this rivka, if a man and a woman both of non jewish descent went through the process of converting to the jewish faith, would any offspring be jewish regardless of personal beliefs?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
punwit, I believe it would only take the woman converting, and yes, I believe the children would be considered Jewish.
It's one thing (of many) that I've learned dating a Jewish woman (who tends to be a cultural Jew more than a believing Jew). Judaism is a family, a nation, and a religion, all rolled up into one thing.
Judaism has many millenia-old traditions, based in a theology that some descendants of the religion may not agree with anymore, theologically, but identify strongly with in a cultural/traditional sort of way. It's a way to have a connection all the way back to your ancient ancestors! That's powerful stuff, and that's before taking into account the veracity of a Godhead.
-Bok
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bok's right. Although perhaps I should clarify (and I hope I don't offend anyone) that Orthodox Jews (I am one) would only consider someone who converted Orthodox to be Jewish. But yes, they and their descendants for all generations (assuming matrilineal descent) would be Jewish.
OTOH, no Orthodox Beis Din (Jewish court) would convert a person who did not intend to keep the commandments. As I explained on a previous page of this thread, we believe that non-Jews who keep the Noachide laws also have a place in heaven. So it would be better for a non-Jew to fulfill those obligations, rather than accept new ones (by becoming Jewish) and NOT fulfill them.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't know WHY the PB&J sandwich wasn't kosher. I just overheard these children talking about it while in a waiting room and it was a very intriguing conversation. They were very concerned. And perhaps it is because the bread was yeast bread and it was during Passover. But they shouldn't have even had any yeast bread in their house during passover I don't think. Sorry I don't know any more specifics.
I'm sure in the area of Chicago where they were, kosher jelly is readily available due to a high Jewish population concentration.
My other question is, do rabbis get paid? I thought I heard somewhere they were supposed to have a job and support themselves in addition too their spiritual duties but I don't know for sure. It definitely seems like if they are running around and inspecting resturaunts all day they should get paid for it.
AJ
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Rabbi's get paid. QUite well, too, depending on the congregation. The rabbi at my temple is retiring soon, but his current salary is in excess of 100,000.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If an event were to be held in an area where supervised kosher catering was not available, is there anything that could be served that an orthodox Jew could eat? Plain fruits and veggies? Or are those trouble once they’re cut up and/or cooked?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Oh, and might the Rebbetzin be free on Monday morning, June 28, to meet up with a friend who will be on her way from the LA airport to San Bernadino?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Rabbis who are the spiritual leaders of a congregation get paid. In large reform and conservative congregations, that is their only job.
Many orthodox rabbis who are spiritual leaders of congregations may have other jobs. For example, my rabbi (and his wife) both teach at a local Jewish dayschool. I also had a rabbi who was a clinical psychologist and saw clients during the week.
In addition, in the orthodox community, many men study for and obtain "smicha" to be a rabbi, but have other careers. So they are not necessarily paid for being a "rabbi" per se.
[ May 13, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
I have a question about the kosher foods you buy in the stora nd the organizations that certify them like OU, OK, Star K, etc. Is any of these organizations considered more reputable than the others?
rivka, Ela, and others, if you see a kosher symbol on a package, do you trust it implicitly or would you do research to ensure that the product is, in fact kosher?
I'm asking because, while I'm not Jewish, I'm contemplating adopting a kosher diet for health reasons.
Any advice you all can give me would be appreciated. Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:rivka, Ela, and others, if you see a kosher symbol on a package, do you trust it implicitly or would you do research to ensure that the product is, in fact kosher?
Each Kashrus organization has a different symbol. According to the individual's stringency in Kashrus related matters, they'll trust certain organizations, and not others. However, once they trust a certain organization, if the symbol is present, the food is trusted to be kosher. (Of course, a person may consider one kashrus agency to be reliable when it comes to everything except meat, or everything except Passover products.) Since you're only concerned with health-related matters, and not kashrus, you probably don't have to be too concerned about which symbol the package has, as long as it's one you recognize. For a list of reliable symbols.... I'll try to find one and get back to you.
About a Rabbi getting paid: "Rabbi" has two different conotations in Orthodox circles. The first refers to the spiritual leader of a congregation, and such a Rabbi does get paid. However, depending on the congregation, it may not be very much, so some Rabbis also have other jobs, such as teaching Jewish subjects in a high school, etc. "Rabbi" can also refer to anyone who has semicha, which means that they've been tested and found to be knowledgable enough about Jewish law to be awarded the "title" of Rabbi. Such a "Rabbi" may work only in the secular world. Alternatively, such a Rabbi may work in a Jewish field such as being a Mashgiach, for which he is paid. A Rabbi who is the spiritual leader of a congregation is very rarely a Mashgiach.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
reader, thanks for the information. I asked the question because there are so many different organizations that certify food as kosher. Do all of them use the same set of standards when judging whether a product is kosher? Is anyone else as confused as I am?
I just thought of another question. Is there somewhere I can find information about the health benefits of a kosher diet?
edited for spelling and to add the following:
Should the word kosher be capitalized? If so, I apologize if anyone has taken offense. I wasn' sure if it should be capitalized.
[ May 13, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Derrell ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: My other question is, do rabbis get paid? I thought I heard somewhere they were supposed to have a job and support themselves in addition too their spiritual duties but I don't know for sure. It definitely seems like if they are running around and inspecting restaurants all day they should get paid for it.
"Supposed to" is probably too strong. It is recommended/preferred that people (anyone, whether they have s'micha (rabbinical ordination) or not) not make a living solely from the fact that they are a Torah scholar.
However, no rabbi of a congregation simply gets paid to sit around and learn. They have many duties which would clearly constitute "other work." Then again, most Orthodox congregational rabbis don't make enough to survive on that salary alone, and usually do have another job. Most commonly, they teach in one of the local day schools. Although I know one whose "day job" is real estate law.
And Ela explained the difference between being a rabbi (having s'micha) and having the position.
As far a being a mashgiach, one actually need not have s'micha to be one; however, the person in charge (to whom any questions or issues that come up are addressed) does need to be.
Just to muddy the waters some more, "Rabbi" is also sometimes used as an honorific for men who don't actually have s'micha -- especially if they are teachers.
quote: If an event were to be held in an area where supervised kosher catering was not available, is there anything that could be served that an orthodox Jew could eat? Plain fruits and veggies? Or are those trouble once they’re cut up and/or cooked?
First off, might it be possible to bring in a (sealed) prepared meal? Places like Kosher Meals to Go deliver all over the US, and if provided with a specific location, I can try to find out what the closest supplier of such meals might be. I have had no problem getting kosher meals provided to me in such exotic locales as Santa Barbara.
If that is not a realistic option, then FRESH fruit and vegetables are generally considered acceptable IF AND ONLY IF they have not been cooked at all, and they were cut using a knife that has ONLY ever been used for fruit and vegetables (which is required by commercial food preparers anyway). Not all individuals will be ok with this -- probably good to check with them.
quote: Oh, and might the Rebbetzin be free on Monday morning, June 28, to meet up with a friend who will be on her way from the LA airport to San Bernadino?
Might is the operative word -- what does "morning" mean, exactly? But I would love to, if we can manage it.
quote: have a question about the kosher foods you buy in the store nd the organizations that certify them like OU, OK, Star K, etc. Is any of these organizations considered more reputable than the others?
rivka, Ela, and others, if you see a kosher symbol on a package, do you trust it implicitly or would you do research to ensure that the product is, in fact kosher?
As reader mentioned, there certainly are some that are more reputable than others. I carry around a list of those that are reliable (according to a rabbi in Los Angeles who is an expert). List of symbols
quote: I'm contemplating adopting a kosher diet for health reasons.
Um, bad news. A kosher diet is not inherently any healthier than many other options. We keep kosher for spiritual reasons. (To anyone who would like to claim otherwise, I have one word for you: gribenes.)
quote: A Rabbi who is the spiritual leader of a congregation is very rarely a Mashgiach.
*shrug* Perhaps in your experience. I know quite a few.
quote: Should the word kosher be capitalized?
Only if you really, really mean it.
[ May 13, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*grin* Morning can mean any time between about 9:30 and noon, in this case.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Um, bad news. A kosher diet is not inherently any healthier than many other options. We keep kosher for spiritual reasons. (To anyone who would like to claim otherwise, I have one word for you: gribenes.)
Mmmm...fat... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, my single moms group meets from 9:30 to 11:00 (and it's the last meeting, so I'm loathe to skip it or leave early). But 11:00 to noon is all yours! Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I thought that kosher meat meant that the animal was killed 'with less suffering' or some such, but from a brief glance online it seems that is an incorrect assumption. What is the purpose of the kosher laws concerning animal slaughter? Do you think kosher meat in the US is prepared with that purpose in mind?
And a general question... is there 'less suffering' meat out there?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I thought that kosher meat meant that the animal was killed 'with less suffering' or some such, but from a brief glance online it seems that is an incorrect assumption.
Well, that is essentially correct. However, the laws really only effect the actual killing of the animal (knife must be exceedingly sharp, etc.), and not really how the animal is treated prior (although causing certain injuries will render the animal not kosher).
quote: The process of Sh'chitah involves the use of an incredibly sharp, perfectly smooth blade (known as a Cha'lef) to sever the trachea, esophagus, and neck arteries of the animal as quickly and as smoothly as possible, thus ensuring that the animal does not suffer.
quote: What is the purpose of the kosher laws concerning animal slaughter?
Fulfilling the commandment in Deut. 12:21.
quote: Do you think kosher meat in the US is prepared with that purpose in mind?
Yes. For more, see here.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
One website I saw mentioned that the animals are strapped up above ground, dangling from their hind legs, in order to observe the no-touching-blood/other-blood rules... The site unsurprisingly claims that this is terrifying for the animal.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I just wanted to add, on the discussion of rabbi, a distinction that is very important. Priest : Christianity :: Rabbi : Judaism is an incorrect analogy. Rabbis are not part of ritual jewish practice nor are they necessary in the service of god. Rabbi is a educational/spiritual guide, not necessarily the leader of spiritual practices and rituals. The Torah designates the ritual practices in the temple to the Kohen (Priest). Rabbis were created as a tradition of education and guidances, starting with Moses, who gave semicha (literally means leaning, the giving over of his teaching) to Joshua and he to the 70 elders, and they gave semicha to the next generation, and soforth. This tradition of Semicha though said to be disrupted after the destruction of the second temple began again. Basically, anyone can become a Rabbi, and the torah encourages one to find themselves a rabbi, however, only for guidance. In Shul/Temple, every male member of the community can fulfill the ritual practices. Anyone can lead the prayer service, anyone can read from the torah, etc. The community is very actively involved in the Orthodox shul. This is not entirely true for the temple in Jerusalem, where only the Kohanim (priests) can ritually serve god by performing the rituals. Only the Levites can perform and sing their praise on the steps to the temple.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Suneun, I cannot say that this is definitely untrue -- I honestly don't know. However, from my link above:
quote: Second, if the animal moves its neck during the Sh'chitah, the animal is also rendered non-Kosher since the smooth cutting of the Sh'chitah has been compromised. Ensuring the stability of the animal is not an easy task, since Halacha prohibits the "stunning" of the animal prior to slaughter, a practice common in non-Kosher slaughter.
Hanging them by their feet would seem to make this very difficult.
Now, AFTER the animal has been killed, I believe it is hung by its feet to allow the blood to drain.
*googles*
I found a site that makes the claim you mention. I find it interesting that the author is so certain that stunning the animal (which is neither instantaneous nor painless, as the author implies) is seen as the lesser evil.
In any case, if this is true (and as I said, I don't know if it is), the fault lies with the FDA requirements. In the past, animals were WALKED in to be killed.
[ May 13, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Thanks. Maybe organic meats have stricter "less suffering" requirements...
*googles*
Sigh. Looks like the only requirements by law for Organic meat is that the animals are fed nice organic foods (no synthetic pesticides, synthetic hormones, sewage for fertilization, irradiation, or vaccinations).
I guess there isn't enough of a market for it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
More research finds:
quote: This hoisting and suspension process, whose use has declined somewhat in recent years, especially for larger animals, was essentially compelled by federal sanitary laws. (emphasis mine)
Instead, apparently systems like these are becoming widespread. In fact
quote: Today 90 percent of the kosher-slaughtered cattle in the United States are held in an upright restraint system.
And apparently this has been true for about 10 years.
And indications are that these restraints reduce the animals' pain. Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Interesting. So they were used maybe a decade ago, but are phasing out. Isn't it a little disturbing that they were being used?
I'm amused at the "new technique" of holding the cow down so it can't see what's going to happen to it and stuff.
Anyhow, re: the kosher food for non-jews, I considered eating kosher meats because of the quality/nice-killing aspects. I guess I could do some research and actually make that decision some day. I recently moved from generic grocery store horror meat to organic meats.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Do many Orthodox Jewish woman spend $1000 on a wig?!?!
Are those wigs going to be thrown out? *Can think of a number of cancer patients that would love to have a wig*
*fully admits she hasn't read all of this thread and has a feeling this doesn't belong here, but is surprised at the amount of money some people apparently spend on a wig *
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Isn't it a little disturbing that they were being used?
Disturbing to you or to me? Clearly it is to you. But to me, while causing unnecessary pain to an animal is forbidden, it is not clear that this was unnecessary (when there was not this newer restraint system available).
quote: Do many Orthodox Jewish woman spend $1000 on a wig?!?!
Define "many." I have never -- in fact, I think I can safely say that the cost of ALL the wigs I have bought in the past 12 years would fall short of that amount. But yes, people do -- more, sometimes. OTOH, the ones that cost that much are generally worn daily for many years.
quote: Are those wigs going to be thrown out?
Probably NOT. At least three well-respected rabbis have already made it clear that the wigs that most Americans have are NOT made of hair from India. As far as I'm concerned, case closed.
Oh, and this quote from the article you linked to is incorrect:
quote: More than 5,700 miles away in Israel, several rabbis issued a ban on wigs made in India from human hair, which is used to make many of the wigs sold in Brooklyn. (emphasis mine)
It should say, "which there is SOME CONCERN may be used to make many of the wigs sold in Brooklyn."
Wig-makers who sell to the Orthodox community have been avoiding hair from India for years.
[ May 13, 2004, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
wigs? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What about them, mack?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Why were they mentioned? I'm all confused.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Do many Orthodox Jewish woman spend $1000 on a wig?!?!
As Rivka said, "many" can mean lots of different things. However, of the numerous friends/classmates of mine who've gotten married recently, I'd say 95% of them got at least one wig upwards of $800, and the wealthier ones got wigs that were $1500 plus. The thing to remember, though, is that these girls are going to be wearing the wigs day in and day out for years, and human hair lasts longer - it's an investment of sorts. On the other hand, my mother never got such expensive wigs; I think the most she ever spent on a wig was about $350.
quote:Are those wigs going to be thrown out? *Can think of a number of cancer patients that would love to have a wig*
Well, the really expensive wigs probably won't be, because the expensive ones are almost always made exclusively from European hair, which isn't a problem. It's the less expensive (but still in the few hundred dollar range) wigs that are the real issue. In Israel, it's more of a problem, because people in Israel are generally much poorer than Jews in America, so they mostly wear wigs made from the less expensive hair, which is often, or usually, Indian. Even in America, though, it's a major issue, because it's very hard to be sure whether a wig is partially made from Indian hair. At the moment, in the yeshivish orthodox circles, at least, everyone has been calling their rabbis to find out if their brand of wig is okay, and any wigs that they aren't sure about, they're not wearing until they find out. So yes, a number of women have reverted to other head coverings temporarily, and others have bought synthetic wigs, but it turns out that there's a problem with those as well, since they contain about 5% human hair, which is probably Indian hair, as that's one of the cheapest kinds.
Also, Rivka - which three Rabbis are you referring to? Because everyone has been discussing this yesterday and today, and the latest is that unless you're sure that your wig isn't Indian, you're not allowed to wear it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
reader, not according to my rav, who said (this is cut and pasted from the email that was sent out to all shul members)
quote: According to Rav Fuerst, Rav Gansweig and Rav Dovid Feinstein, here's the latest update on the current sheitel dialog:
a) You CAN use your sheitel as is b) *IF* you want to be machmir, call your sheitel machor and ask them if the hair on your sheitel is from India. If it is not from India, you have no problem. c) Do NOT burn your sheitel under any circumstances.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, and this business about synthetic wigs containing 5% human hair is, AFAIK, not true across the board.
I hate to say this, but a lot of this is simply hysteria and rumors. And my rav said there is no problem.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, mack, missed your one-line post. Oops.
Orthodox women who are married cover their hair in public. Some mostly (or only) wear a wig; others only wear scarves, snoods, or hats; many wear any of the above. My personal preference is for snoods most often, hats and wigs occasionally. Amusingly, I wore a wig yesterday (the kerfuffle didn't hit L.A. until today), but not today -- but not because I knew anything before I got to school.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
No one I know has been burning their wigs; they just haven't been wearing them until the situation is resolved and everything is figured out, as directed by most of the big Rabbanim. If you know that the wig does not contain Indian hair, than it's obviously not a problem, but with many wigs, it's not certain. There are several Rabbis who just traveled to India to try to figure out the situation, so I'm sure that within a week or so everyone will know which brands are okay, and it'll probably be most of them, but right now, most of the major Rabbanim are saying that wigs should not be worn unless you're sure that they're not made from Indian hair. Obviously, there are differences of opinion, but I just double-checked with my brother (he just got back from yeshiva, and they're always up on the latest news) and that's what he said. My brother was actually surprised to hear that R' Dovid Feinstein didn't agree; he says he'll get someone from yeshiva to call him tomorrow morning to ask about that.
In any case, this confusion is just temporary, while the Rabbis figure out what the situation really is.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Wow.
Okay, what's a snood?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
A snood is sort of a net mesh sorta thing that covers the hair, or like a silky clothy thingy wrap arounder...sorta...
Ill ask Rav Mordechai Willig (For the non-aggudah, lol); My good friend sells wigs in the five towns and brooklyn, ill ask her as well tommorow. By the way these things can cost in excess of 1000 dollars. Psycho...
I never understood wigs as a hair covering. Covering your hair is supposed to deter you from scandalous thoughts, thoughts that are arousing when you see a woman's hair. Wearing fake hair doesnt really do a good job of doing that. Doesnt Rav Ovadia Yosef not hold of wigs?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Armoth, some agree with you -- as you mentioned, various Sephardic authorities, like R' Ovadya Yosef among them. However, most see a big difference between a woman's natural hair and a wig -- regardless of how nice and/or expensive it may be.
As someone who can spot a wig (even a really good one) across a room, I tend to agree.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
A snood is made out of a nice cloth, of varying colors and designs, and is shaped like a... round bag? The opening is elasticized, so once you've put it on correctly, all your hair is inside of it, with the rim of the snood just covering the front and sides of your hairline. They actually look nice, if you're used to them, but people generally wear them inside their homes, though some do wear them outside as well.
I've managed to find a picture: click here to see one snood. More often, though, snoods are mostly black (at least when worn by women in their twenties) and the latest style has a smaller "bag" to it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, and I have a couple dozen snoods, and only three or four are black.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
wow.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, I guess I have about as many snoods as I have pairs of shoes. And for similar reasons.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Rivka's probably right about snood colors - I think it's just girls my age, or a couple years older than me, who wear mostly black. That's probably because girls my age tend to only wear snoods when at home, on Friday night, together with their robes (sort of like long, fancy dresses that are machine-washable and have zippers down the front) - and since the standard robe color is black, the snoods that I see people wearing are black as well. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It is also wise not to assume that as Brooklyn/Queens does, so does the world. There are some things that are very common in your neck of the woods and less so elsewhere. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
See, the only snoods I've actually seen are in the game.
And imagining those on YOUR head, rivka... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not so different. They are brightly colored, neh? Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
But those FACES o_O
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Like these? *giggle* Ok, those would look a bit odd on my head. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Nightmares, I tell you. Nightmares.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
I still can't get over the $1000 for a wig
But then again the most money I've -ever- spent on one piece of clothing would be much much less then $150 CAD. (Including shoes, dresses, etc.)
Maybe I'm just cheap
[ May 14, 2004, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Jaiden ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
So what's the problem with Indian wigs? The link requires a password, and I'm too lazy to look up my NYTimes account right now and sure don't want to get another account.
I personally do not wear a wig, but I am certain that many women in my community spend $1000 and upwards on wigs.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok, On the wig thing. I haven't read the "India" scandal either. But if the wig is made of real hair, does it have to be non-jewish hair? I mean could you get a wig made of your own hair? It seems wrong that you are having women grow and cut their hair to cover your own as far as modesty goes because those women would be comprimising their modesty for yours.
Doesn't make sense to me. I'm totally ok with the snood thing but this wig thing bothers me a lot.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok got into the article.
Is this quote true? I realize it is one persons opinion but I was under the impression that most of the time following a code of "modesty" generally meant NOT blending under many circumstances.
quote: "I would look funny," she said. "One of the goals of modesty is to blend. When you wear a snood on the subway, you never blend."
AJ
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The problem isnt hair from india per-se. Jews have a concept, that you cant get any use/pleasure out of anything used in the worship of a foreign god. In fact, now that most of the world has been worshiping the same monotheistic god, it has become less and less of a problem...except for Indians. Indians worship Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, and whole other set of gods. It is said, that one of the Indian gods when getting married to a mortal, they needed to borrow materials for the wedding to occur (I think). Indians are now paying their debt by donating their jewelry, clothing, and most importantly - their hair. Women and Men come to temples to "sacrafice" their hair in the service of their gods. This hair is then cleaned and shipped off to other countries to be used as wigs. Since this hair has been used in the service of foreign gods, it cannot be used by a Jew. Therefore, there is concern about this hair used in wigs.
I asked my friend's mom - she has no problem, her hair is all from Europe. I asked Rav Willig, and he said that Rav Elyashuv's psak was that if your hair is from India, you cant use your wig, and if you arent sure, you dont need to worry about it.
Oh and the blending quote? Nah, thats one person's personal thing. She doesnt want to look like an amish person, yet she wants to keep her religion's laws. So she wears a wig! Though I thought snoods are in... *shrug* lol You could say that a code of modesty is not to STRUT your stuff, but doesnt mean you have to hide in the shadows or blend...
[ May 14, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Armoth ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What about a wig made from your own hair? Are orthodox women allowed to cut their hair?
AJ
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
As far as I know, making a wig from your own hair would not be a problem.
And, YES, orthdox women are allowed to cut their hair.
The only exception is that Jews are not supposed to cut their hair during periods of mourning.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Oh and the blending quote? Nah, thats one person's personal thing. She doesnt want to look like an amish person, yet she wants to keep her religion's laws. So she wears a wig! Though I thought snoods are in... *shrug* lol
Whether or not snoods are "in" or "out" an orthodox woman may want to wear a wig so she doesn't stand out when she goes to work, for example.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Ironically, I just received the following email from a Jewish list I am on:
quote:FYI just heard this from my daughter
Rabbi Yosef Sholom Elyashiv, considered the top Halakhic [Jewish legal] authority in most religious Jewish circles, has added his name to those banning the use and benefit of all human hair wigs originating in India.
The decision is based on confirmed reports that human hair in India is often shaved off for the purpose of idol worship practices, and is afterwards sold to companies that manufacture wigs. Although there is no certainty that any specific Indian-made wig is made of hair used for idol-worship, the widespread practice there means that each individual wig involves at least a "possible" violation of the Torah ban on benefiting from idol worship, and may therefore not be used. Rabbi Elyashiv said that his ruling does not imply that wigs in general are appropriate as head-coverings, and that on this issue, each woman should follow her rabbis' instructions and her own family customs.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I want to start by highlighting one point which too many people (not here, so much as elsewhere) have forgotten in all the hysteria.
quote: (From Armoth's post) Rav Elyashuv's psak was that if your hair is from India, you cant use your wig, and if you aren't sure, you dint need to worry about it.
{from Ela's post) Rabbi Elyashiv said that his ruling does not imply that wigs in general are [in]appropriate as head-coverings, and that on this issue, each woman should follow her rabbis' instructions and her own family customs (emphases mine).
In other words -- and I have had this confirmed by several rabbis now -- if you already own a wig whose origins you do not know IT IS FINE.
Jaiden, I totally agree with you! I also don't buy expensive clothes/shoes. I'll be cheap right along with you.
AJ, the hair need not be from non-Jews. But saying that "It seems wrong that you are having women grow and cut their hair to cover your own as far as modesty goes because those women would be compromising their modesty for yours," is false -- the commandment to cover the hair applies only to married women who are Jewish. So it's hardly "compromising their modesty." Moreover, some single Jewish girls I know deliberately grow their hair long to cut and sell to people who make sheitels (wigs).
quote: I mean could you get a wig made of your own hair?
I have never asked for myself, and this would be the sort of thing that one would specifically ask the rabbi that one has chosen to follow; however, I had a friend in seminary who asked (she had a very unusual shade of red hair), and was told no. However, her sister has a similar shade, and they were told that hair from each could be used for a wig for the other.
[ May 14, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
Rivka, your post count is at an evil number! 6666
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
OK, here's a question: is a Jew allowed to own things that have been made from non-kosher animals? I ask because I'm a go player and I own a set of slate and clamshell stones. (This aside from concerns about over-harvesting large clams for such frivolous uses.)
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
You say the requirement (or custom?) to cover one's hair only applies to married Jewish women. What about a divorced or widowed Jewish woman? Would she be likely to continue to cover her hair? Would there be any social consequences for her if she decided not to continue covering it?
Also, I want to add my thanks to Rivka and the others for this thread... I appreciate you being willing to share your beliefs with us.
[ May 14, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: maui babe ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
To Mike: Yes, jews are allowed to own things made from non kosher animals (except for some few things like certain fats, and some obscure body parts which i dont know off hand, and rarely come as a problem). Jews use footballs, and leather, all kindsa things. The problem is eating them.
And Secondly (To Maui:), to answer, you must understand the reason they are supposed to cover their hair. A man is NOT allowed to sleep with a married woman. It is one of the gravest of sins. Therefore, to ease a man's desire, married woman are moreso required to dress modestly when they are out of the house. Unmarried women while remaining modest, can still let their beauty show and have their hair uncovered. Remember they ARE trying to get married. Theyre not gonna walk around in veils the whole time ;-). So, I dont think a widow needs to cover her hair. She still might out of habbit.
[ May 14, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Armoth ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
FWIW, I wear scarves to shul. All of them are black. I have cotton, wool, and synthetic ones for non-holidays and a lacy one for holidays, weddings, etc. I'm wearing a black cottone one with white and caramel candlewicking right now as I'm fixing to leave for shul momentarily (have to be there early today. Silk ones slip right off of my head.
I'll probably get a snood one of these days, though.
I was very excited to cover my hair for the first time after I got married, btw.
Shabbat Shalom, y'all.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Good shabbos, we're doing early shabbos here too. Hate to be eating dinner at 9:45, ya know?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Mike, what Armoth said. I have some seashell necklaces, I once owned a snakeskin wallet -- never tried to eat either of 'em, though.
quote: You say the requirement (or custom?) to cover one's hair only applies to married Jewish women. What about a divorced or widowed Jewish woman? Would she be likely to continue to cover her hair? Would there be any social consequences for her if she decided not to continue covering it?
quote: Also, I want to add my thanks to Rivka and the others for this thread... I appreciate you being willing to share your beliefs with us.
quote: I'm wearing a black cotton one with white and caramel candlewicking
Pretty! Sounds a bit like one I used to have.
quote: I was very excited to cover my hair for the first time after I got married, btw.
Yeah, it was quite a thrill for me too.
Ah, Pacific time. Still barely 4 here! Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Personally, I wear hats to synagogue and religious functions. I like the way I look in hats, and they protect me from the Florida sun. Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
quote: A man is NOT allowed to sleep with a married woman. It is one of the gravest of sins.
I hope you mean a man is not allowed to sleep with a married woman who is not his own wife.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mean could you get a wig made of your own hair? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never asked for myself, and this would be the sort of thing that one would specifically ask the rabbi that one has chosen to follow; however, I had a friend in seminary who asked (she had a very unusual shade of red hair), and was told no. However, her sister has a similar shade, and they were told that hair from each could be used for a wig for the other.
Some Rabbis do allow a woman to make a wig out of her own hair.
[ May 16, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe it, Ela. As I said, this is definitely an AYLR question.
(AYLR = Ask Your Local Rabbi)
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Okay, I have to admit that I have only read the first page of this thread, but I'm betting no one else has asked this question.
It is the 50th Anniversary of Brown vs. the Board of Education today (...I think - CNN is doing a special on it tonight, and there was all sorts of stuff about it this weekend) and so all weekend long there were long coversations about black education by mostly black panelists. One theme that popped up more than once was that African Americans have possibly developed a culture of anti-intellectualism.
My question is this: has the Jewish religion developed a culture of pro-intellectualism? My only experience with this is through movies and books and hearing a lot about Jews studying the Torah and the other books and needing to learn Hebrew for Temple and for their bar and bat mitzvahs, etc. And movies where Jewish people sit around after/during dinner discussing certain scripture passages and what they mean. Not to say that I think all Jewish families do this - I have no idea.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok that makes sense, that is a married, not married thing, and that it only applies to Jews so if you were only under the Noach Laws it doesn't matter. So it wouldn't matter if you did buy hair from another married woman as long as it wasn't offered in any sort of idolatrous sacrifice before hand.
Thanks for the clarification. You are awesome experts!
AJ
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Armoth:"you must understand the reason they are supposed to cover their hair. A man is NOT allowed to sleep with a married woman. It is one of the gravest of sins. Therefore, to ease a man's desire, married woman are moreso required to dress modestly when they are out of the house."
Really? Where is it written that this is the reason? Or is it written at all?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: My question is this: has the Jewish religion developed a culture of pro-intellectualism?
No, in that you're assuming that there is a single homogeneous Jewish culture, which is far from true. Intellectualism is admired and presented as a goal to children more in some segments than in others. And it is a cultural issue, not really a religious one.
Glad we were able to clear things up for you, AJ.
quote: Armoth:"you must understand the reason they are supposed to cover their hair. A man is NOT allowed to sleep with a married woman. It is one of the gravest of sins. Therefore, to ease a man's desire, married woman are moreso required to dress modestly when they are out of the house."
Really? Where is it written that this is the reason? Or is it written at all?
I can just about guarantee that it's in the Gemara, and probably in the Mishna (the two make up the Talmud, and the Gemara is an explanation of the very succinct Mishna). Now, I have never taken any classes in Gemara, but if I had to guess, it would be somewhere in the Tractate Nashim. I can find out definitively, if you wish.
If you are asking for a citation out of Tanach (what you would call the Old Testament), there may or may not be one, although there certainly are some allusions. Jews consider both the Written Law and Oral Law (which became the Talmud) to be binding.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Its definatly in seder nashim. Yeah, Rivka is right its in the talmud. It is an issue of tzniut, so it might actually be in tractate nidah. I can find out for sure tommorow.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oops. Mixed up seder (Order) and Tractate (mesechet). Sorry -- translation issue. My bad.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Masechet nidah is in Seder Teharot, not Nashim btw. But you may be right, it has a high probabilitiy of being in Nashim.
[ May 18, 2004, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Armoth ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I can't remember who had asked me a while ago about online resources to learn Hebrew -- I think it might have been a couple people.
Anyway, I though I'd pass along info from one of my other boards about a great (FREE! ) resource.
quote: Yahoo's SelfStudyHebrew group will be starting a new round about the beginning of May, using Weingreen's "Practical Grammar of Classical Hebrew" as a text. If you're interested, join the group (groups.yahoo.com/group.SelfStudyHebrew) and look there for details. (Note the focus is on grammar, and translation from Hebrew to English; you'll also build up some vocabulary as you go. It will not teach you modern conversational Hebrew; there's another subgroup there using a different textbook, Hayesod, which is better for that, and there might be a new round of that starting later.)
quote: June 1, 2004 Orthodox Jews Worry Water Isn't Kosher By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:21 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (AP) -- A glassful of cold New York City tap water not kosher? It may be true -- and just in case, restaurants and bakeries operated under Orthodox Jewish law were advised Tuesday to use filters that can ensure water purity.
The problem: tiny harmless creatures called copepods. The little organisms are crustaceans and therefore not considered kosher.
As stores in heavily orthodox Brooklyn reported a run on water filters and rabbis considered whether additional measures were necessary, the Central Rabbinical Council issued its edict for businesses.
``We have given out a ruling that they should filter their water,'' said the council's Rabbi Yitzchok Glick. ``We are still in the middle of deliberations about exactly the issues and the Jewish law.''
Under Jewish law, the eating of crustaceans -- aquatic animals with skeletons outside their bodies, including shrimp, crabs and lobsters -- is barred.
Rabbi Abraham Zimmerman, of the Orthodox Satmar sect, said the recent discovery of the copepods was a small hardship, but he called on the city to help in making its water kosher.
``We hope the city will do something to purify and filter the water to accommodate a few hundred thousand Orthodox, observant Jews,'' Zimmerman said.
But the Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the reservoirs, said that the copepods are impossible to do away with and that they deliver health benefits to the reservoir.
``When it comes to delivery, if there is a spike and you are not comfortable with what you see in your water, all we can recommend is a commercial filter, which will effectively filter them out,'' DEP spokesman Charles Sturcken said.
Another Brooklyn rabbi, of the Lubavitcher group, said many religious leaders were advising their Orthodox followers to buy water filters if they can.
For those who can't afford filters, the water can be run through a double cloth to remove the copepods, Zimmerman said.
The problem became known only two weeks ago in another dispute over kosher product.
An Israeli company was accused by some customers of selling vegetables contaminated with insects, a violation of kosher laws. The company insisted the bugs were introduced when the vegetables were washed in New York.
Several Orthodox Jews then put the city's tap water under a microscope, turning up the millimeter-long creatures. The ensuing flap was particularly surprising, given New York's reputation for great-tasting water.
A recent Zagat survey found that seven out of 10 New York diners preferred tap to bottled water.
City officials were adamant that the creatures posed no threat to anyone's physical health, although the mental well-being of the Orthodox community was another matter.
``Pertaining to households, if they have to filter the water, we don't have an exact ruling at this point,'' said Glick.
The article as it appears online is not the same article by Michael Brick which I read in my delivered paper last night, unfortunately, cause I liked that article better.
We are talking about zooplankton, here, microscopic organisms.
According to Jonanthon Cohen, a Duke University student who is writing a doctoral dissertation on these creatures and was quoted in Brick's article, "If you take a gulp of water you might get a couple. But it's not like you're ingesting thousands of them."
Michael Brick, in the article in my home-delivered paper goes on to ask, "What defines an insect? Does seeing one through a microscope constitute seeing one for the purposes of kosher law?"
Apparently, some are running out and buying filters, and others are taking a wait and see attitude.
Personally, I really think you can make yourself too crazy.
I agree with a Laser Shum, of Midwood, Brooklyn who who was also quoted in the article. He still drinks the tap water, and said, "If you take a microscope, you'll see a lot of things you don't want to see."
That sounds like sense, to me. Even filtered, distilled water can have microorganisms in it.
So, rivka, what do you think? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rivka,
I has a question about the preparation of kosher food for guests by non-Jews (or Jews that don't keep kosher).
It's relatively straightforward to buy kosher ingrediants, especially around here. Having done that, what must be done to ensure the meal that's prepared is kosher? I know about not mixing meat and dairy, and I could use disposable dishes for broiling meat. What other preparation issues are there? Would an Orthodox person feel comfortable eating a meal if I outlined how it was prepared, or would they still want to bring prepared foods?
Dagonee PS, I'd use a water filter, too.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, be very careful about the meat and dairy; you ideally need separate silverware and plates, and you shouldn't use the same burner/oven to cook both for the same meal. Also, don't use the same implements to cook both. I'm sure it can get even more complicated than this, but I know these are some of the things my girlfriend did/supervised at her previous job.
My girlfriend always had fun dealing with the 2 separate kitchens at the MIT Hillel (one dairy, one meat).
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Knew about the silverware and plates, didn't know about the separate burners (although I assumed a grill would be a problem if it were ever used for cheeseburgers). How do people who keep Kosher deal with rental units where the previous occupant surely cooked meat and dairy on the stove? Do they not rent, or is there a way to "reset" the kitchen to make it OK?
Are paper plates and disposable utensils OK? I think the easiest thing would be to keep a spare grill around that's never used for anything but meat, and serve everything on Chinette. But I don't know if there are requirements for blessing the kitchen or anything like that.
Dagonee Edit: I guess I'm looking for the least complicated way to prepare and serve a kosher meal for guests.
[ June 02, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Dag, I would suggest that you ask your guests what would be acceptable to them and what they will need, as different Jews have different criteria on what they would consider acceptable.
[ June 02, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, it's hypothetical for now - my interest is as much culinary as cultural/religious. Would anyone here mind saying what they would find acceptable or not? At least then I'd know I'm proposing something reasonable to the guests, and not ignoring some basic requirement I don't know about.
Dagonee
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Ela -
You wrote that "We are talking about zooplankton, here, microscopic organisms." In the article, the bugs are described as "millimeter-long creatures." I hate to break it to you, but millimeter-long is not microscopic. Of course if the bugs were really microscopic they wouldn't be an issue; that's a given. The problem is that they're actually fairly big, considering. My brother mentioned, I think, that if the bugs can be seen by the ordinary eye after being magnified only 3X, then it counts as a "bug" (or crustaceans in this case) and therefore cannot be eaten.
Dagonee - Are you Jewish? Because if you're not, than you can't cook the meal altogether, unless you can find a friendly neighborhood Jew to turn on the fire for you.
That aside....
Well, first of all, you wouldn't be allowed to use pots that had ever been used before. You can get disposable grills for very little, though, if you were so inclined. If you somehow had Kosher pots, using the stovetop for either milk or meat (though not both at the same time, of course)wouldn't be a problem, so long as you first left the fire (or electricity) on at the highest temperature possible for about five minutes or so first. (That's what my family does when we use a rental unit.) To make your oven kosher, theoretically, you'd have to clean it out throughly and then put it on the self-cleaning cycle overnight. A grill that was used for nothing but meat wouldn't be good enough; it would have had to have been used for only Kosher meat; again, a disposable grill (those aluminum pan grills) would be the best bet. As I think you know, the utensils would all have to be new as well, and obviously you couldn't use the same for milk and meat.
All that said, most Orthodox Jews are very, very careful about what they eat, so even if you tried to accomodate them, they wouldn't be willing to eat food that you had cooked. However, if you provided all the appropriate disposable utensils and so forth, they'd probably be willing to cook the food themselves at your house rather than bringing it along with them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee - Are you Jewish? Because if you're not, than you can't cook the meal altogether, unless you can find a friendly neighborhood Jew to turn on the fire for you.
Really? A Jewish person has to light the fire? I'd never heard that before. That's why I asked.
The rest pretty much goes along with my expectations - the disposable mini-grill is pretty much what I was thinking.
The part about running the stove and oven to clean it is interesting, too. I knew there had to be some way to accomodate rentals and such.
Thanks for the great info. It looks like a mini do-it-yourself grilling party is the only feasible way to handle this.
I'm assuming someone who chooses to follow these rules is used to helping hosts provide for them properly. I can't imagine an Orthodox Jew shy about explaining the requirements could ever spend the night with friends.
Dagonee Edit: I just realized I breezed past part of Ela's earlier post - I would of course ask a guest what they would be comfortable with.
[ June 02, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Reader, I hate to break it to you, but the creatures can't be seen with the naked eye. probably not even if magnified 3x.
[ June 02, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ela, if they are "millimeters long," they would be visible -- although likely not discernible as insects/crustaceans/whatever. My understanding has always been that microscopic critters were not an issue (otherwise I have some bad news about diatoms ); however, I think that is the precise issue that has to be resolved: whether these are microscopic or visible.
If I lived in NY, and/or were told by my rav to use a filter, I would do so -- it's not that difficult, and I use a filter for drinking water (for taste reasons) anyway. But it would be more in the nature of a precaution than anything else.
Dagonee, reader outlined the issues pretty well, I think. (Although I differ on a few details: I'd heat burners for 15 minutes, and ovens with a real self-cleaning cycle (defined as going above a certain temperature for a minimum time) needn't be cleaned beforehand. Those that lack the cycle (like mine ) do need thorough cleaning, and then to be turned as high as they go for 1-2 hours, not overnight.)
quote: I'm assuming someone who chooses to follow these rules is used to helping hosts provide for them properly. I can't imagine an Orthodox Jew shy about explaining the requirements could ever spend the night with friends.
Absolutely.
[ June 02, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh well. If it helps, I only use Hebrew National hot dogs.
Dagonee
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
rivka, I believe they are a millimeter or less long, according to the article I read, not "millimeters" long.
I do believe that people can make themselves too crazy, though if they are concerned, they could certainly start filtering their water.
I have no plans of discontinuing to drink NYC water when I visit. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I heard those aren't Kosher. o_O
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Really? They have the circled K on them (or did last time I checked, which was years ago). I'd be reallly upset if they've become non-Kosher at some point in the near past. Even though I just buy them because they taste best.
[ June 02, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dagonee, contrary to HN's (very annoying!) ads, they are NOT kosher -- at least not by Orthodox standards. (Triangle K is not reliable -- again, by Orthodox standards.)
Ela, I don't know. I just heard about this five minutes ago! I didn't say I wouldn't drink NY water anymore -- I would, unless I were specifically told by my rav not to. OTOH, if all that is required to alleviate the doubt is a filter, I would use one in my own home. Wouldn't feel the need to bring one with me everywhere I went, though.
[ June 02, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then they're flat out lying - they claim to be certified by Triangle and Associates. Or is triangle K not reliable?
By the way, I'm just really curious about all this, since I'm going through a cooking phase right now and have always been interested in Judaism. I hope these questions don't seem disrespectful at all. They're not meant to be.
Dagonee
[ June 02, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Dag, Hebrew National are not considered kosher by any of the orthodox Jews I know. We don't eat them either. Shofar franks aren't kosher either.
rivka, yes, I agree with your last post about the water. Except that I might not go to the extent of using a filter, if I lived in NY, probably I wouldn't - though I would consult with my rabbi, of course. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dagonee, not at all!
As far as the triangle-K's site, I find many of their statements to be misleading at best. And they don't know the difference between "it's" and "its"!
*checks* Ok, apparently the triangle-K has only been supervising them since February of this year, so I guess it's an improvement from having NO supervision. I still would not eat 'em.
Triangle K is not really considered a reliable kashrut supervision by many orthodox Jews, so, again, you would have to ask the Jews who are eating the products.
Our rabbi in NJ did not trust them, and we avoid their products, especially since there are so many with a more reliable supervision to be found.
Edit: Actually, I remember finding out that Hebrew National hotdogs were supervised by Triangle K - my hubby and I were investigating which kosher hotdogs we could get. He said the same as rivka - he still wouldn't eat them.
[ June 02, 2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow, this is so interesting. A subject that appeals to my inquisitive religious nature, my culinary aspirations, and my lawyer mind.
Like you said, I'll just ask the guest if this ever comes up. Hot dogs are a cop out anyway.
Do people view the Hebrew National brand practices as dishonest, or just a different tradition?
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know the current specifics as to HN -- or any Tri-K-supervised product, actually. (Oh, except for Motts' apple-juice.) However, the before-February issues with HN were (AFAIK):
Rabbinic "supervision" amounted to an ingredient check -- and nothing else.
Said check was done ONCE, and never repeated or updated.
Even after the "supervising" rabbi's death, the product continued to bear the claim of his supervision for some time. (months? years? I don't know.)
As far as the Tri-K (and other unreliable supervisions) go, the possible issues (and as I said, I don't know which are specific to them) include:
Mashgichim not properly trained and/or not considered attentive enough to various (or specific) issues.
Not enough mashgichim, and therefore no way that they are checking the supervised plants on a regular basis.
Reliance on various ingredients, leniencies in applying certain rules, taking leniencies that applied in specific circumstances and applying them in different circumstances.
For more details of the laws of kashrus (or kashrut, if one prefers that pronunciation) and their commercial applications, look here, here, and here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, I don't want to support a company that engages in fraudulant practices, even if they're hot dogs are yummy and even if I don't care about the particular attribute of their product they're lying about.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, I'm not comfortable saying that they quite meet the definition of fraudulent. Misleading, yes, definitely. Deliberately so? Hard to know. Fraudulently so? I don't think I would want to have to make that case. Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Ela - I just wanted to point out that if the bugs were actually a millimeter long, they'd definitely be visible. A millimeter is a measurement on most rulers, and is actually of some significant size. Even if the bugs are only a fifth of a millimeter long, they'd still be visible under strong lighting. To be honest, though, I have no idea what size the bugs actually are - I took the millimeter measurement straight from the article you linked to. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have no opinion of the kosher-ness of NYC drinking water (um..not Jewish), but I just wanted to compliment rivka on her delightful exclamation points. Copepods! indeed.
I love this thread. Fascinating. Thank you to every participant. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
reader, thanks for your explanation of what you meant. I had the impression, from reading the article I have an hand (not the AP one posted online) that these particular copepods are not visible to the naked eye. But since the NY Times online didn't post the story of its own writer that appeared in the print version of the paper, you wouldn't be able to know that unless you had read the NY Times article yourself. I admit I didn't read the online version that carefully.
Great links, rivka. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Oh, and Dag, with regard to the Triangle K issue, my rabbi particularly cited rivka's second point:
quote:Not enough mashgichim, and therefore no way that they are checking the supervised plants on a regular basis.
I wouldn't call it intentional fraud, by any stretch of the imagination. It's a question of what a given Jew is able to accept in terms of how careful the supervision is. And I would definitely want more careful supervision where meat products are involved.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreed, Ela. Although this paragraph (among others) is at best misleading.
quote: The Triangle symbol is a patented and trademarked logo that signifies "kashruth" (kosher) as defined by the most stringent Jews who follow Orthodox Jewish Law. Kosher certification with the Triangle means that a product is certified kosher and recognized as such. The organization offers it's rabbinical supervision and certification on any ingredient or product that meets the strictest criteria of what makes such items kosher. Triangle is a symbol of integrity representing the most trusted and reliable name in strict rabbinical food certification and supervision. (emphases mine)
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Yeah, I noticed that paragraph on the site, too, rivka. It made me raise my eyebrows to say the least.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Just for the record, the wig story surfaced in the Miami Herald today.
Apparently, two local orthodox rabbis and an ultra-orthodox Lubavitch (Hasidic) rabbi said women don't have to get rid of their wigs.
quote: South Florida's Orthodox rabbis seem willing to accept Indian wigs pending further evidence.
''We made some investigations,'' said Rabbi Neal Turk of Miami Beach's Beth Israel, a 225-family congregation in which, he said, perhaps half the women cover their hair.
According to Turk, Hindu scholars say that Hindu women cutting their hair is ``not a form of worship.''
Yael Putney of Miami Beach worried that three of her five wigs ``would be at issue. I was particularly concerned about one I paid a lot of money for . . . So I do what I always do: go online, and oh indeed, there was a controversy.''
Putney, 53, called her rabbi, Avika Stolper of congregation Ohr Chaim, who told her to keep wearing her wigs.
This is not the first time the wig issue has surfaced, said Rabbi Turk, noting that while Jewish law never changes, rabbis must interpret it in contemporary contexts.
But his opinions have had little impact in the Lubavitch community, which takes its cues from its own leaders. They decided that ''based on Jewish law, you don't have to get rid of the wigs,'' said Rabbi Joseph Korf of Hollywood's Community Synagogue Chabad Lubavitch.
I thought the concurring conclusions of these 3 different rabbis was interesting. Interesting, too, that the story made the news so much after the original NY Times story.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:At issue, said the rabbi, is whether the organisms develop in the water or can exist separately from it. If they are capable of leaving the water they would be considered prohibited for consumption.
This is what I've always liked about Judaism - the incredible amount of energy spent by believers to do their best to follow God's commands. Some people view statements like the one above as legalistic or nit-picking, but I think the analysis that goes into such decisions is the hallmark of people who earnestly want to do the right thing. After all, some decision has to be made, and the decision has to be based on both the original text (the statutes, if you will) and the interpretations of the text over the centuries.
This kind of thinking is actually aesthetically pleasing to me.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There is a kind of logic in the fact that someone who finds the study of law (and laws) intriguing would also be intrigued by the Jewish Talmudic tradition. As more than one person has said, the Talmud is essentially a (very long! ) law book, citing case law and related reasoning.
I know at least three men who are both rabbis (in the congregational and/or decision-making sense) and practicing lawyers. And another who is not a lawyer, but teaches at a law school.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Do most local congregations hold Talmudic or Torah study classes that are open to the public? IF so are there fees involved? I have a possible interest into looking into one, as I find this all fascinating and would love to sit in on a class where these texts are studied and commented on in this context.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Do most local congregations hold Talmudic or Torah study classes that are open to the public?
Yes, many do.
quote: IF so are there fees involved?
Varies a LOT -- some are sponsored by an individual or organization and are free, some cost money (anywhere from a pittance to quite a bit).
Let me see what's in your area (assuming your profile is correct) . . .
ROFL! You're 20-30 minutes from Lakewood! Ok, but that won't necessarily do much in terms of classes aimed at beginners.
Let's see, there's a place in Marlboro, NJ (that seems to be not too far?) that seems to have Talmud classes Tuesday nights. And here is one that seems to sometimes offer classes, right in your township. Both are Conservative, not Orthodox, just FYI.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I knew Lakewood was a major Jewish community, but I didn't know it was that well known
I had seen the B'Nai Israel site, but noted that it appeared to be out of date (and designed and maintained by a 16 year old girl). I guess just calling would probably be the best way to get info.
Thanks!
[ June 24, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
Often, the Chabad House has lots of free classes. And they seem to be everywhere.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*grin* Yeah, but the Chabad in Taal's township seems to be a bitty place. He's helping me figure out which other Chabads in NJ are near him. (Teaneck, for example has one with lots of classes, but that's FAR.)
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
I get at least 2-3 pieces of mail a week from the Chabad House after I attended one workshop. They are as close to missionaries as Judiasm gets.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Dear Rebbetzin,
I have been wondering about this. If Kerry is elected, will he be the first Jewish president?
It was fairly recently revealed to Kerry that his background is not, in fact, Irish Catholic(on his father's side), but Austrian-Jewish. Would that make him a Jewish president? Even though he is Catholic?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Short answer: No, because his mother is not Jewish.
Longer answer: About a year ago, it seemed like ALL the Democratic candidates were Jewish. (Or maybe that's Jewish-ish. ) Anyway, except for Lieberman, none of them actually were. Interesting that so many have Jewish relatives, though.
[edit: stupid link won't work, has been banished]
[ July 01, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...I have Jewish relatives.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*twinkle* Feel like going into politics?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Kerry actually stopped marching in the Holyoke St. Pat's parade when he found out he wasn't Irish.
Is it still based on the mother, then? Is that religiously based, or culturally based?
I like Jewishish. But wouldn't that be Jewishishim?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Is it still based on the mother, then? Is that religiously based, or culturally based?
Depends who you ask. (Also, Reform goes by the father too, sometimes -- nfl explained that a few pages back, I think.)
I would say that it is an inherent difference, a matter of religious Law and spiritual fact. Naturally, since this is a long-standing issue, there is a cultural component as well.
quote: I like Jewishish. But wouldn't that be Jewishishim?
*grin* I wasn't pluralizing -- I was adjectivizing. Blue-ish = sorta blue; Jewish-ish = kinda Jewish
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Oh! I thought the "im" was to say "person." Like we use "man" or "woman" at the end of words
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"-im" is the pluralization of masculine nouns (well, except the irregulars), as "-ot" (or "-os," depending on accent) is the pluralization of the feminine ones. So kitah (class) becomes kitot and cheder (room) becomes chadarim.
There are several words for "person" in Hebrew -- among them eesh, anash, adam -- but I can't think of any suffixes which mean that.
[ July 01, 2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Is there any connection with the word "adam" for person, and Adam, Eve's mate?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sure is. He was the first man, so his name is simply "Man." (Women are more complex, so Eve -- or in Hebrew, Chava -- does not simply mean "Woman." )
Pronunciation is different than an English-speaker might expect, though. In Hebrew, it's not AAA-dum, it's ahh-DAHM.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
::bump::
Hey rivka, I've noticed that a lot of Jewish people write "G-d" or "G*d" when referring to their deity. I rarely see Christians do that. I think it has to do with respect, possibly not taking His name in vain. The only thing that I don't get is that, as I understand things, that isn't actually the Judeo-Christian deity's name. Can you help alleviate my confusion?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think it was mentioned earlier, but it has to do with the sacredness and power of God's name. Many Bible stories show how the power of God is used by invoking His name.
Therefore, if one were to write (or type on the internet, and then print it out) God's name, that provides a certain amount of power to people not exactly looking out for your (Jewish) best interests.
There's more to it, so I'll let an actual Jew explain it
-Bok
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I can understand that, but I'm still confused because the way it was explained to me, "God" isn't God's name.
Edit: Ah, I see. I posted this before adam's post. Thanks, adam.
[ October 13, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
So, is the extension to the English word sort of a "just in case"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hmm. I disagree with Bok's answer, actually. While we are careful not to use His names in vain, it is an issue of respect and sacredness -- not power.
As far as Adam's answer, I mostly agree with his first post. Not so much his last one, though.
The thing is, it's not just the Tetragrammaton that should only be written/spoken under certain circumstances. It's any of His names. (Although the Tetragrammaton is used far more rarely and carefully, being the holiest of His names.) That would be why, even when I transliterate the more commonly used Names, I use an alternate, not-quite-the-real-thing, pronunciation. (For example, Elokim. If I were using the same Hebrew word -- not to refer to God -- in the phrase "other gods," I would write it (or say it) as the word really is, elohim acherim.)
quote: As you can see from this post, I only worry about it in Hebrew. Why? Because, as pointed out in the original question, the word "God" is generic; it doesn't specifically refer to the god with a four-letter name.
I agree, and so do many others; but some people feel that ANY name assigned by people to God should not be written casually. For them, it's not "just in case" -- they consider it a (lesser, for they will speak the word) name of His.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*puts a fence around adam* Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
OK, I get it now. By the way, how is the word adonai pronounced? I've heard people say either ä-do-"nI or ä-d&-"noi.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know phonetic symbols. ah-DOUGH-nie
Ah! I just figured out what you wrote! The other is correct as well -- if one speaks with a Hungarian accent.
[ October 13, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Interesting. I've heard two rabbis and a cantor say the word and they both say "ah-dohn-EYE" but Juliette's whole family says "ah-duh-NOI." In both cases the emphasis on the last syllable is pretty slight. [Edit: The emphasis might also be different from usual because every time I've heard it it's either been sung or chanted.] [Edit 2: I believe Juliette's family is mostly German and Polish.]
Another question: Is it OK for non-Jews to celebrate Jewish holidays? Or to sing a prayer in Hebrew on holidays or Shabbat?
[ October 13, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I stand corrected as well
I wonder if the "Adonoi" inflection is some Yiddish influence?
As for observing holidays, it depends on the strictness of the synagogue. For Orthodox and most Conservative ones, I'd guess not. As for Reform, I have been to bar-mitzvahs, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur Kol Nidre (as well as the last service of Yom Kippur, which I forget the name of). I've done the Friday night dinners with blessings more times than I can count, I've celebrated Passover with a Seder or 3, as well as Hannukah. Haven't gone to Sukot or Purim. I would guess Reconstructionist would be similar to Reform.
I will recite along with the more generic English sections, but remain quiet for the Hebrew and any parts that explicitly beseech on behalf of the Hebrew people. Mostly out of respect, and I feel weird pretending to recite as someone I'm not.
Posted by GaalD (Member # 6222) on :
I go to Chabad which is very Orthodox, and on my Bar Mitzvah and plenty of others I've seen at my shul had non-Jews attending.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Is it OK for non-Jews to celebrate Jewish holidays? Or to sing a prayer in Hebrew on holidays or Shabbat?
For the most part, yes. A more detailed explanation, from here:
quote: Now, about holidays and what a Noachide can do. In addition to following the very concrete 7 categories of laws, the Noachide can do many things. Let me mention, before I start, that many Christians only celebrate Christmas and Easter, as well as national non-religious holidays. Most Muslims only have Ramadan and national non-religious holidays. Are they therefore deprived? I do not think such Christians and Muslims would say so. Yes, you may say, but there is also their sabbath. True, but a Noachide too can celebrate Shabbat, provided he or she does not do so in the way Jews do. One can do most of it, but leave out on[e] mitvah. For example, one can spend Shabbat in prayer and rest, but the rest should not be as Jews do. I know of no Christian who abstains from turning lights on and off on their sabbath. Does that make the sabbath any less meaningful as a day of rest to them? I think not. So, on Shabbat, study (I always study on Shabbat), read, say psalms, read the Genesis stories about creation and the day of rest, dig into them, learn from them, and thus commemorate the day of rest.
Celebrate Sukkot (as R. Katz said, it is for everyone), repent every day and every new month (Jews are not confined to Yom Kippur in our repentance). Sing psalms and songs of praise to HaShem -- it is not necessary to sing these in Hebrew, nor are you restricted in what melody you can use. Some of my favorite Jewish songs of praise were written fairly recently. Praise of G-d is not restricted to the siddur, Jew and Noachide alike can pray spontaneously, and sing unto the L-RD a new song...just keep idolatry out of it, of course :-) Celebrate Independence Day, Thanksgiving, or other national secular holidays. Celebrate the history of your particular culture. But keep your mind and will on following G-d's will in all things. Noachism, like Judaism, demands that G-d's will be followed not only in worship, but in business, in public interactions. Honor your parents, as Noachides have long ago accepted that mitvah upon themselves.
I know a number of non-Jews who regularly eat Shabbos meals (do they attend services before? I believe some do) in Orthodox homes. I can't imagine anyone saying it would be forbidden for a non-Jew to keep Jewish holidays, no matter how non-liberal Orthodox (to borrow adam's description); however, there is a requirement that it not be exactly as a Jew would. (On Shabbos, for example, the minimum difference would be to violate a single Shabbos prohibition -- such as turning on a light.)
quote: the last service of Yom Kippur, which I forget the name of
Ne'ilah.
As for as the ay/oy pronunciation (and it holds true for ALL Hebrew words with a "ay" sound), I am sure that Yiddish does affect the pronunciation -- Hungarian Yiddish. (Which is somewhat different from Polish Yiddish, Russian Yiddish . . . ) I seem to recall that some percentage of Polish Jews (those from Galicia) have essentially the same accent as Hungarian Jews.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So do you use timers on the Sabbath? How do you cook? Has a power outage put all your timers out of sync?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: So do you use timers on the Sabbath?
Yes, I usually have several lights on timers.
quote: How do you cook?
I don't -- it's one of the Shabbos prohibitions. However, it is permitted to leave something "on the fire" (on a covered flame, in an over with a timer (or just left on), in a crockpot) if it is cooked beforehand.
quote: Has a power outage put all your timers out of sync?
Thankfully, only very rarely.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tell us about the unveiling. I hadn't heard of it until I was 30, and I was amazed at how different it sounded from normal stuff. Also, I think I was pregnant at the time so the tradition that prohibits an expectant mother from attending stuck out. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow I wish I'd known about this thread and the linked site two months ago. I'm most appreciative of all this information!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Saxon, the pronounciation in that case has to do with accent. I pronounce it with an "eye" sound while my four grandparents all originally from NYC and "New York" Jews will pronouce since it with an "oi" sound because of their New York accent.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Juliette's Jewish relatives are all either New Yorkers or first-generation New York emigrants.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
We put a hotplate on a timer for Shabbat to heat up certain types of foods. We leave some lights on (for example, kitchen or closet lights), use a few nightlights, and put some lights on timers.
We used to be subject to frequent power failures, and often ended up eating Friday night dinner by the light of the Shabbat candles.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Are you allowed to open and close the refrigerator (which has a light in it that turns on and off), or is that also not allowed?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I can't help it I like hypotheticals:
quote:(On Shabbos, for example, the minimum difference would be to violate a single Shabbos prohibition -- such as turning on a light.)
So what if someone is seriously considering converting to orthodox Judaism, and wishes to do so even after being appropriately discouraged? In learning about the lifestyle etc. Do they attempt to keep all of the laws and deliberately break one every day until they have officialy "converted"?
AJ
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Hi, rivka, long time no chat!
New question for you:
Does the feather used to clean the chummetz from your house on Pesach have to come from a kosher bird?
I know that must sound like a strange question but my roommate has lots of domesticated parrots .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Post-sundown Friday isn't the best time to post to this thread.
I'd reccomend bumping this Saturday night/Sunday morning.
Dagonee
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Oh, I knew she wouldn't answer me until tomorrow night, but she always checks back a few pages when she signs on again.
Since I started my Judaism class, my roommate and I often have good conversations on Shabbat and I thought it best to ask before I forgot.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Well....she *usually* does...
(bump) Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laugh* I just got online, Val!
I do not know the answer to this (fascinating!) question. My guess is that the answer is no, but I will ask and get back to you.
How ARE you, stranger?!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That's a good question.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I went sifting in this thread, looking for a link I knew was here somewhere . . . and discovered that I never got back to Val's question!
So, I asked. Absolutely, 100%, no problem with parrot feathers (or the feathers of any non-kosher bird). Actually, you can omit the feather altogether -- it's a custom, and something the kids usually have fun with -- not a required element.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Kids' fun is a major issue in the Sedder. The Gemarra (Pesachim sheet 114 page 2) states a whole issue about why do you have the blessing for the Karpas (part of the Sedder's routine). Reish Lakish says that it's so the younger ones will ask and be interested. "Stama DeGemara" (the Gemara's controversial persona) says that it's so for the babies (children) to inquire about, and then the story of Exodus is to be told. For half a frigging page there's this crazy [and impractical] discussion and finally the Gemara "wins" (without actually mentioning it in the Gemara, I had to check up in other law books to find out).
At this excessiveness, no other religion can compete with the Gemara. There was this story about some Rabbis discussing an issue. If there's a tree in one person's land, and a bird fell out of its nest and landed in another person's territory, who does it belong to? After several pages of discussion (I'd assume), a decision is made. Then comes one Rabbi and asks about what happens when one leg fell on this side and one on the other; he was kicked out of the meeting.
---
One other time a Rabbi (Rav Kahana) walked 13 years to Israel (after a page of background), and he went to a Yeshiva, where he studied with a greater Rabbi. He asked excessive questions and at the end the teacher stopped speaking to him because he was tired. Rav Kahana died of sorrow.
Naturally, the teacher went to his grave and saw a snake there. "Snake, snake", he called out. "I am his teacher; let me talk to him", and the snake didn't move. "Snake, snake", he called out again. "I am his companion, let me talk to him." And finally, "Snake, snake", he called out after nothing happened, "I am his student, let me in". The snake let him in and the Rabbi asked Rav Kahana to come bck to life and forgive him. Rav Kahana came back to life and forgave him.
BTW, I think it was Rav Kahana.
Aside that, does anyone know where these stories appear?
Jonathan
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Interesting question, adam. If you include such things as common (although not necessarily religious) Easter and Christmas celebrations, clearly there's at least one which does.
Jonathan, are you asking which daf they are on? Which volume?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Basically, rivka, yes. *Wink.*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
For that, you really need someone who has learned Gemara. And that would not be me. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
*bumped for Sid Meier*
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I was looking for this thread a few days ago. Down here in the South, a pastor generally refers to his congregation as brothers and sisters. I was wondering how the Kohen refers to his congregation. What's the traditional way to open a service?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I've never heard anyone use Cohen, except in the historical sense. Rabbi is usually used.
Can't answer your question though.
-Bok
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, why are we assuming the leader of the congregation is a Kohen?
Is he speaking Hebrew, Yiddish, English or some combination thereof? Is the congregation (and rabbi) Ashkenazi or Sephardi? Chassidish? Yekkish?
Is the service in question on a weekday, Sabbath, or holiday? Morning prayers, afternoon prayers, evening prayers?
When you say open the service, do you mean what prayer would they begin with? Or are you asking how a rabbi might start his speech (on those occasions that he gives one)?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
On page 6, Armoth had this to say:
quote: Rabbis are not part of ritual jewish practice nor are they necessary in the service of god. Rabbi is a educational/spiritual guide, not necessarily the leader of spiritual practices and rituals. The Torah designates the ritual practices in the temple to the Kohen (Priest).
From your reactions, I'm definately misinterpreting something.
The way I've always done it, Sunday morning we go to church and chat in the sanctuary before service starts. The pastor will get up and greet us so we know it's time to get started. Then we sing for a bit. Then the pastor gives a sermon. Then we sing a little more.
How does it basically work in a synagogue?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ahhhh. Ok, one of the most significant differences between Judaism and many other religions is that the focus of Judaism is NOT a house of worship. It is the home.
Even when the Temple was standing, and was the focus of certain things, each home was a "mikdash mi'at" -- a mini-Temple.
Accordingly, most religious observance requires no cleric -- rabbi or Cohen. Certain things do. In the case of those requiring a Cohen, many cannot be performed in the absence of a Temple. Cohanim (pl. of Cohen) still are important, and have certain duties, but they cannot bring sacrifices, for instance.
Congregations are generally guided by a rabbi (although not all rabbis are congregational rabbis), as well as various other people.
quote: The way I've always done it, Sunday morning we go to church and chat in the sanctuary before service starts. The pastor will get up and greet us so we know it's time to get started. Then we sing for a bit. Then the pastor gives a sermon. Then we sing a little more.
How does it basically work in a synagogue?
As I alluded to above, it matters a lot when we're talking about. But generally, there will be a time that the service in question starts. Assuming that 10 men are present at that time, the prayers will start (led by either a chazzan, or quite often simply led by one of the congregants). People will trickle in during the course of the prayers, catch up quietly, and join the group. Some parts will be said as a group, and some each person individually. Some parts are sung, or chanted. Some parts are responsive. Some are recited just by the person leading the prayers.
If it is a Sabbath or holiday, the rabbi (or perhaps someone else) will likely speak at some point, about halfway through. On those days there will also be a reading from the Torah and one from Nevi'im (on Mondays and Thursdays, just a short reading from the Torah).
After the services are over, on a weekday people will generally rush off (to work in the morning, to home in the evening). But on Shabbos and holidays, there will often be chatting and socializing (in some congregations, with food provided) for quite some time afterward.
Did that answer your question?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Kohens were the leaders of the Temple, capital-'T'. The one that was destroyed almost 2000 years ago. Temple more recently has become synonymous with synagogue, but nowadays a rabbi leads the congregation.
-Bok
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I think I've got it. Let me make sure, though.
A chazzan or one of the ten men present starts things off. Rabbis and Cohanim have specific duties that happen at certain times, but not necessarily every week. A service is largely responsive between the chazzan and the gathered congregation, but the rabbi also teaches.
Is that about right?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pretty much. Except that while the rabbi may not speak every week, NO congregational rabbi has an entire week go by without any duties. Far from it!
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Ok. Thanks!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*curious* Is there a particular reason this came up?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I wanted a bit in a story where a rabbi is addressing the congregation, but now it sounds like that wouldn't actually happen. If I wanted to go to a synagogue and see a service in action, would I need to get permission first, or could I just go?
It might sound like an odd question, but I know my teacher's mother-in-law once got thrown out of some kind of middle eastern church for holding her fingers wrong when she crossed herself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, rabbis address the congregation all the time. In some synagogues, ever Sabbath morning.
As far as visiting a synagogue, it shouldn't be a problem. You might want to call in advance, just to get some idea of the schedule and such. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Forgive me if this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but what is your beliefs on Gentiles attending seder? What about Gentiles holding seder- as happens at BYU with this guy who teaches ancient scripture? I mean, I was chasing a story that someone tried to contact the synagogue about and ran across the information and was briefly tempted to go but there is a certain ick factor for me (in the seder being held by BYU faculty.) I recalled that when I dropped out of religious school my senior year in HS because they were going to do a Seder. I mean, I had other problems/excuses but that was kind of the last straw. I didn't think it was right for Mormons to simulate a ritual sacred to Jews. (edit: removed offensive word)
[ April 22, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I see no problem with Mormon's or any other religion simulating a seder. Anything that teaches respect of other cultures/religions cannot be a bad thing. Now the Jews For Jesus holding seders trying to prove Passover symbolizes Jesus bugs me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I sort of agree and sort of disagree with Stephan. On the one hand, it is not my place to dictate what non-Jews do, so long as they are not harming us. I don't see the point of non-Jews making a seder (and people have tried to explain it to me, in this thread even), but that's hardly their problem. (Also, I don't think it is really what you mean when you say "sacred ritual" -- certainly I would never use those words to describe it.)
And unlike Shabbos, which is specifically a covenant between God and the Jews, there is no particular reason I know of for non-Jews to not be allowed to make a seder.
As far as inviting non-Jews to a seder, I have no problem with that in theory. And when the seder in question falls on Shabbos, there is no problem in practice either.
When it does not, however, there is a problem. I can invite non-Jews to a Shabbos meal, when I cannot do any cooking (on the Sabbath itself). Inviting them on a Yom Tov (holiday) (when it's not also Shabbos) can be problematic. I can cook for a Jew on a Yom Tov, but not for a non-Jew (if I cook for a group that has both, not generally a problem). And there is a concern that if I invite you, I will feel obligated to cook you something if you ask for it (cooking can involve such things as brewing tea, for instance).
Thus, educated ( ) non-Jews who wish to attend a meal at an Orthodox Jewish home on a Yom Tov know not to ask, "Can I join you?" Rather, they ask if you will be eating that meal at home. After all, if they invite themselves over (or just show up), I am less likely to feel the subtle pressure of being the host, and cook for them.
(And please be aware that Orthodox Jews generally find it objectionable to be referred to as "a sect.")
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Passover question. If I am both the oldest and youngest male Jew at the seder table, do I ask myself the 4 questions?
[ April 22, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Stephan - Yes, actually. You do. Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Mormons believe that they are Israelites, so celebrating Passover is a way of connecting with the Jews they view as brothers in my opinion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kenty? Is that you?
Wait, it can't be. Unless you learned Hebrew and I didn't know.
[ April 22, 2005, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Drat! reader got to answer that one first. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
A guy from another church bought some passover stuff today, so maybe I'm making too big a deal over this. It seemed like a peculiarly Mormon thing to do. I was asked to witness the Hametz sale by the Rabbi.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
You should be proud, mothertree.
I will be replacing rivka until Passover is over in the States. Please remember I'm not an expert, and suffer from the living-in-Israel phenomenon that Rabbi Professor David Hartman explains in Chapter I of his book "Israelis and the Jewish Tradition".
JH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What would that be?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, and does this mean that you're going to wash your hair for me now? *waits in anticipation*
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
That would be the situation of being stuck between tradition that's being forgotton here, and the Westernisation that's threatening and saving us contemporarily.
And no, I'm not washing your hair.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
That, of course, was your ultimate implication.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't want you to wash my hair. But if you're standing in for rivka, I want you to wash your hair, and I want to watch. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
You and rivka spend way too much time together.
[ April 25, 2005, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote:
quote: Do Jewish people eat babies like the Mormons do?
Zan, yes.
But only their own children or grandchildren (or cousins, nieces, etc.). They're so yummy, how could you help but eat them up?
I would like to state that rivka was a little unfair here. The baby-eating is an AMERICAN custom originating in the Dark Land of Burrow Park, spreading to Flatbush, where my great uncle lives (he can barely speak English, even after 40 years of living in the States. That's my ONLY connection to the States; although my cousin married an American...), then to the reast of the US.
Mormons stole that from the Jews. But here, in Israel, we don't like that custom, as we need as much manpower as possible. We do kill the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) kids, but just for fun. Again, you have a modern-Orthodox Jerusalemite speaking, one who prays in Shira Hadasha (if you know the schule, rivka).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: The baby-eating is an AMERICAN custom originating in the Dark Land of Burrow Park, spreading to Flatbush, where my great uncle lives (he can barely speak English, even after 40 years of living in the States. That's my ONLY connection to the States; although my cousin married an American...), then to the rest of the US.
*wince* That is not how you spell Boro Park. And I'll have you know that baby-nibbling is a venerable tradition that dates back at least to medieval Europe. And I think much farther.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Give it to him, rivka! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ew! He's much too old to nibble!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But he washes his hair reeeeal nice.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
kq, I think the time has come for Professional Help.
And I don't mean a hairdresser.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, like a cameraman to videotape the hair washing so you can get some rest. *nods sagely*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Kq, rivka's correct. You need help. I should have never started that thread.
I misspelled BP because it's like the Tetragrammaton - in reverse, at least for a modrn-Orthodox Atheist Jew who follows Hirsch and Rosen, while cursing at the existance of religion. It's a sad case, and a tough complex of sophisticated problems all blended together into a theological tangle.
JH
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Kq, rivka's correct. You need help. I should have never started that thread.
I misspelled BP because it's like the Tetragrammaton - in reverse, at least for a modrn-Orthodox Atheist Jew who follows Hirsch and Rosen, while cursing at the existance of religion. It's a sad case, and a tough complex of sophisticated problems all blended together into a theological tangle.
JH
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Kq, rivka's correct. You need help. I should have never started that thread.
I misspelled BP because it's like the Tetragrammaton - in reverse, at least for a modrn-Orthodox Atheist Jew who follows Hirsch and Rosen, while cursing at the existance of religion. It's a sad case, and a tough complex of sophisticated problems all blended together into a theological tangle.
JH
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Kq, rivka's correct. You need help. I should have never started that thread.
I misspelled BP because it's like the Tetragrammaton - in reverse, at least for a modrn-Orthodox Atheist Jew who follows Hirsch and Rosen, while cursing at the existance of religion. It's a sad case, and a tough complex of sophisticated problems all blended together into a theological tangle.
JH
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Kq, rivka's correct. You need help. I should have never started that thread.
I misspelled BP because it's like the Tetragrammaton - in reverse, at least for a modrn-Orthodox Atheist Jew who follows Hirsch and Rosen, while cursing at the existance of religion. It's a sad case, and a tough complex of sophisticated problems all blended together into a theological tangle.
JH
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Kq, rivka's correct. You need help. I should have never started that thread.
I misspelled BP because it's like the Tetragrammaton - in reverse, at least for a modrn-Orthodox Atheist Jew who follows Hirsch and Rosen, while cursing at the existance of religion. It's a sad case, and a tough complex of sophisticated problems all blended together into a theological tangle.
JH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What thread? I don't think I started this fetish in a thread you started...
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
<Removed inappropriate content.>
[ April 27, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
<Removed inappropriate content.>
[ April 27, 2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Huh?
I'm not sure if that was meant to be offensive or not.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Um, JH, that's a little incoherent and probably a little offensive. You might want to edit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jon, I don't know what that was about, since it was gone before I saw it.
But I'd appreciate if you kept the inappropriate stuff out of this thread. Danke.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
*Chuckle.*
That's the second time in two days. Neither was offensively intended, but PJ's right. God, I feel horrible being PJ's main source of work on Hatrack.
Status down; antibiotics up; Hatrack hovering up, remaining the diamond in the sky, but neither ascending or descending, for it is made of the Shining Mirrors on this earth - and I'm a little twisted, thus making the jewel seem weird. I've got to stay in line.
*Securely erases Vulgarfreudmode.*
Again, sorry!
JH
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I was thinking a bit about French cuisine this weekend. I know the chocolate covered bugs are out, but are frog legs Kosher?
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Hope nobody minds if I answer this, but I'm feeling smart after finishing my Basic Judaism class.
According to Judaism 101 (a "rivka recommended" site ), frogs are not kosher.
Edit: To be specific: Lev. 11:29-30, 42-43.
[ May 02, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Valentine014 ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
It's not kosher at all, for all three must be "yes".
JH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jon, those apply to beheimot (best translation: animals). I don't think frogs qualify; frogs are vermin, shratzim (best translation: creepy things).
In fact, French cuisine is full of non-kosher critters. Snails (another sheretz), insects (more shratzim) -- not to mention all the meat served in cream sauces.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
The definition of "Behema" is rather awkward. As for "Sheratzim", how do you know that frogs - who originate in water - are not regarded as fish, and therefore fail the "Hechsher" from the fish point-of-view?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because I'm in the middle of R' Slifkin's wonderful book The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax, and he goes into a fair bit of detail regarding what makes a critter a beheimah, a chayah, or a sheretz. It's fairly clear that amphibians are shratzim -- read the book, which draws on many many many sources, and see. (I'm not about to attempt to summarize dozens of pages of info.)
Even if they were fish, not shratzim, split hooves and chewing cud would still be irrelevant. They haven't got fins (not the right kind, even as tadpoles) or scales, either.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
It fails on both sets of criteria, and it belongs to a banned category (that excludes locusts and similar in extreme situations).
JH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Exactly -- shratzim. Except, of course, that certain specific species of locusts are NOT shratzim, and are kosher. But most are not. And these days, very few know which ones are.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Ah, we had wondered about rabbit as well but it was asserted that they are rodents, which I know is out. I found this statement from the Judaisim 101 page interesting:
quote: Keeping kosher only becomes difficult when you try to eat in a non-kosher restaurant, or at the home of a person who does not keep kosher. In those situations, your lack of knowledge about your host's ingredients and the food preparation techniques make it very difficult to keep kosher. Some commentators have pointed out, however, that this may well have been part of what G-d had in mind: to make it more difficult for us to socialize with those who do not share our religion.
I think alot of Mormon practices have a similar effect, if not intent.
Today I discovered that the calendar at my office does not run past August. I guess that's the next thing I want to look into.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I've never thought of kashrut as being intended to cause barriers to socialization, but that's an excellent point. Let me tell you what it's like when all of the other grad students are eating the most delicious smelling pizza, and you are eating some <strikethrough>cardboard</strikethrough> matzo...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Is bison kosher? We just had some on Sunday. Mmmmm, it was tasty. Made awesome gravy, too.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Yes, bison is kosher. My dad sometimes makes bison short ribs.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Today I discovered that the calendar at my office does not run past August. I guess that's the next thing I want to look into.
I think we need to send someone to the zoning office on Alpha Centauri ...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rabbits are not rodents, but they certainly lack split hooves. (They may be cud-chewers, or rather coprophagous.)
Certainly the kosher laws (particularly certain ones) discourage socialization; it's probably the most efficient way to discourage intermarriage.
Bison is both kosher and quite yummy. Bison hotdogs are surprisingly good, while very low in fat. And it makes good corned bee-- uh, corned bison.
quote:
quote:Today I discovered that the calendar at my office does not run past August. I guess that's the next thing I want to look into.
I think we need to send someone to the zoning office on Alpha Centauri ...
*snort* The Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) generally falls some time in September. Therefore, calendars put out by Jewish institutions often start with September. The better ones have (13 or) 14 months (like the Chevra Kadisha calendar right by me), each year's overlapping with the next by a month or two.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today I discovered that the calendar at my office does not run past August. I guess that's the next thing I want to look into. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we need to send someone to the zoning office on Alpha Centauri ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*snort* The Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) generally falls some time in September. Therefore, calendars put out by Jewish institutions often start with September.
Actually, I did know this, I just couldn't resist the Hitchhiker reference. =)
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Why do you people, in the Diasphora (sp? voc?) (=Gola) have two days of Passover's "first" Yom Tov? I mean, I can understand the history behind Rosh Ha'shana, but not about Leil Ha'sedder!
JH
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
The explanation made sense, the question didn't.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: some communities were more than 14 days away from Jerusalem.
That's the only sentence I needed. I read the stroies in the Mishnah, but there were those who were more than 14 days away? That's interesting.
And by the way, it wasn't 28-29 days, it was 29-30. Originally, of course, the Jews had a 364-day calendar. Then came Antiochos.
Thanks, by the way. JH
[ May 05, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:And by the way, it wasn't 28-29 days, it was 29-30.
Quite correct.
quote:Originally, of course, the Jews had a 364-day calendar.
Nope. While the length of a given Jewish year varies, there's no way of getting a 364-day year out of 12 or 13 months with 29 or 30 days.
If you're referring to the calculations for the solar year which determined when to add leap years... when direct observation was used, this was done on a year-by-year basis by the Sanhedrin, so no such calculation was required; the mathematical calendar was established centuries after Antiochus's time.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Nope. While the length of a given Jewish year varies, there's no way of getting a 364-day year out of 12 or 13 months with 29 or 30 days.
Originally there was. I spoke to a professor who researched the Dead Sea Scrolls, and she told me that the calendar was changed in order to fit the "reformation" that Antiochos IV initiated, and his "empire's solidarity". That's when they added lunarism...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jon, that may have been true of the Sadducees (actually, I have a vague memory of hearing as much), but it was not true of mainstream Judaism.
adam's answer was correct in overview, but I would debate several significant details.
quote: Before the destruction of the second temple, people in Israel knew when Rosh Chodesh was by the smoke signals that came from the temple when the designated observer saw the (lack of) moon.
quote: When Rosh Chodesh was declared, the Sanhedrin would light fires on mountaintops to let everyone know that it was the new month. As each town saw a fire lit, they would light a fire on its mountaintop so that the news of the new month would spread. Toward the end of the Second Temple period, this system was changed because the Samaritans were deliberately lighting fires on the wrong day in order to confuse the Jewish community. In the new system of notification, the Sanhedrin sent messengers who would run from Jerusalem to the outlying towns and villages informing everyone that Rosh Chodesh had been declared.
quote: Adar is one of those months. So the first day of Passover could vary by a day, and you wouldn't know which day it was unless you saw the smoke signals.
Before the pre-set calendar (more on that in a moment) was instituted, ANY month could be either 29 or 30 days -- unless Sanhedrin closed their doors to witnesses on the 29th, if a 30-day month was needed (to ensure that a holiday didn't land on a problematic day of the week). Only certain months being malei (full, 30 days) or chaser (incomplete, 29 days) is an artifact of the current system.
quote: Due to advances in astronomy, even those outside of Israel can tell when Rosh Chodesh is,
That is NOT why we switched to a fixed calendar! The Sanhedrin calculated the molad for hundreds of years before -- predicting when the new month might fall was done long before the fixed calendar was established. But a predicted 29-day month could be forestalled by something as unpredictable as a cloudy night.
Hillel haSheni created the fixed calendar because it became clear that the Sanhedrin was about to be forcibly disbanded. No Sanhedrin, no way to establish a new month -- and shortly, utter chaos.
From the same site:
quote: This new system lasted until the end of the Sanhedrin in the 4th century CE. The last head of the Sanhedrin, Hillel II, instituted a fixed calendar based on astronomical calculations of the molad. This fixed calendar also provides the additional leap months that are necessary to ensure the holidays fall out in their proper time. Hillel II's calendar allowed Jewish life to continue despite the disbanding of the Sanhedrin.
(Leap years occur in the 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19th years of the 19 year cycle. A Jewish leap year adds an entire month -- for more details, see here.)
quote: so this whole system is kind of obsolete, but we still do it because that's what our ancestors did.
It would be preferable to have the Sanhedrin, and be able to fulfill the mitzvah of declaring a new month. God willing, may I see the day when that is again possible, and soon.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I hope someone didn't already ask this, but is the flesh of swine more un-kosher than everything else that is un-kosher, or is that just my perception? I ask because one of my superiors was bantering about defiling the kitchen. I mean, I know this is a reform synagogue, so rivka might not be able to tell me, but I just wondered. I know there is a degree of kosher between passover kosher and the rest of the time kosher.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Ah, yes, I have been well acquainted with the scenarios you present in paragraph 4. Thanks for answering my question, though additional opinions are appreciated.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Adam is right-on with his opinion; it either is Kosher or it ain't.
Passover Kashrut is a whole 'nother level. Basically, everything that is kosher for Passover is also plain, old, garden-variety Kosher. For Passover, however, additional rules apply, so that not everything that is garden-variety kosher is also appropriate for Passover.
There is no reason for hold to the higher level for the whole year, it only applies to Passover. Being Pesadich (Passover Kosher) during the rest of the year does not confer additional holiness or anything. In fact, it is discouraged, because it would make the Passover observance less distincitive and meaningful.
I'll now stop playing Rebbitzen, and defer to my learned Shvester, rivka, allowing her to continue her Rebbitzen role.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: You can't say Item E is more kosher than Item F
You forgot Glat. (I don't give a Davar Aher's snout, but it doesn't matter. The fact that you have signs saying "Kasher Lemhadrin" means SOMETHING.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Leaving aside Adam's example (although I would like to point out that in almost all such scenarios within the Orthodox community, the fact that someone won't eat something that a certain Rabbi considers kosher rarely means that they consider it actual treif (non-kosher); rather, they consider it unclear), the thing to keep in mind is that, with the exception of such things as fresh fruit and vegetables, food is considered non-kosher until proven kosher.
But I would disagree with adam's assertion that there are not levels of kosher. As far as eating something goes, he's right. Either you may eat it or you may not. However, there are other prohibitions that apply to some (but not all) non-kosher things. These include getting ANY benefit whatsoever, or even purchasing them for a non-Jew, or for the Jew's animal.
Non-kosher beef would not fall under this category; milk cooked with meat would. I forget if pork and shellfish are in the first category or the second. However, it is certain that they are min tamei -- from a forbidden animal.
Cooking a pork loin or a cheeseburger in a pan would make it just as non-kosher either way.
JH, that is debatable. But I won't. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Are unclean animals okay to keep as pets? Like rabbits, gerbils, and pot-bellied pigs? I guess the various carnivora are not kosher to eat, but are kept as pets. Aren't they?
Okay, and High Holy Days is coming up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Are unclean animals okay to keep as pets? Like rabbits, gerbils, and pot-bellied pigs? I guess the various carnivora are not kosher to eat, but are kept as pets. Aren't they?
I know some people who don't/won't keep non-kosher animals as pets (and raise children who end up absolutely terrified of dogs, which bothers me immensely, but I digress), but I have never been among that number. We used to have a guinea pig. (She died. )
quote:Okay, and High Holy Days is coming up.
Was there a question in there? Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
{TANGENT)I am just sad? confused? dissapointed? that there is an ask the Rebbetzin allowed here, but not an ask the Elder. I know the reasoning, but think its overly protective. Oh well, it isn't the first or the last time I disagree with Hatrack procedures.(TANGENT)
Carry on.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Occasional, I had no idea that "Ask the Elder" is forbidden. And I have no idea that there was overly protective reasoning.
Can you explain this to me? I know that there are many posts asking for elucidation on LDS practice.
Now I'm confused, too.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I thought there were problems, maybe, with getting into too much detail of lds practice? And I think there was too much dissent, too many bad feelings displayed in that thread.
This thread, by contrast, is fairly peaceful. Probably because there are less Jews here, and less people that have strong feelings about Judaism. I find it perfectly logical, given the nature of the people here, that this thread is ok, and "ask the elder" threads are more troublesome.
Many lds threads get sidetracked into something less than nice, and have to be locked or people have to be scolded. I think there have in the past been requests to keep the lds threads to a minimum for these reasons, and to keep this place from becoming lds-centric.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
I have a question that anyone can answer. What is your preferred translation of the Tanach? I believe rivka answered this, if not here, in an email.
I want to get a copy to add to my scripture study. I've just been looking at Artscroll's web site and am impressed with their products.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I prefer Artscroll for a number of reasons. This is the one I'm planning to get, although I may splurge and get the full-size.
Another really good one (which I think starLisa mentioned was her preference?) is R' Kaplan's Living Torah.
But I consider Artscroll a better basic translation.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
That's the one I was looking at. Amazon.com has the full sized version for $37.00 or something like that. I can't decide between the black one and the hunter green.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, the black is properly studious-looking.
And the green would go better with my bookshelves. Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
The solution would be to get both of them. One to sit on the bookshelf and one for study. I realize this would be rather expensive, but you just have to get the one that matches the bookshelves Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*snicker*
I just noticed the code on that Amazon page that is good for 20% off and free shipping at Artscroll's site . . . but I am really going to wait a few months before I buy a bunch of seforim (books).
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Yeah, you're probably still unpacking and/or trying to figure out where to put stuff. One thing to consider is that if you go to amazon.com from the link on this site, Hatrack gets money to help with hosting expenses. At least, that's how I think it works. I know what you mean, though. I've got more books than I know what to do with.
On that note, I think it's time for bed. I look forward to hearing the opinions of others on the question I asked. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah, but when I get it, I will also be getting lots of other Artscroll books that Amazon almost certainly does not carry.
Yeah, still unpacking and such. Also took a look at my credit card balances. >_<
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I prefer Artscroll for a number of reasons. This is the one I'm planning to get, although I may splurge and get the full-size.
Another really good one (which I think starLisa mentioned was her preference?) is R' Kaplan's Living Torah.
Even for Shir HaShirim? <grin>
Actually, my favorite translation, if I must use one, is the Judaica Press Hebrew-English Mikraot Gedolot. I usually end up looking in that, Kaplan, Artscroll's Stone Tanakh and whatever else may be lying around, just to get some perspectives on nuance.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote: Are unclean animals okay to keep as pets? Like rabbits, gerbils, and pot-bellied pigs? I guess the various carnivora are not kosher to eat, but are kept as pets. Aren't they?
I know some people who don't/won't keep non-kosher animals as pets (and raise children who end up absolutely terrified of dogs, which bothers me immensely, but I digress), but I have never been among that number. We used to have a guinea pig. (She died. )
Baruch Dayan HaEmet.
My partner teaches at a Chabad Cheder. They don't even allow toys or books that have non-kosher animals in or on them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have worked in a Chabad HS since 1997. I am familiar with their position. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Wait, no books with non-kosher animals? Kids' books are full of dogs, cats, horses, birds, unusual fish. What animals are kosher, again? And what about biology textbooks?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Such books are allowed in the older grades. It is only under a certain age (I think six, but I don't remember for sure) that this is considered to be an issue by Chabadnicks (and mind, not all of them are strict on this issue).
The easiest route is simply to only buy kids books published by Chabad publishers -- there are lots. *shrug*
Oh, and kosher animals are the ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, giraffes), certain birds (chickens, geese, turkeys), and many types of fish.
[edited due to egregious error]
[ September 19, 2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I know of Chassidic Jews who won't let their kids have stuffed bears, because bears aren't kosher. They do have stuffed animals of the kosher sort, including a giraffe.
Giraffes are kosher animals, but very difficult to slaughter properly, due to the very stretched-out neck.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, that's an urban legend. We actually know precisely how/where to shecht a giraffe. Link
It would simply be ridiculously expensive.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Occasional and any other "why can't we have an LDS thread" folks, you'll notice that there has been a good bit of infighting among the responders on this thread. It is rarely that the people asking questions are disrespectful (though that does happen- and to be frank the Jews are a lot more patient with the "aren't you people so funny" type of questions) but that the LDS threads always wind up with various other LDS people accusing the thread starter of not knowing what they are talking about. Plus there is the fact that OSC sponsors a site just for LDS people to argue about what their church really believes (along with many other hopefully non-arguing activities) at the nauvoo site.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
My partner teaches 3rd grade there. You can't imagine (well, Rivka, you probably can) how hard it is for her to find stories she can read to them.
No treyf (non-kosher) animals. No talking animals, God forbid. No magic of any kind. No boyfriends or girlfriends (though somehow she got the okay to use The Kid Who Ran For President during the elections in 2004).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, and kosher animals are the ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, zebras, giraffes), certain birds (chickens, geese, turkeys), and many types of fish.
Um... zebras?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, I guess it's older than age 6 then. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, and kosher animals are the ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, zebras, giraffes), certain birds (chickens, geese, turkeys), and many types of fish.
Um... zebras?
*blink* How did that get in there?
I think they snuck along with the giraffes. *goes to edit*
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
I just discovered that one can buy a Mezuzah at Amazon.com. They had the cases and the parchment. I'm guessing that they get them from an outside vendor.
This brings up an interesting question. How does one verify the authenticity of the text? Rivka, would you, or anyone else here, buy a Mezuzah from them? With all the online vendors out there, how does one ensure that the product is genuine? Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Me, I wouldn't buy an Amazon mezuzah. I get them from a reputable local store that I know and trust. If I lived far from such stores, I'd get them from a place that specializes in such things, and knows how to properly handle them.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
With an online retailer, how could you verify that it was truly written by a Sofer? Did I spell that right? If one does live in a place where there aren't any brick and mortar specialty stores, how do they ensure that what they're buying is genuine?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'd probably ask for a scan of the certificate that comes with it and contact information for the sofer. I might ask the sofer for references. Though I imagine that any reputable sofer selling through Amazon.com would probably provide references in advance, no?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So what's the rationale behind not exposing children to representations of non-kosher animals? Maybe I just don't understand the significance of kosher-ness. I had understood it to be an entirely dietary thing (my apologies if this is covered elsewhere in this thread--I have read the whole thing, but it's been a long time).
[Edit]Okay, I skimmed back through page 11 looking for discussions of this, and found rivka's mention of the existence of prohibitions against getting any benefit from some non-kosher things. Would stories involving non-kosher animals fall under that? And if so, why is it only for children under a certain age that such stories are forbidden?
What about, say, observing non-kosher animals at the zoo or something? Are kids also not allowed to do that?[/Edit]
[ September 19, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I agree with you, Noemon. I'd love to hear a rationale for it as well.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wait, so kids couldn't watch Babe? How sad!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Or read Charlotte's Web. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, my! Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Or have teddy bears.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, I know the reason given for this. The thing is, as someone who neither subscribes to it nor particularly agrees with it, I don't know that I can fairly present it. So I will simply link to (and quote part of) the sicha (um, speech? ) in question.
It was written by the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson.
quote: It follows, then, that one should be particularly careful of objects and pictures that a child sees. It is a Jewish custom, for example, to hang verses from the Torah or other sacred objects on the walls of a newborn’s room, or around his crib. Conversely, a parent should ensure that no pictures of impure animals should meet the baby’s gaze. Children also enjoy playing with toys, such as stuffed animals. Again, only pure animals, birds, and fish, should be chosen.
As the child becomes older, it is time for him or her to learn the aleph-bais. So that the child can move easily grasp the shape of the letters, it is usual to illustrate them with pictures. Only pictures of pure animals should be used.[17] Similarly, the pictures of animals used to make many text books and note books more attractive should only be Pure animals.
(Note: when the translator says "pure" he means kosher. Like all the Rebbe's sichos, this was originally delivered in Yiddish.)
Oh, and to answer the question about zoos, this was in the footnotes:
quote: Similarly, visiting a zoo would also be permitted.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I do not subscribe to this practice, myself, but here's what I've heard from folks that do:
A child's soul is a delicate, impressionable thing, and you want to feed it only the most wholesome of influences. So music is OK if it promotes good religious themes, but secular music is not. Kosher food, too, nourishes the soul, while non-kosher does not. And since the child's soul is so impressionable, it should only be exposed to those things that are "kosher", because even looking on a non-kosher animal could make a negative impression.
Anyway, that's what I've heard. I've never heard any source quoted for this practice. I suspect that people made it up.
And the people who would follow this practice would probably also avoid TV, movies, secular music, novels, magazines, and, uh, websites.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(But thank you for the explanation.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
So gangsta rap is probably not to be encouraged?
[edit, because I spelled gangster correctly by accident]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Probably not so much.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Anyway, that's what I've heard. I've never heard any source quoted for this practice.
You have now.
quote: I suspect that people made it up.
A shanda that you would say such a thing!
quote:And the people who would follow this practice would probably also avoid TV, movies, secular music, novels, magazines, and, uh, websites.
Yes, yes, yes, yes . . . and, well, that depends.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote: I suspect that people made it up.
A shanda that you would say such a thing!
Um, I kind of meant a halachic source. I remain unconvinced of the halachic basis for this practice.
A shinda? Am I invited?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you check the footnotes in my link, there ARE halachic sources (if ones that I disagree with the connections being made) cited.
And you're always invited when we have Shindae. Bit of a hike, though.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I was taking a class at Nishmat in Jerusalem, and Rav Blachman told us that there isn't a single source that can be found for the custom of waving hands three times before covering our eyes after lighting Shabbat candles.
We were all a little taken aback.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When were you at Nishmat? (I'm trying to decide if you are more likely to know my mother or my SIL. )
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Um... It was either 1998, 1999 or 2000. I'm having a senior moment here.
Who are your mother and sister-in-law? Do they teach there? I wasn't actually at Nishmat. I was just taking a class on Hassidus with R' Blachman. It was one of the most eye-opening classes I've ever had. He's brilliant.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: there isn't a single source that can be found for the custom of waving hands three times before covering our eyes after lighting Shabbat candles.
Three? I wave seven.
Guess that makes me just a little bit superior, eh?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Neither teaches there, but both have taken classes there at various times. I think that would be too late for my SIL (who has lived in England since about '96 or '97 (I think)), but you might have been there while my mother was taking classes. Her first name is Martha, if that rings any bells.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Neither teaches there, but both have taken classes there at various times. I think that would be too late for my SIL (who has lived in England since about '96 or '97 (I think)), but you might have been there while my mother was taking classes. Her first name is Martha, if that rings any bells.
Hmm... the only Martha I know is younger than me, so that's probably not her.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: there isn't a single source that can be found for the custom of waving hands three times before covering our eyes after lighting Shabbat candles.
Three? I wave seven.
Guess that makes me just a little bit superior, eh?
Tante Shvester
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Neither teaches there, but both have taken classes there at various times. I think that would be too late for my SIL (who has lived in England since about '96 or '97 (I think)), but you might have been there while my mother was taking classes. Her first name is Martha, if that rings any bells.
Hmm... the only Martha I know is younger than me, so that's probably not her.
Highly unlikely, since I think you are less than 10 years older than I. Although if you had mumps, I may need to revise that upward a bit.
So much for this round of Jewish Geography. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm 42. I think I was like 2 or 3 when I had mumps.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, so I was close. I'm 31. I got the MMR vaccine when I was a baby, I think.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Here's a question to the Rebbetzin, and this is just cause I'm bored and feel bad for leaving for awhile:
My synagogue lets women conduct the services of Kabbalat Shabbat, Psukei Dezimrah and from Hotzaát to Hachnasat Sefer Tora, as well as reading and reaceiving Aliyot. Also, they do Kol Nidre. Men do the rest.
I have been active near the pinnacle of the oligarchy managing the synagogue for about a year. Before I was a member, already, they allowed me to read whatever I wanted and they supplied me with evry form of respect possible - with the sole exception of Hazzanut.
I am a competent, versatile, spiritual, serious and occasionally praised chazzan. The oligachy knows that. I am not asking to do Ne'ila, but with the exception of Mincha and once Shacharit for Rosh Chodesh (and that was only as a last-minute substitute), I never did Chazzanut (oh, and one embarrassing Psukei Dezimrah).
The thing is, that other congregations state "we do not like to have teens leading our services, with the exception of special Saturdays - in which they read the Torah too - and Teen Minyanim", this one lets girls my age perform services freely, and when I enquired I was told "not to peek behind the curtain. It's nothing against you, just our ideology/policy".
Why would this be? Rebbetzin, you might understand.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The practice that you describe is foreign to my experience. I have no understanding of the rationale behind it. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Affirmative action. That's what it sounds like, anyway. Is this Yedidya? Or the one in the German Colony?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I'd just like to note that I recently picked up my own copy of the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanach (full sized), and am enjoying it immensely.
Also, it's pretty.
A question though - is it just me, or does the translation occasionally stray from a literal translation to that of what is viewed as 'intended text meaning', pulling very strongly from the commentary of the sages?
There are some particular renderings I've not seen anywhere (JPS included), but that are keyed to commentator footnotes giving an expanded version of the story being hinted at in the verse, and the translation of these often seem to make the connections between the actual translation and the commentary 'clearer' than they actually appear in the text.
Not a complaint at all (as I've already enjoyed and benefited from learning about some Orthodox interpretations and expositions I wasn't familiar with), just a question concerning an observation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's not you. Artscroll does that. Their translation of Song of Songs is probably the most extreme example.
But then, JPS plays fast and loose as well sometimes. For example, check out I Samuel 13:1.
Whenever you translate, you sort of have to interpret and get non-literal if you want to convey the text's intended meaning.
Here's an example. In Hebrew, there's an expression used to describe something that's really sucky. Sorry, but that's the best way I can think of to translate it into English. The Hebrew is "al ha-panim", which literally means "on the face". I've heard Israelis speaking English who have said that this or that was "on the face". It's kind of hilarious, but it's what happens when you translate literally. If I were to translate "you're pulling my leg" literally into Hebrew, it wouldn't make much sense either.
So there's some justification for them doing what they do. You just have to keep in mind that they're doing it.
Incidentally, I have that book. It is definitely pretty. I can't let Tova look at it much, though, because the pages are so thin that she's liable to rip them by accident (she's 5 1/2). It's convenient, because it's the whole Tanach in one volume, in Hebrew and English. And the print isn't teeny tiny like Koren's Jerusalem Bible.
I keep it in my office, next to the single most useful Torah-related book I own. My concordance. I love my concordance.
And now that I've exceeded my geek quotient, I'll end this.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I wanted my own non-interlinear Hebrew/English Tanach, and everything I've heard about Artscroll has been very positive.
It looks very nice on my shelf, and I look forward to referring to it often.
Which I think may lead to another question - apart from an actual Hebrew edition of the Tanach (and a concordance *grin*), what would be the suggested next must-own Orthodox text?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Affirmative action. That's what it sounds like, anyway. Is this Yedidya? Or the one in the German Colony?
The one in the German Colony is called Shira Chadashah.
Just for the record.
I saw both men and women leading services and laining there (each from their own side of the mechitzah), and I've seen the same at Yedidya, but I don't know what the official policy is in either shul regarding teens.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Which I think may lead to another question - apart from an actual Hebrew edition of the Tanach (and a concordance *grin*), what would be the suggested next must-own Orthodox text?
It depends on what your goals are, I would think.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Knowledge Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
What exactly are you trying to learn?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
When my mother was ordained this spring, I got her several volumes, from Artscroll, of the Talmud. It seems as if she is enjoying them, as well. The whole english on one side of the page, hebrew on the other, is excellent. For non-native speakers of hebrew, there are always confusions in the text. My mother says she uses the hebrew to understand, the english to clarify, and then the hebrew to dig deeper. Very easy to do when everything is right next to each other.
BTW, Thank you Ela and Rivka for recommending Artscroll to me Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: What exactly are you trying to learn?
Simply more concerning traditional Orthodox belief - especially interested in texts and commentaries considered to be authoritative.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You might want to check out The Aryeh Kaplan Reader, and the Aryeh Kaplan Anthology, Part 1 and Part 2. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan was a brilliant thinker and writer who had a way of explaining Jewish ideas in language that was very accessible.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
So if a Jew quotes a Bible verse, does he say "Leviticus" -- or does he say a Hebrew name -- or does he say what reading it was from?
If he said the reading, how could I look up which reading it would be in?
The quote I'm think of is "The Lord loves mercy" or some such, and it's for a story I'm writing.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
If I am talking to an observant Jew or someone who knows Hebrew (even if they are not observant), I will use the Hebrew name. I only use "Leviticus" (for example) with someone who wouldn't understand the Hebrew.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So if a Jew quotes a Bible verse, does he say "Leviticus" -- or does he say a Hebrew name -- or does he say what reading it was from?
If he said the reading, how could I look up which reading it would be in?
The quote I'm think of is "The Lord loves mercy" or some such, and it's for a story I'm writing.
Well, it depends. I might say that the "Love your neighbor as yourself" verse is in Kedoshim (which is the weekly Torah portion that contains it). I might say it's in parashat Kedoshim, since parasha is what we call the weekly Torah portions (parashat is the conjunctive form[/i]).
Or I might say it's in Vayikra yud-tet, yud-chet, or Vayikra chapter 19, verse 18. Vayikra is the Hebrew name of Leviticus, and yud-tet and yud-het are ways of saying 19 and 18. I might just say it's in Vayikra.
If you can find the chapter and verse, I can tell you what parasha it's in. But I suspect that you're going to have a hard time finding anything like that in the Torah.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I agree with Lisa. That's why I didn't answer that part of the question - I couldn't figure out exactly where the verse would be.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: So if a Jew quotes a Bible verse, does he say "Leviticus" -- or does he say a Hebrew name -- or does he say what reading it was from?
That depends. If I am telling someone what I read on a Saturday (or a holiday) I mention the reading. If I generally prefer referring to Biblical verses in Hebrew - as that is the language I read the Bible in (usually resulting in Hebrew letters). If, however, I am quoting something and I do it on Hatrack or another place where it's in English - I refer to it in the English name.
But that's me.
[quotee] But I suspect that you're going to have a hard time finding anything like that in the Torah. [/quote]
That depends on the reading; if you tell me it's in Vayetze - yup. But if you tell me it's in Vayelech - less so. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The thing is, I just looked up lord+"loves mercy" on Yahoo, and almost everything that came up was from the Christian scriptures. The only exceptions were in Psalms, and then only according to Septuagint translations.
The Torah says God "does kindness to thousands" and that He is "merciful and gracious". But "loves mercy"? Doesn't ring a bell. Certainly not in the Torah.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Yes, I got that quote (or, rather, non-quote) very wrong.
Situation: Ira (Jewish) explains to Tzichem (not Jewish) why he would go to significant trouble and risk to save Tzichem's life. They are in a fictional culture in which human sacrifice and cruel indifference are held as virtues -- Jews, of course, are dissidents for this. So why would Ira go to this trouble and risk? Because God wants his people to be merciful.
Micah 7:18 is right to the point, I think: "[The Lord] delighteth in mercy." Micah 6:8 makes it explicit that that's what he wants of his people.
So: what reading would that be? What time of year? Or maybe it should be another quote. Thanks.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I see the problem. We divide the Torah up into 54 parashot throughout the year. For each of these, and for certain holidays, there is a reading from the Prophets called a haftarah as well. But not all of the Prophets get read as haftarot. That thing in Micha isn't, as far as I know.
You might want "Do not stand idly by while your friend's blood is spilled" (Leviticus 19:16). That's only three verses before the example I used before, so other than changing yud-tet to tet-zayin, all those references would be the same here.
There's "You shall be holy, for I, Your God, am Holy." There's "Whoever spills the blood of man, by man shall his blood be spilled."
Then there's rabbinic literature, such as the statement in the Talmud that "Jews are merciful ones, the descendents of merciful ones". And back in the Torah again, we have "Cursed is he who causes his child to pass through the fire to Molech."
There's a Jewish midrash, or legend, that says the people in Sodom before it was destroyed had passed a law making charity illegal. They marked the money in the town so that if a poor person was found with money, they could track down whoever gave it to them and punish them for doing so. And that's why Lot taking in the messengers so outraged the townspeople.
Check out this page (she said, modestly) for more on that subject.
Though now that I think of it, the haftarah for Parashat Balak is Micah 5:6-6:8. So it actually ends with "He has told you, O man, what is good, and what God requires of you: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."
Does that work?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's pretty good!
Makes me think of what Dennis Prager considers the essence of Judaism, if I read him correctly. (I bet I could get a lot of different answers to THAT question: what is the essence of Judaism?) He thought it was "ethical monotheism," that is, God exists, and wants us to behave well toward each other. Seems to be backed up, at least partly, by Micah 6:8.
I think I'll go with Micah 7:18, and refer to it just as "from the" ... um, well, what do you call that? It's not Torah. What is that section of the Bible called, among Jews?
You've been a big help.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Prophets. Nevi'im, in Hebrew.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Cool.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Not a question yet, but just a fun note. I recently picked up the Artscroll Schottenstein Edition of the 1st volume of the Berachos Tractate of Talmud Bavli, and I have to say I'm finding it a very enjoyable and fascinating read.
Seeing the process of Mishna to Gemara Commentary to Conclusions is... mindbendingly enjoyable to me. It's amazing to me the seeming tangents and discussions one line (or in many cases, one word!) can inspire. I never would have thought pages upon pages of discussions as to when exactly the recitation of the evening Shema should technically be permissable would be, well, enjoyable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're such a guy. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
There are many ugly feminine words which can be used to describe his reaction upon falling on Avodah Zarah.
Inspirational is hardly that word. As long as you are in the nicer parts of the Gemarrah it's alright. (I still have some unpleasant memories.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You're such a guy.
Hey, it's not just guys who like that kind of thing. <grin>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My mother has been learning the daf with my father for about 8 years. I know it's not "just guys who like that kind of thing." However, I still think Taal's specific comments are very "guy-specific." Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I'm currently enjoying the discussion of how many watches there are, which led into a discussion of David's 'Alarm Clock', and whether or not it was something he really needed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Makes me think of what Dennis Prager considers the essence of Judaism, if I read him correctly. (I bet I could get a lot of different answers to THAT question: what is the essence of Judaism?) He thought it was "ethical monotheism," that is, God exists, and wants us to behave well toward each other. Seems to be backed up, at least partly, by Micah 6:8.
According to starLisa, the "essence of Judaism" is that the Torah is the Law of God. Is she incorrect?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Which I think may bring me to a question - I picked up this book (as well as my Stone Edition Tanach) at a local 'Chosen Treasures' Jewish store. I kept feeling distinctly out of place, and wondered if, even with being blatantly non-Jewish (I'm Blonde Hair, Blue Eyes, Red Goatee), if there is anything I should particularly know (concerning dress or etiquette )to avoid causing any sort of unintended offense? I mean, it's not like I'm walking around the store in a Jesus Loves You shirt, munching on a ham sandwich and calling out the Name of Hashem. But still...
Of course, they already probably find someone who looks like me buying Tanach and Talmud unusual, and are probably far more confused than anything *grin*
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: anything I should particularly know (concerning dress or etiquette )to avoid causing any sort of unintended offense?
Not particularly. But if it is a really black-hatty religious crowd, you may want to be aware that many have the custom of men not touching women. Not even a little, like when they hand you the change. So sometimes you'll see a man put the money on the counter for the woman to pick up, rather than just handing it to her.
There is no need for you to explain yourself, or make excuses.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Makes me think of what Dennis Prager considers the essence of Judaism, if I read him correctly. (I bet I could get a lot of different answers to THAT question: what is the essence of Judaism?) He thought it was "ethical monotheism," that is, God exists, and wants us to behave well toward each other. Seems to be backed up, at least partly, by Micah 6:8.
According to starLisa, the "essence of Judaism" is that the Torah is the Law of God. Is she incorrect?
That's a gross simplification. And it ignores all of the details.
Hillel the Elder said: "What's hateful to you, don't do to others. That's the whole Torah; the rest is the details."
It all depends on your perspective. Maimonides has 13 Principles that are absolutely basic to Judaism. All of these are true.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Does anyone know of an online shop where I could get a really nice kippah for my wedding? Way too many options out there in google land.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, Stephan. Please don't. I get that you're going to do what you're going to do, but please don't make it worse than it has to be.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I'm guessing that thismight be what you have in mind.
The type of kippah you wear telegraphs a lot about you. Refer to the Kippah Quiz.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I'm a little late with the question, and I don't have time to read all the pages to see if it's already been asked, so I'm going to post it anyway.
Do Jews believe that Christians will go to heaven?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The jury is out among Jews on what exactly goes on in the afterlife. It is not actually a part of the theology that we stress.
However, there is no requirement for all the people to follow the Jewish laws in order to be deemed good people. There are righteous gentiles. Basically what G'd requires of the Gentiles is that they follow the Seven Noachide Laws. Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:5. Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
Does this mean eating parts of an animal that is STILL living? As in, I can't have a chicken leg while the chicken is still alive?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Yeah. I mean, people don't do it so much. I think you can assume that any chickens you buy at the store are from dead birds, and that there isn't some bizarre farm out there with amputee chickens hobbling around on crutches.
But, if I recall correctly, they do castrate bulls and then sell the castrated parts to be eaten as "Rocky Mountain Oysters". If this is a part of a living animal, then this would be something that G'd has said you shouldn't eat.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Thanks, Tante. One more question, if you don't mind.
I was looking around that website, and I noticed- sometimes they write "G-d" and sometimes they write "God," even on the same page. WHat's the difference?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I was wondering if any of our Jewish members would mind sharing some about their Purim traditions?
Due to some recent, er, discontent, I add very clearly here that this IS for a course I'm doing right now - Anthropology of Religion. If you don't mind being quoted or referenced, I'd appreciate it, and I will still ask personally before including anything.
I don't know many Jews - of any stripe, Hassidic, Reconstructionist, or anything in between - IRL, so I don't have anyone I could ask. I have all the academic stuffs and descriptions, but it really doesn't give me a look at how real people celebrate in their own lives.
Posts are more than wonderful, but if anyone is willing to talk with me in IM, my AIM name is "ea quae legit", minus the spaces.
Thanks.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The day before Purim is a day of fasting, although it is permitted to go to work. After the fast, in the evening, everybody goes to synagogue to hear the chanting of Megillas Esther (the Book of Esther). It is read from a scroll in the original Hebrew, and it is commanded that we hear every single word -- so the congregation is seriously paying attention, and following along in their own copies.
The tradition is that when the reader says the name "Haman" -- the villain in the story -- that we make a big noise to drown out his name. So people come to shul with noisemakers and horns and the like. Kids love this part. It is also a tradition to dress in costume for the holiday, so just about all of the kids are dressed up as either Queen Esther, King Achashverosh, or a Power Ranger. Some adults get dressed up, too. I always do.
After this is over, people have a festive meal, including everyone's favorite Purim treat, Hamentashen (triangular cookies with a tasty filling). We are commanded to give to charity on the holiday and to give gifts of food (more hamentashen! also, kitkat bars, potato chips and twizzlers!) to our friends. All day, people are coming to our door delivering the food baskets, called Shaloch Manot, and we are distributing ours. During the day, we have another festive meal that includes treats from these baskets (hamentashen! potato chips! twizzlers! Hershey's!)
Kids really like this holiday.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I was looking around that website, and I noticed- sometimes they write "G-d" and sometimes they write "God," even on the same page. What's the difference?
Names of God are not generally written out, lest they be erased. However, there is some debate as to whether the word "God" is a Name.
(It should be obvious from my posts where I stand on this. )
And some people are just being cautious.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Kids really like this holiday.
I can't possibly imagine why. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Esther (heh!) forgot one other reason kids like the holiday. Many people send kids as messengers to deliver shalach manos (which are supposed to be "sent," as per the name -- shalach means sent), and the messengers are typically rewarded. With sugary treats, or with cash (usually somewhere between a quarter and a dollar).
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I'm still kind of confused as to why they would change the name in the same sentance... but oh well, it's not that big a deal. Thanks!
On a more personal level, I've been doing a lot of serious soul-searching. I've been a Christian for a few years, but recently, a few very serious doubts have come to mind(I'm not going to discuss those here- they're WAY too personal). I believe in God, however, and I love him with all my heart. It's Christ I'm doubting. Due to this, I've seriously been looking at Judaism. Unfortunately, I have a few problems. 1.- I don't know of any synagogues in my area, and I don't know any Jews in my area that I could talk to to find out more. 2.-I love bacon. 3.-My parents would never support a decision like that. 4.-I love bacon. 5.-I'm hopelessly ignorant of just about everything Jewish. 6.-I love bacon.
Can anyone help me?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I'm still kind of confused as to why they would change the name in the same sentence...
Just a guess, but maybe one person wrote it and another edited? Or someone went through editing, and missed some? Or the person who wrote it can't decide whether it's a Name or not?
quote:On a more personal level, I've been doing a lot of serious soul-searching. I've been a Christian for a few years, but recently, a few very serious doubts have come to mind(I'm not going to discuss those here- they're WAY too personal). I believe in God, however, and I love him with all my heart. It's Christ I'm doubting. Due to this, I've seriously been looking at Judaism. Unfortunately, I have a few problems. 1.- I don't know of any synagogues in my area, and I don't know any Jews in my area that I could talk to to find out more. 2.-I love bacon. 3.-My parents would never support a decision like that. 4.-I love bacon. 5.-I'm hopelessly ignorant of just about everything Jewish. 6.-I love bacon.
Yes. Why become Jewish? How about being a Noachide? Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Not to make light of your serious topic, Tinros, but I just wanted to say that this:
quote: ... just about all of the kids are dressed up as either Queen Esther, King Achashverosh, or a Power Ranger.
... made me giggle. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I did not see a single Power Ranger this year. I did see a whole bunch of Harry Potters, though (including two female ones).
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
So does this replace Halloween, then?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not really. Well, in some ways, yes. Most (religious) Jews do not celebrate Halloween and do celebrate Purim.
But no, in that the two are related only by costumes (and not even by TYPE of costumes -- Halloween costumes are often "dark" while Purim costumes tend to the happy and cheerful). The holidays are otherwise completely dissimilar.
So Purim no more "replaces" Halloween than Chanuka "replaces" Xmas.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I'll admit to not having read through this very long thread so if you have already answered this question, please forgive me.
It is my understanding that a big big difference between the beliefs of Christians and Jews is that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet. Is that a correct assumption first of all and if so, what qualities did Jesus not possess that keep him from being considered the Messiah?
Also a non-practicing Jewish friend mentioned yesterday the idea of not knowing what happens in the afterlife and I see that Tante says the same thing. The idea that our ticket to heaven is only received through Jesus is a BIG deal in Christianity. I I guess I never thought that the idea of heaven itself was a more Christian idea. Hmmm.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:So Purim no more "replaces" Halloween than Chanuka "replaces" Xmas.
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that Jews needed to replace a holiday like Halloween with their own version of it. I'm aware that they're not about the same thing at all, but some of the festivities sounded similar, so I wondered if y'all did both. I could've worded my question better, but it would've been longer. (I'm trying to wean myself of my verbosity.) How's this:
"So with the dressing up and all the sweets, it sounds like you don't even really need Halloween. (Not that anyone needs Halloween, but it would just seem like sugar overkill if you did both.) Hey, I never thought of that before: do Jews celebrate Halloween?"
That's what I really meant.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
quote: Also a non-practicing Jewish friend mentioned yesterday the idea of not knowing what happens in the afterlife and I see that Tante says the same thing. The idea that our ticket to heaven is only received through Jesus is a BIG deal in Christianity. I I guess I never thought that the idea of heaven itself was a more Christian idea. Hmmm.
From what I understand, take every idea on what you think could happen in the afterlife and there is a Jewish group that believes it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rephrasing accepted, Jenna. Sorry if I was snippy; too many people I have met really do think that Jews need to "replace" other holidays.
Mandy, I hope you will forgive me if I am lazy and link you to the relevant parts of the thread. Views on the afterlife And rather than restate what someone else has already put better, I'll send you over to the wonderful Judaism 101 site to answer your other query.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I'm a little late with the question, and I don't have time to read all the pages to see if it's already been asked, so I'm going to post it anyway.
Do Jews believe that Christians will go to heaven?
We don't believe in heaven and hell.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The day before Purim is a day of fasting, although it is permitted to go to work. After the fast, in the evening, everybody goes to synagogue to hear the chanting of Megillas Esther (the Book of Esther). It is read from a scroll in the original Hebrew, and it is commanded that we hear every single word -- so the congregation is seriously paying attention, and following along in their own copies.
The tradition is that when the reader says the name "Haman" -- the villain in the story -- that we make a big noise to drown out his name. So people come to shul with noisemakers and horns and the like. Kids love this part.
There's a custom that I've mostly seen in Israel to also make a big noise when the reader says the phrase "And King Ahasuerus levied a tax" at the beginning of chapter 10.
Also, because of the requirement to hear every single word, after the congregation makes the noise to drown out the name of Haman, the reader has to repeat his name before going on. It's kind of paradoxical.
This is a thing I wrote about Purim on my blog, if you're interested. It's more about the meaning of Purim than the incidental customs surrounding it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I'm still kind of confused as to why they would change the name in the same sentance... but oh well, it's not that big a deal. Thanks!
On a more personal level, I've been doing a lot of serious soul-searching. I've been a Christian for a few years, but recently, a few very serious doubts have come to mind(I'm not going to discuss those here- they're WAY too personal). I believe in God, however, and I love him with all my heart. It's Christ I'm doubting. Due to this, I've seriously been looking at Judaism. Unfortunately, I have a few problems. 1.- I don't know of any synagogues in my area, and I don't know any Jews in my area that I could talk to to find out more. 2.-I love bacon. 3.-My parents would never support a decision like that. 4.-I love bacon. 5.-I'm hopelessly ignorant of just about everything Jewish. 6.-I love bacon.
Can anyone help me?
I like bacon, too. I love ribs. And beef ribs just don't cut it (I didn't grow up observant).
I'd recommend the Noachide path, really. I think Judaism is unique in this. Every other religion I've ever heard of either says "live and let live" or "convert, or you burn in hell". We don't believe that God wants everyone to take on the extra burdens of being Jewish. Those who really, really want to can, of course, but a non-Jew who keeps all of the Noachide laws is no less in God's eyes than a Jew who keeps all of Jewish law. And it's a darn sight easier to do.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So Purim no more "replaces" Halloween than Chanuka "replaces" Xmas.
Especially since Purim and Hanukkah each predate Halloween and Christmas. In many ways, Halloween even seems to be a copy of Purim, with trick or treating imitating the giving of food on Purim.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I'll admit to not having read through this very long thread so if you have already answered this question, please forgive me.
It is my understanding that a big big difference between the beliefs of Christians and Jews is that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet. Is that a correct assumption first of all and if so, what qualities did Jesus not possess that keep him from being considered the Messiah?
Well, first of all, you need to understand that "messiah" never meant what it does in English. It doesn't mean "savior". It doesn't mean anything mystical. The word merely means "anointed", which was something that was done to kings and high priests as a sign of office. It's even part of the English coronation ceremony today, if I'm not mistaken.
The Messiah we're waiting for is the anointed king of the Davidic dynasty. God promised that this dynasty would be restored, and that the king in question would restore many things.
Now... it's not even a given that the person the Christians call Jesus ever existed. Pardon me if this offends you, but you did ask. Many of us just stipulate to the man's existence, because it really isn't a major issue. Even if he lived, he certainly wasn't the Messiah promised to us by God.
Please understand that I'm speaking from a Jewish perspective now, about what we think and believe.
Jesus was not a king. Descent from David doesn't make one a king. If it did, we'd be inundated by kings. Also, the Christian view is that Jesus was not the blood son of Joseph, and while Jewishness is determined matrilineally, tribal and familial relationships are determined patrilineally. To be a legitimate king of the Davidic dynasty, your father must be a direct descendant of David as well. Adoption doesn't count.
The Messiah needs to do a number of things. He needs to actually lead the Jews. Jesus didn't do this. He needs to bring the exiled Jews back to Israel. Jesus didn't do this. He needs to restore and/or strengthen our sovereignty there, and Jesus didn't do this. He needs to bring Jews closer to God and the Torah, and Jesus did the exact opposite.
More than anything, he needs not to die in the middle of it all.
Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph, one of the greatest Jewish sages of all time, believed that Simeon Bar Kochva, who led a revolt against Rome in the 2nd century CE, was, or could be, the Messiah. But he was killed. So he wasn't.
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: Also a non-practicing Jewish friend mentioned yesterday the idea of not knowing what happens in the afterlife and I see that Tante says the same thing. The idea that our ticket to heaven is only received through Jesus is a BIG deal in Christianity. I I guess I never thought that the idea of heaven itself was a more Christian idea. Hmmm.
We believe in the afterlife, but it's a very important tenet to us that we do what's right because God commanded it. Not because we're maneuvering for a ticket to a better seat in the afterlife.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I'm guessing that thismight be what you have in mind.
The type of kippah you wear telegraphs a lot about you. Refer to the Kippah Quiz.
Found a great one off of those sites, thanks.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Oh, Stephan. Please don't. I get that you're going to do what you're going to do, but please don't make it worse than it has to be.
I've done a lot of reading, a lot of thinking, and right or wrong it's all I know.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Some cute pictures of children in Israel dressed for Purim:
Thanks also to starLisa for your post as well. One part of Christianity that has always bothered me is why Jews did not jump on the idea that Jesus is the Messiah. It makes sense now that he was just not who you are expecting. It seems to me from what you have said and what I've read that rather than a personal savior, Jews are waiting for a savior for the people of Israel and the world as a whole, and it is more about life on Earth than the afterlife.
I also did not realize that the Torah is only the first 5 books of the Old Testament rather than all of it. But there is a difference between written and oral parts as well, right?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
From what I understand it completes the torah, sort of fills in the gaps. The Orthodox understand it to have been given along with the written one to Moses at Sinai.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Oh, I may have missed this, or missed a link, but, why are Jews so sure that the messiah is going to come as expected, and fulfill the expectations that you have of him in the way that you expect?
I mean it all sounds very good, but how do you know that is what God really has in store for you?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:In many ways, Halloween even seems to be a copy of Purim, with trick or treating imitating the giving of food on Purim.
Don't get ahead of yourself. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Oh, I may have missed this, or missed a link, but, why are Jews so sure that the messiah is going to come as expected, and fulfill the expectations that you have of him in the way that you expect?
I mean it all sounds very good, but how do you know that is what God really has in store for you?
The short answer, its in the torah.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:In many ways, Halloween even seems to be a copy of Purim, with trick or treating imitating the giving of food on Purim.
Don't get ahead of yourself.
I'm not sure what you mean. Why is there trick or treating on Halloween? We know why we give gifts of food on Purim.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Irish/Scottish folks used to leave food out for the spirits of the dead on Nov. 1. This eventually got changed to children dressing up as goblins and such and begging for treats.
So, no-- no holiday plagiarism going on here.
It's not complete, but here's the wiki for Halloween: Halloween Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
From what I understand it completes the torah, sort of fills in the gaps. The Orthodox understand it to have been given along with the written one to Moses at Sinai.
It doesn't complete the Torah. It is the Torah. Most of it, anyway.
What you call the Old Testament is, more or less, what we call the Tanach, an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).
These three sections were given to us with differing levels of communication with God. The Torah was given directly from God. The books of the Prophets were written by authors who were communicating somewhat less clearly with God, a state we call prophecy. And the books of the Writings were written in a state of what we call ruach ha-kodesh, which could be translated as Holy Spirit (yes, that's where Christians got the term from), or divine inspiration. Think of it as "prophecy lite".
Prophets: (Early Prophets) Joshua Judges Samuel Kings (Late Prophets) Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel The Twelve
Writings: Psalms Proverbs Job Song of Songs Ruth Lamentations Ecclesiastes Esther Daniel Ezra/Nehemiah Chronicles
Later, the books of Kings, Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah were split into two books each (not by us), but the above 24 are what we consider the Bible.
Notice that it's not all in chronological order, because the degree of perception of God is more important than that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Oh, I may have missed this, or missed a link, but, why are Jews so sure that the messiah is going to come as expected, and fulfill the expectations that you have of him in the way that you expect?
Because God said so, pretty much.
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I mean it all sounds very good, but how do you know that is what God really has in store for you?
See the above.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Irish/Scottish folks used to leave food out for the spirits of the dead on Nov. 1. This eventually got changed to children dressing up as goblins and such and begging for treats.
So, no-- no holiday plagiarism going on here.
It's not complete, but here's the wiki for Halloween: Halloween
I wouldn't be surprised if a non-biased historian (if one exists) would say the door-to-door treats idea originated with some other culture altogether, and adopted by both seperately.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Yeah, ok, the old testament, the torah. But, you're taking it literally. Which goes along with what the Jews wanted to happen. Good stuff happening to the Jews, here on earth. Which in turn created generations of people waiting with anticipation for something that makes perfect sense because that is what their hopes and desires go toward. Doesn't God sometimes work in ways people don't expect?
How are the Jews in general sure that the prophesies or promises weren't more figurative, or that they haven't been shaped a bit by human desires?
[ March 16, 2006, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Theaca ]
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Is it just me, or does the kid in the purple look like a boy dressed as a girl?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Yeah, ok. But, you're taking it literally. Which goes along with what the Jews wanted to happen. Good stuff happening to the Jews, here on earth. Which in turn created generations of people waiting with anticipation for something that makes perfect sense because that is what their hopes and desires go toward. Doesn't God sometimes work in ways people don't expect?
Your speaking (typing, whatever) to someone who "knows" that the Hewbrew Scriptures were given to the Jewish people by G-d at Mt. Sinai. From this point of view, Jews are are just doing what G-d wants them to do, and waiting for what G-d told them would happen.
I can see how an outsider would say that some old Jew made it all up thousands of years ago. But if you truly believe that G-d did the above, then taking it all literally is the only option.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Yeah, ok, the old testament, the torah. But, you're taking it literally. Which goes along with what the Jews wanted to happen. Good stuff happening to the Jews, here on earth. Which in turn created generations of people waiting with anticipation for something that makes perfect sense because that is what their hopes and desires go toward.
To me that doesn't sound any different then Christians waiting for Jesus to come back.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Yeah, ok, the old testament, the torah. But, you're taking it literally. Which goes along with what the Jews wanted to happen. Good stuff happening to the Jews, here on earth.
Um... maybe you haven't noticed, but we haven't had a whole lot of "Good stuff happening to the Jews, here on earth". What we take literally is that when we don't do what God says, we get our rear ends handed to us. The standard we have to live up to is exceedingly high.
If you were right, we'd actually do what the early Christians did. Declare that God had given us a panacea, and that we could just get forgiven in a confessional.
We're stuck with what God actually did tell us, and believe me when I say that it's not wish fulfillment in any way, shape or form. We're not that masochistic.
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Which in turn created generations of people waiting with anticipation for something that makes perfect sense because that is what their hopes and desires go toward. Doesn't God sometimes work in ways people don't expect?
Yup. Try this:
quote:The Talmud in Sanhedrin relates that the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, once met Elijah the prophet at the entrance to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s* cave "Will I merit a portion in the world to come?" asked the sage of the prophet.
"If this Master so desires," replied Elijah, referring to the Divine presence which had manifested itself in their midst.
"When will the Messiah come? Rabbi Yehoshua asked.
"Go and ask him," Elijah replied.
"Where does he dwell?"
"At the entrance to the city of Rome."
"And how shall I identify him?"
"He dwells among the illness-stricken paupers. But while they remove all their bandages at once, (to wipe the wounds), and then replace them, the Messiah removes only one bandage at a time, so that he can replace it promptly if he is called upon to redeem the Children of Israel."
Rabbi Yehoshuah went and found the Messiah. "Peace unto you, my master and teacher," said the sage.
"Peace unto you, son of Levi," replied the Messiah.
"When are you coming, Master?" Rabbi Yehoshua asked.
"Today," the Messiah answered.
When the day was over, Rabbi Yehoshua again met Elijah.
"What did he tell you?" asked the prophet.
"He said, ‘Peace unto you son of Levi.’"
"Then you are assured of a portion in the world to come. Were you and your father not perfectly righteous, he would not have returned your greeting, nor would he have mentioned your father’s name."
"He did not tell me the truth!" Rabbi Yehoshua complained. "He told me he would come today, but he has not come!"
Elijah explained to Rabbi Yehoshua the meaning behinds the Messiah’s response : "He was alluding to the verse in Psalms (95), which says of the Messiah’s arrival that it will be, ‘Today, if you listen to His voice’" (i.e., if the Jewish People repent).
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: How are the Jews in general sure that the prophesies or promises weren't more figurative, or that they haven't been shaped a bit by human desires?
Because they were prophecies. Made by prophets. Who had been vetted according to the procedures given to us by God at Sinai. They weren't just things that someone happened to say. That's one of the reasons why we distinguish between the levels of communication with God that are behind each of the books of the Bible.
And Stephen, do me a favor, would you? Say what you think. Please don't say what I think. With all due respect, I think I can do a better and more appropriate job of that. I don't mean to step on your toes, but I don't need an interpreter.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I apoligize if it came off that way, I just get upset when an argument is given against the belief of any religion, based solely on the nature of the belief itself. If a Jew had said the same thing about Christians waiting for Jesus to come back, I would have stepped in with something very simililar. If it means anything, I really was stating what I believe, and not what I think you believe.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I'm not making arguments, I'm asking questions. But I don't have time at work to process the answers too well right now.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Here are a few more cute kids dressed for Purim.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I direct this to no one person, but to everyone: Please remember what I asked in the very first post.
quote: This thread is NOT for politics or attacks on anyone's beliefs. Please take 'em elsewhere.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:On a more personal level, I've been doing a lot of serious soul-searching. I've been a Christian for a few years, but recently, a few very serious doubts have come to mind(I'm not going to discuss those here- they're WAY too personal). I believe in God, however, and I love him with all my heart. It's Christ I'm doubting. Due to this, I've seriously been looking at Judaism. Unfortunately, I have a few problems. 1.- I don't know of any synagogues in my area, and I don't know any Jews in my area that I could talk to to find out more. 2.-I love bacon. 3.-My parents would never support a decision like that. 4.-I love bacon. 5.-I'm hopelessly ignorant of just about everything Jewish. 6.-I love bacon.
Yes. Why become Jewish? How about being a Noachide?
This may sound crazy, but when it comes to spiritual things, I follow my heart. And right now my heart is telling me I would be missing something. I love God with all my heart, and I want to show that- I just don't know how. Is being Jewish the right thing? Is being protestant the right thing? What about Catholicism? I know I would never be satisfied just sitting here waiting for the end of my life, when I can talk to God in person and ask Him if my choices are right. I want to be able to devote myself wholly to Him. I want to have a group of people for support who are doing the same thing(that's my definition of a "church"). I want to be the best person I can possibly be. But I don't know how to do that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You say you would be missing something, but I know quite a number of Noachides who are happy and fulfilled in their lives. I wonder how you can dismiss the notion as casually as you seem to be doing?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I looked over the seven laws for Noachides. I realized something: Those seven laws are the foundation of everything I've been doing in my life. I've been struggling to do those since... well, since I can remember. And I still feel like I'm missing something. Like there's something more I can do to be showing my devotion to God.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I'm going to have to miss the upsherin for my good friend's son. What do y'all think would be an appropriate gift to send?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tinros, but have you been part of a community of practicing Noachides? Because it seems to me makes a huge difference.
Mrs.M, a nice kippah? Maybe personalized? Or tzitzis?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Where would I find such a community?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I think a personalized kippah would be perfect. I don't want to get him tzitzis b/c I think he's already getting a bunch.
Do you recommend any particular site where I can get the kippah?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Yeah, ok, the old testament, the torah. But, you're taking it literally. Which goes along with what the Jews wanted to happen. Good stuff happening to the Jews, here on earth.
When I said that, I was actually thinking directly back to what Lisa said and wondering where that all came from:
quote:Jesus was not a king. Descent from David doesn't make one a king. If it did, we'd be inundated by kings. Also, the Christian view is that Jesus was not the blood son of Joseph, and while Jewishness is determined matrilineally, tribal and familial relationships are determined patrilineally. To be a legitimate king of the Davidic dynasty, your father must be a direct descendant of David as well. Adoption doesn't count.
The Messiah needs to do a number of things. He needs to actually lead the Jews. Jesus didn't do this. He needs to bring the exiled Jews back to Israel. Jesus didn't do this. He needs to restore and/or strengthen our sovereignty there, and Jesus didn't do this. He needs to bring Jews closer to God and the Torah, and Jesus did the exact opposite.
More than anything, he needs not to die in the middle of it all.
And that's what I meant about good things happening here on earth.
Whereas, Catholicism thinks that he did all those things, but for the heavenly Israel, not the earthly Israel. For forever, not here on this earth. He widened the circle of God's people to the world, not just the Jews, and brings them all closer to God. Which sounds like a wonderful thing.
And the Jewish understanding of the Messiah's coming relates to the Jews having a new king and new Israel on earth, right? Isn't that supposed to be a wonderful thing?
Lately I've been thinking that the main difference between the Jews and the Christians was this interpretation, right here. I suppose the (Jewish) answer is that it is written that it will happen the way you have described, therefore, you must wait for that prophecy to be fulfilled just exactly as it says, literally, or you'll be in big trouble again for idol woship.
Hmmm.
[ March 17, 2006, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Theaca ]
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Also, I guess I don't know what is supposed to happen after the Jewish Messiah comes and fulfills all these prophecies. Does everyone live happily ever after, then? Or... more of the same? Follow all the laws and try not to let Him down again?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Where would I find such a community?
Here's a good place to start (and this is its companion group).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: I think a personalized kippah would be perfect. I don't want to get him tzitzis b/c I think he's already getting a bunch.
There are SOOOO many. But these look cute.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why become Jewish? How about being a Noachide?
This may sound crazy, but when it comes to spiritual things, I follow my heart. And right now my heart is telling me I would be missing something.
Maybe you should take a look at it. Being a Noachide isn't "second best". It really isn't. If I were to find out that -- oops -- my great-grandmother wasn't actually Jewish, I wouldn't convert. I'd be a Noachide.
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I love God with all my heart, and I want to show that- I just don't know how. Is being Jewish the right thing? Is being protestant the right thing? What about Catholicism?
I'd say doing God's will, no? And from a Torah perspective, you don't have to become Jewish to do God's will.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca:
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Yeah, ok, the old testament, the torah. But, you're taking it literally. Which goes along with what the Jews wanted to happen. Good stuff happening to the Jews, here on earth.
When I said that, I was actually thinking directly back to what Lisa said and wondering where that all came from:
quote:Jesus was not a king. Descent from David doesn't make one a king. If it did, we'd be inundated by kings. Also, the Christian view is that Jesus was not the blood son of Joseph, and while Jewishness is determined matrilineally, tribal and familial relationships are determined patrilineally. To be a legitimate king of the Davidic dynasty, your father must be a direct descendant of David as well. Adoption doesn't count.
The Messiah needs to do a number of things. He needs to actually lead the Jews. Jesus didn't do this. He needs to bring the exiled Jews back to Israel. Jesus didn't do this. He needs to restore and/or strengthen our sovereignty there, and Jesus didn't do this. He needs to bring Jews closer to God and the Torah, and Jesus did the exact opposite.
More than anything, he needs not to die in the middle of it all.
And that's what I meant about good things happening here on earth.
Whereas, Catholicism thinks that he did all those things, but for the heavenly Israel, not the earthly Israel. For forever, not here on this earth. He widened the circle of God's people to the world, not just the Jews, and brings them all closer to God. Which sounds like a wonderful thing.
And the Jewish understanding of the Messiah's coming relates to the Jews having a new king and new Israel on earth, right? Isn't that supposed to be a wonderful thing?
It'd be more wonderfuller if it'd already happened. But the point is, God's plan for the world isn't just for Israel. We have a role in it, but it's for everyone. The world after the Messiah comes and accomplishes his stuff is supposed to be good for everyone. Compare that to... well, how've the past couple of millenia been for most people? I think we're hoping for better than that.
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Lately I've been thinking that the main difference between the Jews and the Christians was this interpretation, right here. I suppose the (Jewish) answer is that it is written that it will happen the way you have described, therefore, you must wait for that prophecy to be fulfilled just exactly as it says, literally, or you'll be in big trouble again for idol woship.
Hmmm.
Not really. The idolatry thing isn't about seeing someone as the Messiah who wasn't. You're confusing Messiah and God again. Rabbi Akiva wasn't an idolator for thinking that Bar Kochva was the Messiah. It would have been great had he been right. He turned out not to be. Those who believed Jesus was the Messiah prior to his death (again, I'm stipulating to that without accepting it as historically accurate) weren't idolators either.
We believe that God tells us things for a reason.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Also, I guess I don't know what is supposed to happen after the Jewish Messiah comes and fulfills all these prophecies. Does everyone live happily ever after, then? Or... more of the same? Follow all the laws and try not to let Him down again?
We have vague outlines of it. The main answer is, "We'll see when it happens". But some general answers:
Every nation in the world will worship God at least once a year at the Temple in Jerusalem. Those who don't won't get rain.
The whole "lion laying down with the lamb" thing will happen, either literally or figuratively. The world will be a good place in which to live. And yes, for everyone.
The role of Jews will be to be teachers, primarily. That's what we've been for all along. Keepers of God's knowledge for the purpose of sharing it with everyone.
The purpose of Levites used to be like that. When God gave us the Land of Canaan, He divided it amongst us by tribe. The Levites lived among the other tribes, rather than in a tribal area of their own, and were the teachers of the people. That was their job. As I understand it, our job is going to pretty much be like that. Of course, to a certain extent, it has been all along, even prior to the Messiah, but I suspect that afterwards, there'll be a little less of the pogromming and pillaging to go with it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Where would I find such a community?
Here's a good place to start (and this is its companion group).
I'd be more likely to recommend The Noachide Fellowship (Noah Institute). The above links are too closely affiliated with Lubavitch Hassidism, which has become a little problematic.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I looked over the seven laws for Noachides. I realized something: Those seven laws are the foundation of everything I've been doing in my life. I've been struggling to do those since... well, since I can remember. And I still feel like I'm missing something. Like there's something more I can do to be showing my devotion to God.
Well from another prospective, one option is charity work. Instead of going to shul like the Jews every Saturday, spend the day doing good deeds for others. Soup kitchens, helping the elderly, habitat for humanity, or maybe even a dog shelter.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
How long is the earth supposed to go on after the Messiah comes? Forever? People will still get old and die during this time, right?
I like it that the whole world is involved in this concept. And nations that don't go along with it get droughts? Interesting.
Given Jewish history, isn't it likely that this golden age will last a few years, or a few decades, and then go back into error, like with David and Saul and the Golden Calf? Or won't that be possible after the Messiah?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: How long is the earth supposed to go on after the Messiah comes? Forever? People will still get old and die during this time, right?
<shrug> Dunno. Honestly, we don't have any kind of clear and indisputable picture of the period, except for a small number of things.
For example, we know there's going to be a resurrection of the dead. We know the Messiah is going to come. We know that there's a world to come. But which is which and what comes first and so on? Will people die again after the resurrection? Will people be in the world to come after they die, but come back here for the resurrection? We don't know that stuff.
There are sources which speak of us having bodies (though not like our current ones) in the world to come. Some people (me, for example) are curious about such things. Most people aren't. I have a picture of some of what may happen that's consistent (to the best of my knowledge) with the sources that we do have, but being consistent with doesn't mean it's a unique solution, if you know what I mean. There could be other pictures that are just as consistent with the sources.
The long and short of it is, we'll find out eventually, so why is it important? It's not something that should even enter into whether or not we do what God tells us. We're not selfless, but neither are we bucking for heavenly brownie points.
In Pirkei Avot (Chapters of Basic Principles), Antigonus of Socho taught that we shouldn't be like a servant who serves his master in order to receive a reward. Rather, we should be like servants who serve their master even without hope of a reward. The Sadducees were founded by one of his disciples who misunderstood this to be implying that there was no reward and punishment for our actions. There is, but that's not supposed to be part of our motivation. And the fact that we don't know a lot about it sort of forces that issue. If we had more info, it'd be awfully hard not to take that into account, right?
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I like it that the whole world is involved in this concept. And nations that don't go along with it get droughts? Interesting.
Given Jewish history, isn't it likely that this golden age will last a few years, or a few decades, and then go back into error, like with David and Saul and the Golden Calf? Or won't that be possible after the Messiah?
No, that's the whole point. Though I'm not sure what you mean by David and Saul.
I will tell you a few other things we know... and I have to admit that I debated with myself over whether this was a good idea to mention or not.
One other event that's connected is the whole Gog and Magog thing. That's a war that's going to happen in Israel, where Israel gets invaded by other countries from two sides, and God intervenes catastrophically. This event is going to be so major that in the same way the Exodus and Revelation at Sinai are now considered the seminal events in Jewish history, this new event will replace them as the biggest event.
When we say Kaddish in synagogue, it's an affirmation and/or prayer for this event. It's called the Great and Awesome Day of God. We even know the date on which it's going to happen. Just not what year.
See, the Jewish year is a cycle. The holidays we observe are characteristic of the day on which they happened. For example, on the 9th of Av, both Temples were destroyed, the Jews were expelled from Spain, and lots of other nasty things happened. The characteristic of this day is one of extreme exile or redemption, and in fact, tradition tells us the Messiah will be born on the 9th of Av. But this day was set for that stuff even before the actually events happened on them. The 9th of Av was the day that the spies in the desert came back from spying out Canaan and gave their evil report, but the day was one of either extreme redemption or its opposite even before then.
Similarly, Hanukkah is on the 25th day of Kislev. That day was also the day on which the Tabernacle was completed and dedicated in the desert. It's a day for that kind of thing.
The Great and Awesome Day of God is like that. We even have a name for it nowadays: Hoshana Rabbah (the Great Hosanna). It's the 7th day of the Sukkot holiday. And it's a weird holiday, because its main event hasn't happened yet.
When this happens, the catastrophe is going to be global. Either 2/3 or 8/9 of the world's population is going to be wiped out. Geography will change. Everything will change.
And... it'll happen when it happens. But this day and the Exodus are sort of like bookends for history. Everything before the Exodus and everything after the GaADoG are essentially different from the time between those two events.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
That's pretty cool, I have to say.
quote:Jesus was not a king. Descent from David doesn't make one a king. If it did, we'd be inundated by kings.
I've been mulling over what it WOULD take for a son of David to be a real king. God could just say it, and it would be so, right? Or is there some more earthly way for it, like a son of David marries a queen of another land and they have a son together. That wouldn't automatically be the Messiah, but would be one of the signs that he could be?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: That's pretty cool, I have to say.
quote:Jesus was not a king. Descent from David doesn't make one a king. If it did, we'd be inundated by kings.
I've been mulling over what it WOULD take for a son of David to be a real king. God could just say it, and it would be so, right? Or is there some more earthly way for it, like a son of David marries a queen of another land and they have a son together. That wouldn't automatically be the Messiah, but would be one of the signs that he could be?
It's fairly simple. A king isn't necessarily a monarch. He's the head of the nation. God declaring someone king doesn't make them the head of the nation in practice. Between the anointing of David and the death of Saul, neither one of them was fully the king of Israel. That's why David's reign isn't counted until after Saul's death. A teacher or rabbi isn't the head of the nation unless he's the head of the nation, you know?
And in terms of identifying someone as the Messiah, he has to be okayed by the high court. They have to vet him according to every piece of information we have.
Of course, what Maimonides says (Laws of Kings 11:4) is that:
quote:If a King arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments, as did his ancestor David, observes the precepts prescribed in the Written and the Oral Law, prevails upon Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the battles of the Lord, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah.
If he does these things and succeeds, rebuilds the Sanctuary on its site, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is beyond all doubt the Messiah. He will prepare the whole world to serve the Lord as it is written: For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the Name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent (Zephaniah 3:9).
But if he does not meet with full success, or is slain, it is obvious that he is not the Messiah promised in the Torah. He is to be regarded like all the other wholehearted and worthy kings of the House of David who died and whom the Holy One, blessed be He, raised up to test the multitude, as it is written: And some of them that are wise shall stumble, to refine among them, and to purify, and to make white, even to the time of the end; for it is yet for the time appointed (Daniel 11:35).
So we have the concept of a presumed Messiah. And he needn't be a king, literally. He has to be a patrilineal descendent of David and the son of a Jewish mother, and he has to be the ruler of Israel.
If someone rises to the head of Israel and does the things Maimonides mentions at the beginning of that quote, he has a presumption of being the Messiah. But then he has to do other things before it's certain. No one has done those yet.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Thanks, Rivka. I'm looking into it... I think I'll try it for a while. I read on one of those sites, however, that Gentiles are not allowed to celebrate the sabbath in the same way that Jews are. How, then, could a gentile go to a synagogue to check it out?(I think someone asked if they could go, and the answer was yes)
I also have another question: Do the Jews believe that you can pray to God as a friend? As in, tell Him anything, talk to Him about everything? And do you believe that you have to use formal language when you pray?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Looking over these past conversations, I have another question.
Christians believe that Jesus will return someday to set up a thousand-year Kingdom on Earth, where he will rule the entire earth. What I've noticed in these previous conversations is that the main reason Jesus isn't considered the Messiah by Jews is that he didn't actually rule.
Is it possible, if Jesus were to do as he said and return to set up a thousand-year Kingdom, that he could BECOME the Messiah when that kingdom is actually set up? Is it possible that, the first time he came, 2000 years ago, he was just coming to start getting things set up for when he actually DID become the Messiah? To tell the world(which he actually did, historically) that the gentiles can be in God's kingdom right along with the Jews?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
How hard do you think this many thousands of years after David would it be to determine the claim that someone is of patrilineal descendent? I know DNA has been found to trace many Jews back to certain officially unknown individuals, but without David's DNA that would not be exactly accurate.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: How, then, could a gentile go to a synagogue to check it out?(I think someone asked if they could go, and the answer was yes)
I remember as a child my father taking me on vacation once to some city, and we stopped to check out an Orthodox shul. I recall the Rabbi inviting us to services, even though my father is not Jewish.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Thanks, Rivka. I'm looking into it... I think I'll try it for a while. I read on one of those sites, however, that Gentiles are not allowed to celebrate the sabbath in the same way that Jews are. How, then, could a gentile go to a synagogue to check it out?(I think someone asked if they could go, and the answer was yes)
Going to shul (synagogue) isn't an issue. It's observing all the laws of Shabbat. Actually, when someone is in the process of converting to Judaism, they are instructed to do at least one thing each Shabbat that would be forbidden if they were Jewish. It's because Shabbat is a gift that God gave to the Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I also have another question: Do the Jews believe that you can pray to God as a friend? As in, tell Him anything, talk to Him about everything? And do you believe that you have to use formal language when you pray?
You can talk to God whenever you want. Well, you probably shouldn't in the bathroom. We consider going before God to be analogous to going before a king. Only more so. Just as you wouldn't go before a king naked or in messy clothes, or lightly, so too should you not approach God that way.
Most of our prayers are in Hebrew, but with very few exceptions, they can be said in any language.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Looking over these past conversations, I have another question.
Christians believe that Jesus will return someday to set up a thousand-year Kingdom on Earth, where he will rule the entire earth. What I've noticed in these previous conversations is that the main reason Jesus isn't considered the Messiah by Jews is that he didn't actually rule.
Is it possible, if Jesus were to do as he said and return to set up a thousand-year Kingdom, that he could BECOME the Messiah when that kingdom is actually set up?
Nope. Not even theoretically. He's not patrilineally descended from David.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: How hard do you think this many thousands of years after David would it be to determine the claim that someone is of patrilineal descendent? I know DNA has been found to trace many Jews back to certain officially unknown individuals, but without David's DNA that would not be exactly accurate.
It's not that hard, really. There's a concept of legal presumption. It's different than mathematical proof, but it's good enough. There are some families which are known to be of Davidic descent.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Most of our prayers are in Hebrew, but with very few exceptions, they can be said in any language.
Any chance you could mention what those exceptions are?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Looking over these past conversations, I have another question.
Christians believe that Jesus will return someday to set up a thousand-year Kingdom on Earth, where he will rule the entire earth. What I've noticed in these previous conversations is that the main reason Jesus isn't considered the Messiah by Jews is that he didn't actually rule.
Is it possible, if Jesus were to do as he said and return to set up a thousand-year Kingdom, that he could BECOME the Messiah when that kingdom is actually set up?
Nope. Not even theoretically. He's not patrilineally descended from David.
Again with the assumption that Jesus is a historical figure, if one were didn't believe that he is the Son of God, then he would be Joseph's son and so would be patrilineally descended from David. If I am reading Matthew correctly.
That's a lot of assumption, but it seems to be either son of Joseph or son of God.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Except that Mary was pregnant before her marriage to Joseph, and he was troubled by it. Although theoretically if it was some other man who fathered the child, that man could have been descended from David.
A group of us awhile back were talking about what life was like for Jewish families in the time of Jesus, and how strictly Mary would have been watched. Like, she wouldn't have been anywhere outside her house without being guarded by other family members. And the inner part of the house, where she would have spent most of her time, would have been hard for a human man, any man, to penetrate. Not to say it couldn't have been done, though.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
If Jesus is the son of a human (Joseph or not), then doesn't most of Christian doctrine fall a part? What would be so special about him then?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Absolutely nothing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Theaca: I suspect that in poorer Jewish families the role of women was nowhere near as protected as you hypothesize, on average.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
That's to be expected. But I thought Mary came from well to do parents. Weren't they rather rich, and Mary their only child?
But it isn't my hypothesis. It was just a conversation of a group of people around Christmastime. I wish I could remember who led the conversation so I could look up their sources.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: If Jesus is the son of a human (Joseph or not), then doesn't most of Christian doctrine fall a part? What would be so special about him then?
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Absolutely nothing.
You mean miracles and the ressurection don't count for anything?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Ummm, I don't understand you, Tinros. If Jesus isn't God, then none of that really happened. It's kind of all or none, for Christians. Isn't it? You know, the whole Trinity thing?
Mormon belief may be an exception to that, but you aren't LDS, Tinros.
(edit to add: most of us don't worship a man who did miracles, but a God who came down to earth and died and then rose again. There's a big difference)
[ March 18, 2006, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Theaca ]
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Not being born of a virgin doesn't make him "not God." There have been cases when God inhabitied a personal form. maybe Christ was born of Mary and Joseph, but instead of giving him a soul, like the rest of us, God Himself inhabited Jesus.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: There have been cases when God inhabitied a personal form.
Like what cases?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Most of our prayers are in Hebrew, but with very few exceptions, they can be said in any language.
Any chance you could mention what those exceptions are?
Hmm... true is, I don't recall offhand. I remember being taught that, but it was never something that mattered to me practically. I think the Shema has to be said in Hebrew. The priestly blessing does as well, I think, since it uses direct quotes from the Torah. But in all honesty, I don't remember. I know that the Amidah, which is the centerpiece of every prayer service, can definitely be said in whatever language works best for you, though Hebrew is always to be preferred, because there's no such thing as a good translation. Merely less bad ones.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Is it possible, if Jesus were to do as he said and return to set up a thousand-year Kingdom, that he could BECOME the Messiah when that kingdom is actually set up?
Nope. Not even theoretically. He's not patrilineally descended from David.
Again with the assumption that Jesus is a historical figure, if one were didn't believe that he is the Son of God, then he would be Joseph's son and so would be patrilineally descended from David. If I am reading Matthew correctly.
That's a lot of assumption, but it seems to be either son of Joseph or son of God.
That is a lot of assumptions. Given all that, he could be a legitimate descendant of David. But then he'd have to repent for things like the cornfield bit, and the vandalism in the Temple and so on. I'm just saying, that a person, detached from the divine stuff, who did the things ascribed to him in the Christian Bible... well, he'd have a lot to work on before he could be any kind of Jewish leader, let alone king or president or prime minister or whatnot.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: If Jesus is the son of a human (Joseph or not), then doesn't most of Christian doctrine fall a part? What would be so special about him then?
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Absolutely nothing.
You mean miracles and the ressurection don't count for anything?
Between Elijah and Elisha, I don't think there's much Jesus did in the way of miracles that hadn't already been done. They each resurrected the dead, Elisha doing so even after his own death. Making an axhead float has got to be a match for walking on water. Fish and loaves? Elisha did it. Same with healing lepers. And Elijah went up into heaven in a fiery chariot. But no one ever suggested that either of these men was a deity.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I thought the Messiah was supposed to protest the problems in the temple? Is knocking over tables of the moneychangers considered vandalism, or what are you referring to?
What's the cornfield bit?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I thought the Messiah was supposed to protest the problems in the temple? Is knocking over tables of the moneychangers considered vandalism, or what are you referring to?
The Messiah isn't above the law. If there was something wrong with what was going on in the Temple, there are ways to deal with it. If it just offended him, well, tough on him.
Each king of Israel is required to write a complete Torah scroll (or have one written) and to carry it with him at all times. This is to make it impossible for him to forget that he is not above the laws of the Torah. We were the first constitutional monarchy.
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: What's the cornfield bit?
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not vice versa". That's poorly done sophistry for violating God's law. Sure, if you're starving, and the only way to obtain food is by harvesting it on Shabbat, you do it. But if you're strolling through a corn field and get hungry, there's such a thing as self-control.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am really uncomfortable with discussions of Christian theology in this thread.
I am not making any demands; not even any requests. Merely the statement.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I can understand that, rivka.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
My apologies.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Mormon belief may be an exception to that"
Hardly. Mormons are just as much Christians in the viewpoint of Jesus as Christ as any others. As StarLisa pointed out in her critical way, if he wasn't divine than there wasn't much special about what he did.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Occasional, let's stop, okay. This can be discussed elsewhere if people want.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I learned a lot and totally enjoyed the last two pages. If I knew which ones you wanted me to erase I could do that. This really helped me understand a whole lot more about Jewish beliefs.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I've got a question. My understanding is that rabbinical tradition starts a few decades after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Did people who self identified, or would have been known by the rest of Jewish society as rabbis exist prior to the destruction of the temple? If so, were rabbis a coherent group prior to the temple's destruction?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The term "rabbi" was less common prior to that (though not non-existent). But it's a matter of nomenclature. One of the most famous rabbis, for example, was Hillel the Elder. The one who stated: "What is hateful to you, don't do you your friend". And he didn't have the title "rabbi". Not because he wasn't entitled to it; it would have been like calling Albert Einstein "Mr. Einstein".
Rabbinical tradition begins... well, really it begins at Creation, with some law and lore having been given to Adam by God, and passed down through the generations. But usually, we think more of Sinai.
We refer to Moses as "Moshe Rabbenu", which is Hebrew for Moses, our Rabbi. He was really the first rabbi, although, as in the case of Hillel the Elder (only more so), he didn't carry that title.
The authority God gave to Moses was passed from Moses to Joshua, to the Elders during the time of the Judges, to the Prophets. Ezra, for example, was a disciple of Baruch son of Neriah, who was a disciple of Jeremiah, who was a disciple of Zephaniah, who was a disciple of Nahum, who was a disciple of Joel, then Micah, then Isaiah, and so on, all the way back. From Ezra, it continued through Simeon the Just, Antigonus of Socho, and then five pairs of Sages (called "The Pairs), the fifth of whom were Hillel the Elder and Shammai.
These were all rabbis, despite the fact that the title wasn't used. They all fulfilled the same function in the chain of transmission of God's Torah. The Prophets did more than that, of course.
The Sages after that were known to later generations as Tannaim. They carried the title "Rabbi". One of these, a descendent of Hillel, was Rabbi Judah the Prince, who compiled the Mishnah, a codification of elements of the Oral Torah. The Sages after this time (around 230 CE) were called the Amoraim.
When the Romans made it punishable by death to confer rabbinic authority in the traditional way, the title "Rabbi" was restricted to those who had been so ordained. This type of ordination could also only be given in Israel, so those Sages living in Babylon, as well as those who couldn't be ordained properly because of Roman persecutions, were given the title "Rav", instead. A shortened form of "Rabbi".
The Second Temple was destroyed during the Tannaitic period, and there were definitely rabbis who were called by that title living at the time.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Here are a couple of links that may be of interest:
(Note: I don't agree with all the absolute dates given in these pages.)
(Further note: the second link shows a rabbi who lived in the early 1900s, who could trace his Torah "lineage" back 130 "generations" to the day God gave the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai. He's only one rabbi who can do that; it's not at all uncommon.)
[ March 20, 2006, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Some Orthodox Jews have said Reform Rabbis and authorities in general flat out lie to their congregants? Do they mean it is with malicious intent? As in some Reform authorities actually know better? Or is it the Orthodox view that lies are just being spread based on misinterpretation?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Stephan, in general, I don't think most Reform rabbis know any better. There are rare cases of Reform rabbis who were originally Orthodox, but basically apostasized. A friend of mine grew up in Kansas City, and knew a man like that.
A couple of years ago, I went to some talks given by Rabbi Neil Gilman, from the Jewish Theological Seminary. That's the Conservative movement's seminary. He's on the faculty there, and he's written books, and so on. He'd been invited for a weekend to this Conservative synagogue. Not really a synagogue, because it's not that formal, and it's very hands-on. Not the spectator sport that most Conservative synagogues (and Reform temples) tend to be.
He didn't know what hit him. And these are people who have a severely flawed imagine of how Judaism works, and they still knew enough to tie Gilman in knots.
Is Gilman malicious? By no means. He's lost. I felt so sad for him. It was clear that he was stuck between what he knew and what he wanted to be true, and at his age (he's in his 60s, I think), he's just in too far.
Last year, he came out with a proclamation that the Conservative movement should be honest and stop claiming to be bound by Jewish law. I was actually kind of proud of him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
sL, I liked your answer to Noemon's question.
Theaca, I'm glad it was helpful to you. And I'm not asking for anything to be edited, although I appreciate the offer.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There are rare cases of Reform rabbis who were originally Orthodox, but basically apostasized. A friend of mine grew up in Kansas City, and knew a man like that.
I know one or two as well. But I agree, they are definitely in the minority.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks Lisa; I appreciate your taking the time to answer the question so thoroughly.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:A couple of years ago, I went to some talks given by Rabbi Neil Gilman, from the Jewish Theological Seminary. That's the Conservative movement's seminary. He's on the faculty there, and he's written books, and so on. He'd been invited for a weekend to this Conservative synagogue. Not really a synagogue, because it's not that formal, and it's very hands-on. Not the spectator sport that most Conservative synagogues (and Reform temples) tend to be.
He didn't know what hit him. And these are people who have a severely flawed imagine of how Judaism works, and they still knew enough to tie Gilman in knots.
Is Gilman malicious? By no means. He's lost. I felt so sad for him. It was clear that he was stuck between what he knew and what he wanted to be true, and at his age (he's in his 60s, I think), he's just in too far.
Last year, he came out with a proclamation that the Conservative movement should be honest and stop claiming to be bound by Jewish law. I was actually kind of proud of him.
It so happens that I have attended many services and events at JTS, being Conservative and having gone to Columbia. I have also attended Conservative shuls in 5 states. I don't feel qualified to comment on what most shuls (Conservative, Reform, or Orthodox) are like, but it seems to me that you and I have had vastly different experiences. I have never been to a Conservative shul where I felt like a spectator, rather than a participant, and I'm also shocked that Rabbi Gilman would say something like that. I am not proud of that statement and I don't agree with it at all.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Is there a good index, or topical guide available for the Talmud? Reading through the (fantastic) Shottenstein edition of Berachos, I realized that while it did have a Scripture Reference index, it didn't have any other sort of topical guide or index.
Are there any good hard-copy indeces you could recommend?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't know of any hard-copy ones. I've never actually heard of such a thing before. But here's one called WebShas that sounds pretty useful, even if it's online. It may not be complete yet, however.
I believe the Soncino English translation of the Talmud has a subject index in it, actually. But I don't know if you can get that separately.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or you could get the CD, which is searchable.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I'd like to put some Tehillim up in Aerin's room, but I'm not sure which would be the most appropriate. We already have the Shir Hamalos in her bassinet and stroller and swings. What do y'all think?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Some common ones to put up: Psalm 1 (because she is in her first year); whichever one contains her name-verse (if you know it -- if not I can try to find a list); and the verses from 119 that correspond to the letters of her name.
There are dozens that are commonly recited when praying for health; you might pick one or more of those.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Which Shir Hamaalot? All 15 of them? Esa einai?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
121 - it's a Lubavitch custom (as far as I know) and I spent a lot of time growing up with close family friends who are Lubavitch. My mother wanted me to put red ribbons everywhere and this was my compromise. We said it every day Aerin was in the hospital.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote: whichever one contains her name-verse (if you know it -- if not I can try to find a list);
I don't. I'm a terrible Jewish mother. If it's not too much trouble, I would really appreciate it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Erm. Remind me what her Hebrew first name is? Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Sela Shoshana. Sela is samech lamed ayin.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
I recently read something explaining the inclusion and the exclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Christian Old Testament. The argument for inclusion is that they were in the Torah at the time of Christ, and the exclusion because they were apparently removed from the Torah around 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia. I was wondering if anyone knows why the books were removed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What books would these be? And what on earth was the Council of Jamnia?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: Sela Shoshana. Sela is samech lamed ayin.
Trouble is, that combination (beginning with a samech and ending with an ayin) is not common. (Actually, that's a very odd spelling of selah altogether.) My Artscroll siddur doesn't have that as an option . . . and I'm not seeing any in a quick skim of the first 20 chapters.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
The books are Baruch, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees I and II, Judith, and Esdras, I believe. And all I know about this council is what this says.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Those books are not part of the TaNaCh because they lack direct divine inspiration. And probably the reason I never heard of this council before is some guy made it up in the late 1800s.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: Sela Shoshana. Sela is samech lamed ayin.
Petra?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The one book there is some debate about is Ben Sirach. It's actually refererenced in the Gemara once or twice as part of Ketuvim. That view didn't prevail, however.
(Edited: Ben Sirach is better known as Ben Sira, or Ecclesiasticus.)
[ March 23, 2006, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Petra?
Yes, actually. I never thought about it - she's named after Andrew's aunt (mother's sister). No one knew her Hebrew name (his family is pretty secular) and her English name was Stephanie. However, Andrew's father's name is Steven, so we had to pick something different. I looked at a list of names that start with samech and I liked Sela the best. Shoshana is after Andrew's paternal grandfather, so we got both sides covered.
The next one will be named for my family.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Would it be okay to just do verses, rather than the whole chapter? I'm not sure what, if anything, is customary.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know that much is, except perhaps among Lubavitchers. Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with using verses. Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My question:
Many of these rules seem insanely strict and wholly arbitrary. What's the point?
I'm not an expert, not yet, but I did some research for a term paper ("The Importance of Memory in Jewish culture"). Most rules that seem to be arbitrary today, used to be very sensible in ancient times. For example that they are not allowed to eat pork. In hot countries (and without refrigerators) it was pretty dangerous to eat pork meat because it was known to perish very fast. People could get sick and die. It's a bit like the thing with the holy cows in India. They became holy because a living cow is more useful for people who are nearly starving. It can give you milk as long as it lives, which is better than having meat for only a few days.
In both cases, it was a matter of survival to stick to those rules. The biological survival of the people AND the survival of the Jewish religion and culture itself. I think, a lot of rules also derived from the need to protect their religion and culture whilst being surrounded by Gentiles in most of the countries where you can find Jewish communities. A matter of assimilation without getting 'swallowed' by the majority.
Certainly, there's a lot of tradition, too. I mean, Catholics, in contrast to other Christian movements, are commanded to eat fish on Fridays, although there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason for this rule but tradition.
The more I find out about the aspects of Jewish life, the more I'm convinced that Judaism is a very SENSIBLE religion.
I really appreciate that people are encouraged to ask questions, that you are commanded to learn! Especially in contrast to the Christian religion. I'm NOT against Christians, but I don't like to ask them about the WHY. I made the experience that most of my fellow Christians think it is a matter of respect to accept the rules without asking "Why", as if I would question the authority of the Scriptures only because I want to know. That's sooo frustrating!
Thanks a lot for this thread, Rivka!
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
Oh, I forgot.
I'm not sure, if somebody already asked this question, because I haven't had time to read EVERY post, yet, but I couldn't find an answer on "Torah.org", "jewfaq" or "everythingjewish", so here it is:
Do you know why non- Jews are called Gentiles? I don't think there is any connection to the French word "gentile" (= "pretty")? If there is: *lol* How sarcastic!
[ March 28, 2006, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Pinky ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's a new one on me -- I never even wondered! *laugh*
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the two words are actually related, because gentle (which I assume is related to the word you mentioned) derives from the meaning of "from the same family or clan." Clearly whoever came up with that had no idea what real sibling rivalry can be like. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, and as I mentioned in the Mormon caffeine thread, I don't believe that the laws of kosher have much, if anything, to do with sanitation. Any such issues are purely in the nature of a side benefit . . . and mostly a way for some people of recent eras to claim understanding of laws whose meaning is primarily spiritual. Not physical.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
"Gentle"?! Then it's either ironic (when we take the "same family"-meaning OR sarcastic (when we have a look at history). Either way, I like that. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Many of these rules seem insanely strict and wholly arbitrary. What's the point?
Most rules that seem to be arbitrary today, used to be very sensible in ancient times. For example that they are not allowed to eat pork. In hot countries (and without refrigerators) it was pretty dangerous to eat pork meat because it was known to perish very fast.
Not significantly faster than other foods. And singling out pork begs the question. Horse doesn't spoil any faster than beef, but beef is permitted and horse isn't.
These "explanations" have nothing to do with why the laws exist. In most cases, they are rationalizations invented by Jews who wanted to stop keeping kosher.
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: The biological survival of the people AND the survival of the Jewish religion and culture itself. I think, a lot of rules also derived from the need to protect their religion and culture whilst being surrounded by Gentiles in most of the countries where you can find Jewish communities. A matter of assimilation without getting 'swallowed' by the majority.
Pinky, let me try and explain what's wrong with your analysis. It's true that we have some laws that are explicitly there to maintain a distance between us and non-Jews. But we never hide that fact -- when it's a fact.
We have always been very careful to draw a distinction between the laws given to us by God and the rabbinic enactments that were not. Both categories are binding on us. But one of the commandments is a prohibition against adding laws and claiming that they are from the Torah, rather than rabbinic. And we follow that law very strictly.
The laws given to us by God were given to us by God. Not invented by men. If we claimed that every single one of our laws was from God, you might have some cause to wonder whether we had made it up. But we don't.
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: The more I find out about the aspects of Jewish life, the more I'm convinced that Judaism is a very SENSIBLE religion.
But with all due respect, Pinky, if the religion you think is sensible is one where we invented the laws for reasons such as the ones you're suggesting, that's not Judaism that you're looking at.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: Do you know why non- Jews are called Gentiles? I don't think there is any connection to the French word "gentile" (= "pretty")? If there is: *lol* How sarcastic!
We didn't come up with the word. English isn't the language of Judaism, and no English term can be anything but a rough translation.
The term "gentile" was made up by non-Jews themselves. The Hebrew term is goy, with the plural goyim. Goy means "nation", and Jews are called a goy kadosh, or "holy nation", ourselves. The reason it came to mean "non-Jew" was that in many places in the Bible, we're told not to try and behave k'chol ha-goyim: "like all the nations". From that usage, the other nations, in the aggregate, became known as goyim.
That said, here is an etymology of the word "gentile".
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
Edit to delete this post. Had nothing to do with Judaism, but with the "what makes Jesus special"- question. so...
[ March 28, 2006, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Pinky ]
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:We didn't come up with the word. English isn't the language of Judaism, and no English term can be anything but a rough translation.
The term "gentile" was made up by non-Jews themselves. The Hebrew term is goy, with the plural goyim. Goy means "nation", and Jews are called a goy kadosh, or "holy nation", ourselves. The reason it came to mean "non-Jew" was that in many places in the Bible, we're told not to try and behave k'chol ha-goyim: "like all the nations". From that usage, the other nations, in the aggregate, became known as goyim.
That said, here is an etymology of the word "gentile". [/QB]
Aha. Well, the only time I've ever heard that term is, when English speaking Jews refer to Non- Jews, so certainly, I wondered.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I am really uncomfortable with discussions of Christian theology in this thread.
I am not making any demands; not even any requests. Merely the statement.
Ooops. Sorry. Wait a minute... deleted.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
@pork: there's a special kind of maggots (or insects or...?) that prefer pork to other kinds of meat and that can be hazardous to your health. Whatever.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Edited to add: The first unsuccessful volley = ]
Tapeworm. The pork tapeworm is Taenia solium, but there is also a beef version (Taenia saginata).
[Deftly caught and corrected below as = ]
"trichinella worms, which cause trichinosis"
Thank you, Noemon.
[ March 28, 2006, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky:
quote:We didn't come up with the word. English isn't the language of Judaism, and no English term can be anything but a rough translation.
The term "gentile" was made up by non-Jews themselves. The Hebrew term is goy, with the plural goyim. Goy means "nation", and Jews are called a goy kadosh, or "holy nation", ourselves. The reason it came to mean "non-Jew" was that in many places in the Bible, we're told not to try and behave k'chol ha-goyim: "like all the nations". From that usage, the other nations, in the aggregate, became known as goyim.
That said, here is an etymology of the word "gentile".
Aha. Well, the only time I've ever heard that term is, when English speaking Jews refer to Non- Jews, so certainly, I wondered. [/QB]
Ah. No, it's just that a lot of Jews use that term in English, because some idiot anti-semite started a story that "goyim" means "beasts", and rather than risk violence, it seemed easier to use the English term.
Also... you've never heard the term used by Mormons? I've been told by a few Mormons that I, as a Jew, am a Gentile. Go figure...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: @pork: there's a special kind of maggots (or insects or...?) that prefer pork to other kinds of meat and that can be hazardous to your health. Whatever.
So why is it that horse is every bit as non-kosher as pig? So is rabbit and bear and snake and shrimp and lobster and scallops and sturgeon and catfish. All things that I've always wondered what they taste like, but will never find out.
I do have a vague memory of an episode of Babylon 5 where Michael Garibaldi commented that Narn taste like chicken. I don't remember the context, though.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Tapeworm. The pork tapeworm is Taenia solium, but there is also a beef version (Taenia saginata).
Thank you!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
CT, don't you think that it's more likely that Pinky was thinking of trichinella worms, which cause trichinosis?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: So why is it that horse is every bit as non-kosher as pig? So is rabbit and bear and snake and shrimp and lobster and scallops and sturgeon and catfish. All things that I've always wondered what they taste like, but will never find out.
Might be interesting to see whether those meats, when undercooked, carry health risks beyond those common to all undercooked meats. I know that horse and bear are both carriers of Trichinella.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
yes! What was I thinking?
(I will edit to add a note above.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I figured, but you never know--I don't know anything about Taenia solium.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(sheepish look)
I have been studying microbiology today, for reasons I will impart in a PM. (Not that I'd have put off answering a PM to that awkward point where it becomes ... well, you know. Not that. ) I'm all over the Taenia.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: So why is it that horse is every bit as non-kosher as pig? So is rabbit and bear and snake and shrimp and lobster and scallops and sturgeon and catfish. All things that I've always wondered what they taste like, but will never find out.
Am I Jesus? I don't know everything.
I mentioned the pork because that was what I remembered from an article in the "Spiegel". It was about a book in which a woman describes possible backgrounds of SOME of the Jewish nutritional laws.
With this "pork"-post, I only wanted to answer TomDavidson that not all of the Jewish laws etc. are as arbitrary as they seem to be, that some of those rules are even understandable for non-Jews.
Actually, I don't understand your objections to my analyse. I never said that those rules are NOT given by God. But that doesn't mean, that there is no way to understand at least some of the reasons why He might have given those rules, does it?
And when I said, that I think that Judaism seems to be more sensible to me than some other religions, well, maybe it was the wrong word. I meant: right-minded. Reasonable. Sound. And I referred in my post especially to the Jewish people's appreciation of knowledge and life-long learning and to the fact that you encourage people to ask questions. That IS reasonable, isn't it? I think so.
I apologise if you think that I don't respect your belief or that I trivialize it. This was (and is) not my intention. (Right now, I'm slowly recovering from your rebuke. )
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote: Not that I'd have put off answering a PM to that awkward point where it becomes ... well, you know. Not that. [Wink]
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Pinky:
quote:We didn't come up with the word. English isn't the language of Judaism, and no English term can be anything but a rough translation.
The term "gentile" was made up by non-Jews themselves. The Hebrew term is goy, with the plural goyim. Goy means "nation", and Jews are called a goy kadosh, or "holy nation", ourselves. The reason it came to mean "non-Jew" was that in many places in the Bible, we're told not to try and behave k'chol ha-goyim: "like all the nations". From that usage, the other nations, in the aggregate, became known as goyim.
That said, here is an etymology of the word "gentile".
Aha. Well, the only time I've ever heard that term is, when English speaking Jews refer to Non- Jews, so certainly, I wondered.
Ah. No, it's just that a lot of Jews use that term in English, because some idiot anti-semite started a story that "goyim" means "beasts", and rather than risk violence, it seemed easier to use the English term.
Also... you've never heard the term used by Mormons? I've been told by a few Mormons that I, as a Jew, am a Gentile. Go figure... [/QB]
Why, that's interesting. Thank you! (I'm so relieved to know...finally.) I don't know ANY Mormons personally. Or, if I do, I don't know it. (I don't think there are a lot of Mormons in Germany.) Same applies to Jewish people. I only know one, and I don't know him very good. But there's quite a big Jewish community in Freiburg, so I probably know more. Only, I usually don't ask people about their beliefs.
I only got to know this term because I read some books from Jewish authors in the English Original. (Mordecai Richler, Philip Roth, Jonathan Safran Foer...)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, I assume you've read books by Orson Scott Card, or you wouldn't be here. He's a Mormon. As are very many regulars here. So now you know some Mormons. Say "hi".
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Might be interesting to see whether those meats, when undercooked, carry health risks beyond those common to all undercooked meats. I know that horse and bear are both carriers of Trichinella. [/QB]
Fortunately, there aren't a lot of people to whom bear and horse is an important part of their diet.
I wonder about the difference between common mussels and scallops... (I've never eaten scallops; I wouldn't recognize it if it bit me.).
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Well, I assume you've read books by Orson Scott Card, or you wouldn't be here. He's a Mormon. As are very many regulars here. So now you know some Mormons. Say "hi".
Hi!!
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
I wouldn't say I know you all personally. Or which word is appropiate? Physically? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Carnally?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
How do you pronounce "Noachide"?
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Carnally?
Ha ha. Don't make fun of my little problems with the Thesaurus... Isn't there a risk to catch Trichinella, then? Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
OK, I have a new question. You'd think I'd stop asking them, but no. At least this one is (seemingly) more lighthearted than the things I have been posting about lately.
How are names given? I hear people say that they are given Jewish names but they have other names too. I have a friend who is part Jewish and her name is supposedly Hebrew and has the name initial as her father's name. Anyway, I am facinated by names so I would love to know more about this tradition.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: How do you pronounce "Noachide"?
*twinkle* How do I say it? Or how would I suggest you say it? I say it no-AH-chide (where "ch" is the guttural sound that exists in Hebrew and Yiddish but not English); but it's ok to say "no-AH-hide."
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: How are names given? I hear people say that they are given Jewish names but they have other names too. I have a friend who is part Jewish and her name is supposedly Hebrew and has the name initial as her father's name. Anyway, I am fascinated by names so I would love to know more about this tradition.
Firstly, according to Jewish law, there is no such thing as "part Jewish." Either you are (if your mother is, or if you converted properly), or you are not.
Jewish names are generally Hebrew or Yiddish. Some give their children both a Jewish name and an English (or whatever) one; some do not. (My Jewish name and legal name are the same -- well, except for the last name, as there is no such thing in a Jewish name.) Babies are often named after relatives (deceased if the parents are Ashkenazim; living or deceased if the parents are Sephardim). They may also be given after famous/notable people, such as well-known rabbis or women of note -- or just because they like the name!
(My parents chose Rivka because my mom liked it. She discovered after the fact that there had been a cousin with that name. A number of relatives assumed I was named after her.)
More here. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: How do you pronounce "Noachide"?
*twinkle* How do I say it? Or how would I suggest you say it? I say it no-AH-chide (where "ch" is the guttural sound that exists in Hebrew and Yiddish but not English); but it's ok to say "no-AH-hide."
Funny... I pronounce it with the stress on the first syllable. NO-uh-chide.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: How do you pronounce "Noachide"?
*twinkle* How do I say it? Or how would I suggest you say it? I say it no-AH-chide (where "ch" is the guttural sound that exists in Hebrew and Yiddish but not English); but it's ok to say "no-AH-hide."
Funny... I pronounce it with the stress on the first syllable. NO-uh-chide.
No joke, I pronounce it no-uh-chIde. Stress on the last syllable, with guttural "ch". Now, we got all the possible variations, don't we? Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I understand that Judaism doesn't place emphasis on an afterlife, but can you tell me what, if any, teachings exist on it? Do different groups, or different times, view it differently?
Thanks. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
There is not a lot out there, and there is a lot of personal opinion on the matter. The Torah makes it clear a few times that there is something after death.
Any punishment that exists doesn't last for more then a year. I've heard that the truly wicked have their souls destroyed.
I should also add to my previous post that the question (from a friend, we couldn't answer it) specifically deals with whether there is/might be a resurrection of some sort.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Belief in the resurrection is one of the 13 basic articles of faith codified by Moses Maimonides.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(As was mentioned on the page Stephan linked to.)
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Thanks for the info everyone! This is a great thread. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Why is Maimonides called "Rambam?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
This is a rather vague question, but for the Jewish folks, what, in your experience, have non-Jewish people you've encountered found most strange or difficult to digest about your faith? Is there anything in particular that many non-Jews aren't aware of, or tend to be very surprised when they find it out?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Back in the day, all the big rabbis had cool nicks.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: This is a rather vague question, but for the Jewish folks, what, in your experience, have non-Jewish people you've encountered found most strange or difficult to digest about your faith? Is there anything in particular that many non-Jews aren't aware of, or tend to be very surprised when they find it out?
There seems to be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about the kosher food laws. Kosher is not a style of cuisine, it is a list of restrictions about what is and is not proper to eat. And while, for food that has been processed, people may put their trust in a person or agency familiar with those rules to certify that the food meets the requirements kashrut, that does not mean that "a rabbi has to bless the food".
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I think a lot of people are also confused by the translation of "work" to be what you can not do on the Sabbath. So they will say things like, "Well, it's way more work to walk two miles than to drive." The actual translation is closer to "creation."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Fasting. I keep finding that people are amazed to hear that when we fast, we really fast. As in no food, no water, no nothing.
The whole not using electricity on Shabbat thing surprises a lot of people, too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I keep finding that people are amazed to hear that when we fast, we really fast. As in no food, no water, no nothing.
Really? In my experience, religions that define fast in some other way are the exception where and what you describe is the rule.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have no idea what is more common. But I do know the usual response when I tell someone about a fast is, "But you can have water, right?"
Posted by Mix-up (Member # 9512) on :
Also in response to the name question:
I was given my "Hebrew" name at my Jewish Day School when I was 5 or so. (I'm not sure how the process worked... I'm not quite as smart as Bean; I can't remember that far back!)
Also, when people are called up to the Torah, the name that is used is the first and (sometimes?) middle name of the person being called and then "ben" (son) or "bat" (daughter) and then their mother/father's name. (Keep in mind that women aren’t called to the Torah in the regular orthodox services. My synagogue has a women's service which meets on Saturday afternoon once a month. Even doing this is considered controversial.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
One's full Hebrew name is first, all middle names (if they have any), ben/bas father's name. That would be for things like being called to the Torah and all legal documents (like marriage or divorce documents). I am Rivka Gila bas Baruch.
However, when praying for a sick person (and a few other things), we use the mother's name. Then I am Rivka Gila bas Marta Rochel.
Giving a Hebrew name is really as simple as starting to use it. No "process" is required.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Well, I would assume that if you had medical problems that required a certain food each day, or certain amounts of water, that you would be allowed to have those, even when fasting. As in, "If you can go without it and not put your life at risk, please do, but if you must have it, then have it." I would like to think that a loving God cares more about your life than a fast. Am I right?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: This is a rather vague question, but for the Jewish folks, what, in your experience, have non-Jewish people you've encountered found most strange or difficult to digest about your faith? Is there anything in particular that many non-Jews aren't aware of, or tend to be very surprised when they find it out?
For me, not believing in Jesus. You would be surprised at how many Christians just can't conceive of it. For example, this is a basic conversation I have had with my co-worker several times over the last couple of years:
g-: So is (fill in Jewish holiday) the Jewish Christmas?
Stephan: No, we don't believe in Jesus
g-: So, you don't believe in God?
Stephan: We believe in God, we just don't believe he came to Earth 2,000 years ago in the form of his son.
g-: What about Mary?
Stephan: What about her?
g-: Do you believe in her?
Stephan: No.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Well, I would assume that if you had medical problems that required a certain food each day, or certain amounts of water, that you would be allowed to have those, even when fasting. As in, "If you can go without it and not put your life at risk, please do, but if you must have it, then have it." I would like to think that a loving God cares more about your life than a fast. Am I right?
Correct, life almost always comes first.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Well, I would assume that if you had medical problems that required a certain food each day, or certain amounts of water, that you would be allowed to have those, even when fasting. As in, "If you can go without it and not put your life at risk, please do, but if you must have it, then have it." I would like to think that a loving God cares more about your life than a fast. Am I right?
Yes, it goes even further than that. There are situations where you are religiously required *not* to fast. For example, I stayed with a friend on Yom Kippur who had just had a baby two days earlier. She had a little bit to eat every few minutes (the time and amount are proscribed by the rabbis).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: For me, not believing in Jesus. You would be surprised at how many Christians just can't conceive of it.
<nod> I was stunned, actually, the first time I ran into a Christian who was, himself, stunned to find out that we don't believe in JC. He'd been taught that we knew and accepted that JC was a savior, or whatever, but rejected him anyway.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: I think a lot of people are also confused by the translation of "work" to be what you can not do on the Sabbath. So they will say things like, "Well, it's way more work to walk two miles than to drive." The actual translation is closer to "creation."
Is there not a law limiting how far one may walk on Shabbat? I cannot remember what the limitation is, but I seem to recall it being less than 2 miles.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Is there not a law limiting how far one may walk on Shabbat? I cannot remember what the limitation is, but I seem to recall it being less than 2 miles.
Yes and no. There is such a limit, but it applies only when leaving city limits. If you're staying within inhabited areas, you can walk all day long. (In urban areas, this restriction rarely comes into play at all.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Only someone on the East Coast would make that last blanket statement. It is very easy to have potential issues in most West Coast cities (where there are frequent 1/4 mile stretches of not much besides freeway and trees even while within Los Angeles County or San Diego County limits). Hurray for lower population density!
I solve any potential problem by not walking 2 miles. Ever. Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
And my New York upbringing betrays me again!
Though I've personally walked over four hours through Chicago (arrived in town just barely before sundown; long story), and from downtown Jerusalem to Har Nof and back (multiple occasions). But you're right. Mea culpa!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's not just NY. As you say, it's true for Chicago as well (pretty much), and I'd think Boston as well. And it's definitely true of Yerushalayim!
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with being used to what you're used to. I only have a problem with NYers whose response to having every-place-is-not-NYC-hakedosha pointed out to them is to insist that other places should be more like NY. (Can you tell I dealt with one recently? )
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
How many less then observant Jews typically attend Orthodox congregations? I was working with several congregations (Orthodox, Conservative, and two Reform) in my area last week to put together a candidate forum, and was a little surprised to have the Orthodox representative volunteer to drive out and pick up microphones on Saturday.
Would I fit in attending that congregation more then I thought I would?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, it'd be pretty difficult to get from the airport into Boston by foot... You're direct route requires going under the harbor (by boat, bus, or car), and the long way around might still be problematic, since there is a stretch of land that is undeveloped due to wetland conservation laws (this area was supposed to be part if I-95 through Boston, but the environmentalists won the day, and the only way you know is that there is half an overpass to nowhere in the moddle of a rotary ).
Once in Boston/Cambridge proper though, no worries... Especially if you get to Brookline, which has the unbroken wire surrounding it (I forget the term).
-Bok
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Depends on the congregation. There are Orthodox shuls where the people who drive on Shabbat park around the corner, for instance. Sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" thing, or more like a "don't ask us to say it's okay and we'll just focus on the things you do that are good."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Once in Boston/Cambridge proper though, no worries... Especially if you get to Brookline, which has the unbroken wire surrounding it (I forget the term).
Eiruv.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:For me, not believing in Jesus
By this, I'm assuming you mean, not believing that he was a God or divine -- not that you don't believe there wasn't a man named Jesus who lived, and whose life was documented by many sources, correct? You just do not believe he was the son of God or in any way divine? You do believe the man existed?
FG
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
FG, I've found that Jews are largely split on that issue, and that it can often be couched in terms of "he could have lived then", rather than absolute acceptance of it.
-Bok
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
<nod> Different strokes. I personally think that the character that appears in the Christian scriptures is a fictional combination of a number of charismatic and messianic individuals who lived between about 250 BCE and 70 CE. The one who gave his name to the character, Yeshua HaNotzri, is mentioned in the Talmud, and lived closer to 250 BCE.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Especially if you get to Brookline, which has the unbroken wire surrounding it (I forget the term).
You mean an eruv, I'm guessing. Which is not an unbroken wire; it's a series of fences or "doorways."
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: How many less then observant Jews typically attend Orthodox congregations?
Varies tremendously, and depends largely on what other local options there are. If it is the only (or one of very few) option in town, expect a significant number of people who are not Sabbath-observant. Likewise if it is a congregation that focuses on outreach (although in that case it is probably more accurate to say that many are not YET Sabbath-observant).
In the heart of a city with a large Orthodox community and many non-Orthodox congregations, there will likely still be some, but not many.
Of course, it is possible that the synagogue has a secretary or other worker who is not Jewish.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I won't go into the argument on the many sources, mostly because I haven't really cared enough to read any directly besides the Christian scriptures themselves. From what I have read it seems every argument for/or against his existence is followed up by another good argument refuting it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Especially if you get to Brookline, which has the unbroken wire surrounding it (I forget the term).
You mean an eruv, I'm guessing. Which is not an unbroken wire; it's a series of fences or "doorways."
It depends on the eruv. I'm pretty sure that the one in Boston is an unbroken wire. I know that's done in certain cases.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
okay - thanks for the answer, Lisa and Bok. I wasn't sure of the standing on that.
FG
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wow, there wasn't a single existing wall or natural boundary that could be incorporated? The entire things is tzuros ha-pesach? I thought that only happened with little camp/bungalow colony ones!
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You mean an eruv, I'm guessing. Which is not an unbroken wire; it's a series of fences or "doorways."
It depends on the eruv. I'm pretty sure that the one in Boston is an unbroken wire. I know that's done in certain cases.
Even if wire is used -- and I don't think it's generally one unbroken wire, but never mind that -- the salient point is that it forms a series of fences or "doorways." Stringing wire per se doesn't accomplish anything.
How interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a city eruv with INNER boundaries before! And it is quite clear that a number of existing fences have indeed been incorporated into the eruv.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
rivka, perhaps, I don't know for sure. Peeking at the web site, I find it interesting that other enclosed areas within the eruv are actually outside of the eruv. Makes sense, but how exactly does an area qualify as such?
-Bok
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
I think there's one in Boulder . . . and I remember reading that large parts of it are done with wire . . . oh, apparently it's about to go in. Linky. Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: rivka, perhaps, I don't know for sure. Peeking at the web site, I find it interesting that other enclosed areas within the eruv are actually outside of the eruv. Makes sense, but how exactly does an area qualify as such?
From the site's history page:
quote:All the areas to be enclosed by the means described in general terms above must be "residential areas," or areas suitable for residential areas. Specifically, two areas which do not meet these criteria are (1) bodies of water, including lakes, streams, and ponds (reservoirs currently in use as drinking water sources are permitted without modification), and (2) cemeteries. These areas must be "closed-off" (encircled) from the Eruv domain or the Eruv area is rendered unfit for use. In some cases, for example, the Chestnut Hill Reservoir (operated by the MDC), a continuous fence already exists which effectively cordons off the lake from the proposed Eruv domain. In the case of Hammond Pond (Newton) , the Eruv perimeter can simply skirt the lake, while in the case of Crystal Lake (Newton), a system of utility poles and lines can be used to completely encircle the Lake, thus sealing it off from the Eruv domain.
To simplify this, supposing an area with one large lake in the center, they'd be demarcating a doughnut-shaped area within the eruv; everything on either side (around or within the torus) is excluded.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: I think there's one in Boulder . . . and I remember reading that large parts of it are done with wire . . . oh, apparently it's about to go in. Linky.
I didn't even know there was a significant Orthodox presence in Colorado outside of Denver. Cool.
The article is a tad misleading, though. It implies that within the bounds of an eruv ANY "work" may be done on Shabbos, not just carrying! Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The article is a tad misleading, though. It implies that within the bounds of an eruv ANY "work" may be done on Shabbos, not just carrying!
And not even all carrying. The rabbis here talk frequently about how the eruv doesn't cover carrying things that aren't needed for Shabbat.
I'm told that when they were deciding whether or not to have an eruv in some city, one of the leading rabbis said that if he heard of frum kids using the eruv to play ball on Shabbat, he'd have it taken down.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: And not even all carrying. The rabbis here talk frequently about how the eruv doesn't cover carrying things that aren't needed for Shabbat.
Good point.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Wow. I never realized that there were so many and so complex laws. It must be pretty difficult to follow all those regulations. I guess I can see why there need to be certain situations created so that the laws are bent a little.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's not actually that hard. Imagine trying to explain the rules of the road to a man from Mars.
I remember Galactica 1980. They entered atmosphere above LA, I think, and someone commented about how remarkably disciplined and well trained (not to mention highly skilled) Earth humans must be to be able to guide their vehicles in formation in such close quarters. They were above the freeway during rush hour.
When you're used to driving, you hardly ever think about the rules of the road. It's just what you do. This isn't that different in practice.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I guess I can see why there need to be certain situations created so that the laws are bent a little.
Working within the laws =! bending the laws
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I guess I can see why there need to be certain situations created so that the laws are bent a little.
It's not so much that a rule is bent, rather that there is another "rule" that takes precedence.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
My rabbi gave a whole harangue about the evils of not only playing baseball on Shabbos, but of seeing other people play it when you are on your way to synagogue.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Is soccer ok? They don't have to carry anything. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Heh. No.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I have another curious question. What do Orthodox Jews believe about spellcraft, such as Wiccans practice(white magic, as in, it will harm or control no other person, and is more like a request of the God and Goddess than "Hocus Pocus" kind of magic)?
I know there's a passage in the Old Testament about "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." And I've met Christians who've told me I'll burn in hell for casting spells. But since Jews don't believe in hell, what happens to those who practice white witchcraft, and do their best to be good people and serve God and Goddess?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not sure I like the "sting operation" analogy. God trying to entrap people doesn't ring true to me.
Tinros, I got into Wicca once upon a time. And the Wicca I knew isn't what's being described in that link. From a Jewish point of view, it isn't the correct way, and it's easy to see how it can, over time, lead to the kind of evil idolatry that Judaism opposes so fiercely.
If the idea is not to control people (love coercion spells, vengeance spells -- things I was told you just don't ever do unless you want it bouncing back on you threefold), it isn't witchcraft in Torah terms. And if the core idea of deity is "All the gods are one God and all the goddesses one Goddess, and the God and Goddess are One", then it's probably not even idolatry for non-Jews (though it still is for Jews).
Just as Christianity and Islam, in their time, served God's plan of bringing all people to knowledge of Him, I suspect that modern Wicca is continuing that job.
It's not the right path, as far as Judaism is concerned. And there are forms of paganism today which do fit the "do not suffer a witch to live" thing. And as I said, I can see where there could be a slippery slope for some people to the really bad kinds of paganism/idolatry described in that link. But the Wicca I know is a whole different ball game.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Rivka,
Could you recommend a book (either fiction or non-fiction) that gives a good feel for the life of Orthodox Jews in modern America?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I need you to be more specific. What era? The past 20 years? The early 1900s? Just after WWII? The 60s/70s?
Which group of Orthodox Jews? Yeshivish? Chassidish? Modern Orthodox?
Are these Jews living in the NY area or elsewhere?
There are truckloads of books about Jews living in the US. There's probably a VW-bug-ful of ones I would recommend. So you're going to have to narrow the parameters a little.
Meanwhile, try the All of a Kind Family books, by Sidney Taylor. NYC, early 1900s. Amazon has 'em. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That article started out like a lot of Fundamentalist Christian "reasoned" articles against witchcraft I've seen, and went a completely different and much more reasoned and reasonable way, to my eyes. I liked it. Thanks for sharing (although I don't agree with the entrapment thing, either.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not sure I do either. But I really don't know enough about Wicca to have much opinion of my own, and I couldn't find much at the other sites I looked at. I doubt many Orthodox Rabbis know the difference between Wicca and more "traditional" types of witchcraft and/or paganism.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> I need you to be more specific. What era? The > past 20 years? The early 1900s? Just after > WWII? The 60s/70s? > > Which group of Orthodox Jews? Yeshivish? > Chassidish? Modern Orthodox? > > Are these Jews living in the NY area or > elsewhere?
Well, I'm not sure to what extent that matters.
Perhaps if I explain why I want the information, you can get a better idea of what would be useful. I'm an author planning to write a science fiction story that has some characters who are Orthodox Jews. The setting is a few hundred years in the future on a colonized planet (a joint Mormon/Jewish colony founded by people escaping pogroms on Earth.)
I understand the Mormon culture and mindset fairly well. Basically, I want to read something that will help me understand the culture and mindset of Orthodox Jews, so I can more accurately portray the Jewish characters as I write.
So it's probably best that the book be as modern as possible, because as it is I'm going to have to extrapolate into the future.
As for which branch of Orthodox Judaism, which branch do you see as most likely to escape persecution on Earth by co-funding a colony ship with the surviving Mormons?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
urm. None of the above, actually. Given the incompatibility between basic Mormon theological/historical views and Jewish ones.
I guess the least unlikely would be modern Orthodox. I'll have to see if I can think of any book recommendations. Unless someone else has some?
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I like Herman Wouk's "This is My G-d," an informal nonfiction. It reads like him telling the younger generation about Judiasm. It's about 50 years old, but it holds in general.
Maybe something by Ruthie Perlman? Her novels are very readable and more current.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know the name, but I'm not sure I've read any of her books. Are any currently in print?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Faye Kellerman's Rina Lazarus books are good.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I know the name, but I'm not sure I've read any of her books. Are any currently in print?
Ah,I just looked and they are not. If anyone wanted to borrow one, I'd be happy to lend it out.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by EricJamesStone: As for which branch of Orthodox Judaism, which branch do you see as most likely to escape persecution on Earth by co-funding a colony ship with the surviving Mormons?
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I guess the least unlikely would be modern Orthodox.
I disagree. In the first part of the last century, Chassidic Rebbes uprooted their entire sects from Eastern Europe and relocated to a whole new world -- Brooklyn. I put in my bid for a Chasidishe Rebbe being able to have the charisma and influence to get a colony going in uncharted territory.
I am fascinated by the idea of adapting Earthly mitzvot to unEarthly settings. Like what times do you do the prayers when you are divorced from sunrises and sunsets? If your calendar is based on Earth's sun and moon, how do you know when it is Shabbos? Or a new month? Or any holiday? Is it possible to have a mikvah on a spaceship?
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I once read an anthology of Jewish science fiction stories, called Wandering Stars. I'm pretty sure there was a sequel too.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
There were some Jews in Space in Dune.
Although, by that time, the series was just painful to endure. I deserve a medal, or something, for sticking it out.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: I once read an anthology of Jewish science fiction stories, called Wandering Stars. I'm pretty sure there was a sequel too.
More Wandering Stars.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Faye Kellerman's Rina Lazarus books are good.
They are quite good. And Faye is a lovely woman and her mother-in-law is one of my favorite people. However, the Orthodox community she paints is not one that has ever existed. She gets culture, custom, and halacha wrong (at least from the "ultra-Orthodox" view, which differs from her modern Orthodox view in rather different ways than she seems to think it does) much too often. I prefer Rochelle Krich's books.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I disagree. In the first part of the last century, Chassidic Rebbes uprooted their entire sects from Eastern Europe and relocated to a whole new world -- Brooklyn. I put in my bid for a Chasidishe Rebbe being able to have the charisma and influence to get a colony going in uncharted territory.
I agree on the charisma. I do not agree on willingness.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
rivka, have you read anything by Tova Mirvis? I loved The Outside World. The Ladies' Auxiliary was good but not as good, for me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope. Never heard of her before. Despite the buzzwords in the synopsis (which annoy me), I might have to check that book out.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, ignore the synopsis. The books are not about issues, they're about relationships. Mostly family relationships. They really struck a chord with me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You wouldn't happen to own this book? *hopeful*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Nope. Got it through inter-library loan from the L.A. library (order online, they e-mail you when it's in, you pick it up. )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
'k. I'll have to check if the library I go to has it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: rivka, have you read anything by Tova Mirvis? I loved The Outside World. The Ladies' Auxiliary was good but not as good, for me.
That's funny, because I liked The Ladies' Auxiliary much more. Then again, I've lived the whole "subject of gossip" thing in more than one Orthodox community, so it hit close to home.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Looks like I might be starting with that one first. My library has both, but Outside World is "overdue and claimed returned." So it might be on a shelf somewhere, but it may be gone.
Then again, by the time I actually make it to the library again (as I was there Sunday), who knows.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> I like Herman Wouk's "This is My G-d,"
I've just ordered that, plus his follow-up "The Will to Live On: This is Our Heritage." Thanks for the suggestion, Chanie.
And I've also ordered "The Outside World," so thanks to ketchupqueen for that suggestion.
Rivka, I can see you have some skepticism about the whole Mormon/Jewish colony premise. Does it help that it's not so much freely choosing to co-found a colony with Mormons as choosing between that and remaining on Earth and hoping that the persecution in the United States doesn't progress to outright genocide? (Assume Israel has been destroyed, Europe and Africa have fallen to Islam, the Pope in Chile has approved an Inquisition to keep Latin America Catholic, the non-Islamic Asian countries are not welcoming to refugees, and the United States is politically dominated by an increasingly isolationist and xenophobic form of Protestanism.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was assuming a scenario much like the one you just painted -- otherwise why leave. I just don't understand why those two specific groups would team up. *shrug*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
They've both got some money but not enough to get there?
Personally, I think Mormons (I can't speak for the Jews) would be more likely to try to negotiate for (and fight for, if necessary) their own territory (yes, probably Utah, but I could see somewhere in Canada happening) as a sovereign nation where they would give safe harbor to any Mormon who could make it there (and try to help each other make it there.)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
It's less of a stretch if you postulate an intermediate step in which the BabaMeisah Rebbe sets up shop in Salt Lake City.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
rivka:
> I just don't understand why those two specific > groups would team up. *shrug*
ketchupqueen:
> They've both got some money but not enough to > get there? > > Personally, I think Mormons (I can't speak for > the Jews) would be more likely to try to > negotiate for (and fight for, if necessary) > their own territory (yes, probably Utah, but I > could see somewhere in Canada happening) as a > sovereign nation where they would give safe > harbor to any Mormon who could make it there > (and try to help each other make it there.)
Well, that's the preliminary step. But (as I'm sure you know) the early history of the Mormons is filled with gathering to one place before being driven out. It's just taken a little longer this time.
Anticipating the worst, Mormons secretly build a city-sized starship, covering the activity as building a giant refinery for oil being recovered from shale in eastern Utah. The plan is to take all Mormons to a new planet where they can live free of persecution.
The U.S. government, knowing the Mormons are "up to something" and interpreting it as preparation for rebellion, sends troops for an "exercise" in Utah as a show of force. (Which would not be the first time troops were sent to Utah because the government suspected the Mormons were in rebellion.) Eventually someone in Salt Lake activates a newly developed forcefield that encloses Salt Lake and everything within thirty miles behind a completely impenetrable barrier.
No one knows what has happened to the people inside the field. The Mormons left outside the field are cut off from their leadership--and most of the people controlling the funds being used to finish the starship project. But the starship was meant to accommodate the entire population of Mormons, half of whom are now behind the forcefield. That means there's a lot of extra space on board, if they can find the funding needed to finish it. So they turn to another religious group that is persecuted and might have the funds to help complete the starship in exchange for passage to a new world.
But the Scientologists turn them down. (OK, I'm kidding about that bit.)
And with that, I should probably return this thread to its regularly scheduled purpose.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: It's less of a stretch if you postulate an intermediate step in which the BabaMeisah Rebbe sets up shop in Salt Lake City.
quote:Originally posted by EricJamesStone: That means there's a lot of extra space on board, if they can find the funding needed to finish it. So they turn to another religious group that is persecuted and might have the funds to help complete the starship in exchange for passage to a new world.
*snort* Isn't that a bit overused? Rich Jews? Jewish organizations very rarely are well-off. Specific individuals, sure. But there exists (to my knowledge) no Orthodox Jewish organization with anything remotely along the lines of the Mormon Church's power or wealth.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend by stereotyping Jews as rich. But, as you mentioned, there are specific individuals who are well-off. I'm assuming that in past Jewish migrations, there were times when the wealthier members of the community helped with the expenses of the poorer. (That was the case during the Mormon migrations in the 1800s, back when the Mormon Church was not at all wealthy.) If that's a false assumption, I'd be very surprised.
Frankly, my thinking was more focused on the idea that Jews and Mormons would be the religious groups most likely to be persecuted by Protestants and have nowhere to go but off-world. That's the commonality that I saw and wanted to work with.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Sorry, I didn't mean to offend by stereotyping Jews as rich.
I am not offended.
quote: I'm assuming that in past Jewish migrations, there were times when the wealthier members of the community helped with the expenses of the poorer. (That was the case during the Mormon migrations in the 1800s, back when the Mormon Church was not at all wealthy.) If that's a false assumption, I'd be very surprised.
Prepare to be shocked. Generally, when Jews were expelled from a country, they were not allowed to take along much in the way of personal property, let alone wealth. Some managed to sneak out a little (coat linings, etc.), but "migrations" almost always meant starting over.
And unfortunately, even if there was already an established Jewish community in the new country, there was not necessarily much in the way of assistance for the new immigrants available. Sometimes because the community didn't have much themselves; sometimes because of prejudice in the established Jewish community against the newcomers. (See Our Crowd and The New Crowd by Stephen Birmingham.)
You are making assumptions about parallels between Jews and Mormons that simply don't exist.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The parallels do apply, however, to freed slave communities in the north helping free slaves in the south pre-civil-war. They raised money to buy slaves, to pay Underground Railroad costs, to get escaped slaves who were in hiding to Canada, and to give slaves who made it north a new start.
Not that that's really relevant.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
I was shocked. I can understand the situations you described, but found it very hard to believe that the concept of the wealthier members helping the poorer members to migrate was something that never happened with Jews.
So I did a little research, and I found some examples. The United Hebrew Immigrant Aid Service assisted Russian Jews in coming to the United States from the Soviet Union. (There was, in fact, a bit of a fracas with Israel over that.)
The Jewish Agency for Israel is a current non-profit organization that, among other things, provides grants to help new immigrants pay for air travel to Israel.
And while Operation Moses and Operation Solomon were Israeli government efforts rather than privately funded, the Ethiopian Jews were not funding the airlifts themselves, so I think that counts to some extent as wealthier Jews helping poorer to migrate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I didn't mean to imply that it never happened! Sorry if that was what it seemed I was saying.
There are certainly many organizations that help with making aliyah (moving to Israel). Nefesh b'Nefesh is the one I support. However, you have to understand that making aliyah is different in an extremely important way from any other migration.
You also have to understand that the type of fundraising you are talking about is a very gradual process, and takes years -- often decades. There does not exist some fund that could simply be tapped.
Jews have ALWAYS helped other Jews! But not in the sort of official, communal, financial way you are describing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Elsewhere:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but I'll take a shot.
Torah Law was relayed by Moshe from God at Sinai. At that point, it became binding for all generations and for all time upon the Jewish people. (There is a midrash which explains how it could be binding on those not yet born. Every soul that would ever be born to a Jewish mother or would convert was at Sinai along with all those who were actually alive at the time. Whether this is literal or metaphorical can be debated, but it is an important notion ether way. The Jewish matchmaking site Saw You At Sinai gets its name from it.)
Before Sinai, the laws were not binding (with a couple of exceptions, like circumcision). Moreover, before Sinai, there did not exist a Jewish nation. Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov and Rochel and Leah were our forefathers. But it takes more than a single family to be a nation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Elsewhere:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but I'll take a shot.
Torah Law was relayed by Moshe from God at Sinai. At that point, it became binding for all generations and for all time upon the Jewish people. (There is a midrash which explains how it could be binding on those not yet born. Every soul that would ever be born to a Jewish mother or would convert was at Sinai along with all those who were actually alive at the time. Whether this is literal or metaphorical can be debated, but it is an important notion ether way. The Jewish matchmaking site Saw You At Sinai gets its name from it.)
Before Sinai, the laws were not binding (with a couple of exceptions, like circumcision). Moreover, before Sinai, there did not exist a Jewish nation. Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov and Rochel and Leah were our forefathers. But it takes more than a single family to be a nation.
Right. Being Jewish wasn't hereditary before Sinai. You had to choose it.
I posted this link over on the other thread, but if you're looking for an explanation of the Law itself, you might want to check out the Torah 101 thread.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Does anyone know a good web site that a teacher could use to teach non-Jewish children about Chanukah? My wife gets to do this next week and is asking for my help. I am probably over thinking it, but I want to avoid any connections to Christmas. Lots of pictures are good, as she will be using one of those smart boards that are replacing chalk boards nation wide.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Start at Judaism 101 (note songs, complete with music, as well as latke recipes)
Torah Tots has some fun stuff. So does Akhlah. I used them in my Hebrew School K-1 class a couple of years ago.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Thanks all! I'll go over them with her.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok... if this is somewhere in this thread already, please feel free to link me back to the appropriate spot.
Aren't there some regulations on Orthodox Clothing? I vaguely remembered something about this and wondered if it was fact or fiction. I don't mean in the "covering up of the body" sense, I mean like I don't think you are supposed to mix certain kinds of fibers together, like linen and wool or something.
Was wondering about it because of my spinning habit. If I use a spindle that has touched one kind of fiber, and then another is it a problem as far as "kosher" fabric goes?
AJ
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
You are correct in that it's forbidden to wear an article of clothing containing both linen and wool, even to the extent of having one linen thread in a wool garment. (This prohibition is known as shatnez.)
With that said, the sewing equipment doesn't have to be exclusive. As long as you remove all of one thread before switching to the other, you should be fine.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well wool does leave lanolins and stuff on the spindle that could rub off should I spin linen.
How do the rabbis work polyester and fabric blends into the mix (goes to read link...)
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(read link) I'm surprised this particular prohibition has stayed so simple, while the food has gotten so much more complicated. Maybe it's because there weren't as many textile blends when they wrote the commentary on the Torah?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
rivka, Tante etc. In real life what do you do when shopping for clothes to deal with this particular commandment?
AJ
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
AJ, it looks to me like if lanolin was on the spindle and you spun linen, as long as it was washed or cleaned to make sure there was no wool fiber remaining on it, you would be okay. Of course, I don't know anything about it but that's what I got from the link, since it said that if linen was found in the lining of the collar of a wool coat, you could just remove the linen, making sure that every thread was gone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: (read link) I'm surprised this particular prohibition has stayed so simple, while the food has gotten so much more complicated.
Food has always been complicated -- it's not a single prohibition, but several. Also, there are stronger prohibitions about what we eat, both because of a "you are what you eat" concept, and because of the social nature of food.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: rivka, Tante etc. In real life what do you do when shopping for clothes to deal with this particular commandment?
If not buying something that is primarily wool or linen, nothing. And I never buy linen (neither the budget nor the interest). When buying wool, I check the label first. Then I consult with my cousin (who checks shatnez) as to whether it needs checking. For most women's garments (with the exception of certain brands of suits and winter coats) the answer is no. If it is yes, I bring it to him and he checks it.
Men's suits are far more often a problem than women's -- especially since most of my clothes aren't wool to begin with. If I lived in a cold climate, it would be much more of an issue for me.
Hooray for synthetics!
Lanolin would not be a problem. Only actual fibers.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:rivka, Tante etc. In real life what do you do when shopping for clothes to deal with this particular commandment?
What Rivka said. Modern synthetics has presumably made this much easier. Most clothes I buy are cotton and/or polyester, which are non-problematic, and there are trained professionals who inspect suits.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pardon my extreme rudeness, but neither kashrus nor Shabbos, but shatnez you worry about? Or was that more a hypothetical comment? *puzzled*
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Hypothetical. Though the statement stands anyway; I haven't bought anything in the past few years that would require checking.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Yeah, there are labs that do shatnetz testing. And I check the labels to make sure that the clothing is kosher. It almost always is. The linen/wool mix is not particularly popular.
True story: Back before I got religion, I had a linen blouse that I decided to wear one day under a shetland wool sweater. It was very itchy. I never wore that combination again, because of the itchiness.
Another shatnetz-related prohibition is against yoking two different kinds of animals together on your plow. I've never even been tempted on this one.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Fascinating... thanks... It's one of those, if I did ever sell my handspun wool yarn I would want to make sure that it was accessible to Jews and non-jews alike.
I am kind of surprised that cotton doesn't come under the "linen" commandment, as both are plant based, while wool is animal based. But it looks like it's only sheep's wool at that, not even other kinds of animal fibers.
Is the reason why it wasn't generalized, because of the "you are what you eat" thing? I mean obviously proper dress is very important to the Orthodox Jew. So why didn't they broaden the commandment with time?
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You seem to think there is a general tendency to "broaden commandments with time." That is inaccurate. "Fences" are placed around commandments when it is deemed necessary. Cotton and linen fibers are unlikely to be confused. Nor is wool likely to be confused with other animal fibers. So there was no need for additional "fences."
Also, proper dress involves a number of things which are more important than the specific fibers.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
broaden commandments with time was poor wording on my part.
My understanding (and please straighten me out where I'm wrong) is that the fences are created in order to reiterate the "idea" or "concept" behind the rule as well (this still isn't phrased right but the words aren't coalescing well for me)
The rabbis seem to draw moral reasons and examples from most of the laws, and I'm surprised there isn't more in this case. The example I was comparing it to was the dietary requirement of not mixing meat and dairy. The original statement of the law is (if I recall correctly)something about not boiling a calf in it's mother's milk. Maybe it is reiterated more elsewhere throughout the Torah, but to me this simple statement (and i'm not arguing with the rabbis, this is my non-jewish perspective so tell me where I'm wrong)led to the separation of meat and dairy in much wider areas of daily life.
I understand if it just wasn't as important, but I'm surprised that the linen/wool commandment hasn't been taken to the same vigilance as a kosher kitchen. I guess I see the same (and again this is just me) sort of equivalency between calf/mother's milk to meat/dairy in cooking sense as wool/linen is to animal/ plant as far as fiber origin.
Again this is just how my brain works... and I'm trying to understand the nuances.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
First of all, the "calf in its mother's milk" is not said once, but three separate times. Some of the laws derive from that repetition alone.
Also, there are several other separate biblical laws having to do with kashrus. From ones having to do with not eating insects to meat from non-kosher animals to kosher animals that were killed improperly. My off-the-cuff guess is that there are about a dozen biblical laws having to do with kashrus.
There is a single one (or possibly two?) having to do with mixing wool and linen.
While we certainly do learn moral reasons from the laws, those are not the reason for "fences." Those are as practical stay-away-from-the-edge measures, to ensure that we not accidentally sin. So, chicken gets counted as "meat," because it can easily (especially if cut small or ground) be confused with beef or veal. Fish, which is more distinct, does not get so classified.
I don't think anyone would be likely to confuse linen and cotton.
OTOH, people are very careful about not mixing linen and wool. Shatnez checkers do brisk business, especially right before a holiday (when lots of men buy new suits). Just because there are not as many restrictions does not mean they are not taken as seriously.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: The original statement of the law is (if I recall correctly)something about not boiling a calf in it's mother's milk. Maybe it is reiterated more elsewhere throughout the Torah, but to me this simple statement (and i'm not arguing with the rabbis, this is my non-jewish perspective so tell me where I'm wrong)led to the separation of meat and dairy in much wider areas of daily life.
AJ, the source of Jewish law is in the Oral Torah. The verses are, in part, mnemonic devices to make the law easier to remember.
In this case, the fact that "don't boil a kid in its mothers milk" appears three times in the Torah is a reminder of the three Torah laws regarding the subject of meat and dairy:
It is forbidden to cook kosher beheima meat with kosher beheima milk
It is forbidden to eat a cooked combination of those two
It is forbidden to derive benefit from a cooked combination of the two (you can't sell it, you can't feed it to your pet schnauser, you can't use it as a doorstop)
Beheima is one of two kinds of land animals, and includes cows, sheep, goats, buffalo (and probably some others. Aurochs, I bet). Deer aren't in that category, so they weren't originally included in the prohibition. Neither are fowl. But the rabbis made a fence by including both deer (and other animals in that category) and fowl. But they only included them in the second category. The one about not eating them. There's no prohibition of cooking or deriving benefit if the meat or the dairy is from a non-beheima or if it's not kosher. Ham and cheese is only forbidden because of the ham -- not because it's meat and milk mixed. The rabbis also added an extension that the mixture itself can't be eaten, even if it's not cooked.
You can see why these extensions were logical if the goal was to make a fence, right? If you can eat it not cooked, can you eat it warmed? At what point is is considered cooked? Better not to eat it together at all. And venison and poultry are pretty easy to confuse with beef or veal or lamb, at least by sight.
Wool and linen are kind of hard to confuse, I think.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I have two quick questions:
When uncircumcised adult males convert to Judaism (Which I understand is rarely) do they have to be ritually circumcised?
Also, in Genesis 34 when Dinah is raped and then the men who raped her are circumcised and then slaughtered, was that ritual circumcision, or just normal circumcision?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well if the man were to already be circumsised, a symbolic drop of blood is required, so the ritual is required.
The question I guess then is if someone is uncircumsised can they do it medically, and then just have the symbolic drop of blood.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Also, in Genesis 34 when Dinah is raped and then the men who raped her are circumcised and then slaughtered, was that ritual circumcision, or just normal circumcision?
What's the difference between the two?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
On further reflection, and taking a wild guess at what you might be driving at...
(a) The rules pre-Sinai were substantially different than post-Sinai; laws regarding circumcision, conversion, and Jewish identity that exist in this latter period do not map cleanly onto the former.
(b) Nothing in Genesis 34 is an example of how things are supposed to be done. This is a cautionary tale about zeal gone horribly wrong. Note Genesis 49:5-7, in which Simeon and Levi are cursed due to their actions here, in lieu of the blessings that they otherwise might have received.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: On further reflection, and taking a wild guess at what you might be driving at...
(a) The rules pre-Sinai were substantially different than post-Sinai; laws regarding circumcision, conversion, and Jewish identity that exist in this latter period do not map cleanly onto the former.
(b) Nothing in Genesis 34 is an example of how things are supposed to be done. This is a cautionary tale about zeal gone horribly wrong. Note Genesis 49:5-7, in which Simeon and Levi are cursed due to their actions here, in lieu of the blessings that they otherwise might have received.
Hmm... maybe. Remember, Jacob has no response to the reasoning of the brothers ("Should our sister be made a harlot?"). He explicitly says that it's their anger that he's cursing. He doesn't say that taking revenge on a rapist and the society that protected him was wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Remember, Jacob has no response to the reasoning of the brothers
Or perhaps the writers decided to end that account on that statement. Or perhaps thats where the record of the dialog ends.
Still you MIGHT be right, but why would Jacob condemn their anger? I doubt Jacob would rather have Levi and Simeon go around killing all those people who were not all culpable with a feeling of pure neutrality.
There are plenty of justified anger incidents documented in the scriptures. Samuel hewing Agag to pieces, 1 Sam. 15: 33. Moses coming down from the mountain and encountering the Israelites reveling in idolatry and riotousness.
God himself declares his anger/displeasure/indignation many times. Why would He condemn a man purely for being angry?
Or were you saying that Jacob cursed them and God had respect for the cursing?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Also, in Genesis 34 when Dinah is raped and then the men who raped her are circumcised and then slaughtered, was that ritual circumcision, or just normal circumcision?
What's the difference between the two?
My Jewish studies prof said there was a difference.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Then I guess he's the one you should ask the question.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: Remember, Jacob has no response to the reasoning of the brothers
Or perhaps the writers decided to end that account on that statement. Or perhaps thats where the record of the dialog ends.
We believe that God wrote it. And if He left it off there, it was for a reason. What the reason is... it could be that Jacob didn't think the comment was worth a response, but that's not how Jewish tradition has viewed it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Still you MIGHT be right, but why would Jacob condemn their anger?
<shrug> Anger makes you do things that aren't well thought through. Jewish tradition says that after the events in this case, the surrounding nations decided that Jacob and his sons were bad news, and attacked them. And that they had to fight, which Jacob would rather not have done.
Shortly before he dies, Jacob deeds the city of Shechem to Joseph, which he says he took from the Amorite with his sword and bow (Genesis 48:22).
And he specifically says (Genesis 49:7) "Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, because it was cruel.
Jewish tradition also says that it was Simeon and Levi who took the lead in capturing Joseph and throwing him down the pit. That's one of the reasons why Simeon was the one Joseph imprisoned when he sent the other brothers back to get Benjamin.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I doubt Jacob would rather have Levi and Simeon go around killing all those people who were not all culpable with a feeling of pure neutrality.
Ah, but they were culpable. At least according to our tradition. Shechem didn't hide his rape of Dina. He was very open about it, and his people backed him up. One of the seven Noachide laws is the requirement to set up courts to enforce the others. The injustice that was accepted in their society made them culpable.
But they didn't go at the retribution straightforwardly. They were sneaky, and they made it seem like we couldn't be trusted. That was bad.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: God himself declares his anger/displeasure/indignation many times. Why would He condemn a man purely for being angry?
Or were you saying that Jacob cursed them and God had respect for the cursing?
I didn't say anything about God at all. It was Jacob who cursed their anger. God didn't say anything about it one way or the other.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
rivka- I did, he didn't know, that's why I asked here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If he doesn't know what the difference is, then how does he know that there is one? What is his basis for declaring that they were different?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
No, he knew there was a difference, he didn't know if the men circumcised in Genesis were circumcised ritually or not. Since I wasn't aware that he was wrong that there was a difference until I read this thread, I didn't think to ask him for details on what the difference was.
Is this line of questioning offensive?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope. I just think he's wrong. And I repeat Shmuel's question -- which is the one I think you should ask your prof.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There is a difference between a bris and a non-Jewish baby being circumcised at the hospital, isn't there? Although the second would not have been an option in Genesis, so I don't really see what the professor was getting at.
Posted by The Droog (Member # 10128) on :
OK, I have finally mastered the plot (that's the last you'll hear of it) and want to start writing. However...
*If I want to say 'In his appartment, Joe Bloggs walks through his kitchen into his living room. He takes out a cigarette, looks for his lighter, finds it on the table and lights it. He then goes to the toilet. Afterwards, he goes upstairs and says "Hello, how are you" to his brother. His brother says "Go away". Joe then goes back downstairs.', how would I say that in script format?
*If I want a scene set to a certain piece of music (first piece on my mind - AC/DC 'Highway to Hell'), how would I write that in script form (let's imagine a character walks down a street in slow-mo to Highway to hell) - how would I write that in a script?
That's it.
Ta.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
This has always been my favorite Hatrack thread. I knew about the thread (and Rivka) before I even knew about Hatrack.
Thanks so much!
And, oh yeah, the kind of circumcision that they do in the hospital is different than the Jewish bris, and doesn't count as ritually circumcised. If you had a non-bris circumcision and then convert to Judaism, you have to have a bris anyway.
PS, I've seen hospital-type circumcisions and bris milah, and, from what I've seen, the hospital type is more barbaric and painful for the baby.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: This has always been my favorite Hatrack thread. I knew about the thread (and Rivka) before I even knew about Hatrack.
Thanks so much!
And, oh yeah, the kind of circumcision that they do in the hospital is different than the Jewish bris, and doesn't count as ritually circumcised. If you had a non-bris circumcision and then convert to Judaism, you have to have a bris anyway.
That's what he was talking about. He never tells us how to spell the Hebrew words he uses, so I can never write them down, so I never remember them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But Dana is correct. While the distinction certainly exists now, it didn't pre-Sinai.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: And, oh yeah, the kind of circumcision that they do in the hospital is different than the Jewish bris, and doesn't count as ritually circumcised. If you had a non-bris circumcision and then convert to Judaism, you have to have a bris anyway.
And before we scare anyone, when the circumcision has already been done (either because someone converts or because it was done in the hospital already (as Mandy Patinkin relates in a funny standup bit happened to him as an infant)), the bris involves a single drop of blood. No additional skin is removed.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: This has always been my favorite Hatrack thread. I knew about the thread (and Rivka) before I even knew about Hatrack.
Did you know rivka from elsewhere, and know about the thread through her? If not, how did you know about both the thread and rivka?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I was google-searching something, and got a hit to the thread. Which I read and loved. Then I stepped back and noticed the rest of the forum.
Oddly, though, I was very familiar with Card's work, having read through the entire canon.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Wool and linen are kind of hard to confuse, I think.
I guess I didn't make it clear enough. Linen and cotton are easy to confuse... they are both plant fibers.
So since the prohibition is against linen/wool, why not extend it to cotton/wool, because cotton and linen could easily be confused with each other.
Linen is now much more expensive but there is a time where it wasn't. Where do Mohair and Cashmere fall in the mix? They are from goats, not sheep... for example.
In industrial processing if they are running flax and wool anywhere near each other I'd be surprised if there weren't traces of the one fiber in the other fiber. Both Linen and Wool tend to be higher end fibers, and are probably processed at the same location in many cases.
AJ
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj:
quote: Wool and linen are kind of hard to confuse, I think.
I guess I didn't make it clear enough. Linen and cotton are easy to confuse... they are both plant fibers.
So since the prohibition is against linen/wool, why not extend it to cotton/wool, because cotton and linen could easily be confused with each other.
Maybe it's an issue of how often do you get new clothing vs. how often do you eat.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Also, while linen and cotton are both plant fibers, they have incredibly different textures -- especially when processed by hand, no by machine or with the various chemical processes used today.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This came up on one of the Obama threads, but I thought that rather than bumping that, I'd make it a separate discussion. Joe Lieberman's degree of Jew-ness came up, and I wondered if someone committed to being Orthodox could in sincerity run for president.
Is there any process for going from being observant to orthodox, or if you publicly violate Shabbos is that "it" for the rest of your life?
Is the law of Shabbos like the Kosher law, in that you have a greater responsibility to preserve life (I seem to recall there is an exception for oxes in mires)? Does the president ever preserve lives on Shabbos?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Good question, you got me curious. Has there been a precedent set for any religious presidents on Sundays?
Doctors are to do whatever they need to in order to save lives during Shabbos.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: This came up on one of the Obama threads, but I thought that rather than bumping that, I'd make it a separate discussion. Joe Lieberman's degree of Jew-ness came up, and I wondered if someone committed to being Orthodox could in sincerity run for president.
This came up when Lieberman was running for VP. The simple answer is yes, but some things would have to be worked out in advance (just as they do for, say, a JO doctor, which Stephan pointed out).
quote:Is there any process for going from being observant to orthodox
Of course. Repentance. Which he already did once in his life (he was completely non-observant as a young adult). And I'd be thrilled if he made a similar choice again.
quote:Is the law of Shabbos like the Kosher law, in that you have a greater responsibility to preserve life (I seem to recall there is an exception for oxes in mires)? Does the president ever preserve lives on Shabbos?
Yes, and yes (although saving an animal's life on Shabbos would not generally be reason to violate Shabbos). Certainly there are things that a president could conceivably need to do on Shabbos that would save lives. As I said, one plans ahead to minimize things like (necessary) Shabbos violations.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: This came up on one of the Obama threads, but I thought that rather than bumping that, I'd make it a separate discussion. Joe Lieberman's degree of Jew-ness came up, and I wondered if someone committed to being Orthodox could in sincerity run for president.
I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
...and this differs from any other religious or ethnic group how, exactly? Granting your ostensibly "obvious" premise for the sake of the argument, why would you be able to respect a member of any other religious, cultural, or ethnic group who didn't put the welfare of that religious, cultural, or ethnic group first? And why would the fact of being Jewish make one unable to qualify for the same dispensation?
(Or is the point that you could accept a president you didn't respect only if he weren't Jewish?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: ...and this differs from any other religious or ethnic group how, exactly? Granting your ostensibly "obvious" premise for the sake of the argument, why would you be able to respect a member of any other religious, cultural, or ethnic group who didn't put the welfare of that religious, cultural, or ethnic group first? And why would the fact of being Jewish make one unable to qualify for the same dispensation?
Thank you. I was trying to word a similar response without much luck.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well I for one would never vote for a candidate who is a DEVOUT member of any religion.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Whereas I would do my very best not to take their religion into account.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
...and this differs from any other religious or ethnic group how, exactly? Granting your ostensibly "obvious" premise for the sake of the argument, why would you be able to respect a member of any other religious, cultural, or ethnic group who didn't put the welfare of that religious, cultural, or ethnic group first? And why would the fact of being Jewish make one unable to qualify for the same dispensation?
(Or is the point that you could accept a president you didn't respect only if he weren't Jewish?)
I'm a Jew. I don't have any problem at all with a Christian president not putting fellow Christians first. I don't have any problem with a black president not putting fellow blacks first. In fact, I'd prefer it, in both cases.
But a Jew who puts the welfare of the US ahead of the welfare of his fellow Jews is a skunk, as far as I'm concerned. Why would I ever want to vote for a skunk?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I'm still not seeing how this doesn't equate to "I'd rather a Christian skunk than a Jewish skunk."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Because I'm not about to label a Christian who puts the US first as a skunk. Frankly, I prefer it if they do.
Not everything can be applied equally, Shmuel. Jews are Jews. Non-Jews aren't.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
NEW Question:
In a recent thread, there were references to something which I took to mean "without a Sanhedrin in session, Jewish law cannot be enforced".
I'm sure that my interpretation can't be correct, but could the Rebbetzin shed a little more light?
Thanks in advance!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Capital cases cannot be tried unless there is a Sanhedrin which meets on the Temple Mount. During the 40 years preceding the destruction of the Second Temple, there was such general lawlessness that the Sanhedrin moved off of the Temple Mount specifically in order to make it impossible to judge capital cases.
Other items of Jewish law cannot be enforced without an operating system of Jewish courts, which doesn't currently exist.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Thanks Lisa!
That clears one point and raises a thousand more. Off to Google I trot...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Excellent.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
bleh, I just typed up a nice long post and it got eaten by the interweb, so here's the short version:
Understanding that my knowledge of the area is certainly not full, and thus some portion of these questions may be moot:
1) Why did the Sanhedrin neuter itself of the ability to try capital cases? (if it didn't do it of its own will just let me know)
2) Why is the Sanhedrin not re-formed right now?
I understand that there are any number of logistical issues with finding the right group of people to fulfil the job, but it seems to me that if you want to keep up the claim that the Torah should still be followed to the letter, that efforts should be made to fulfil the Law to the fullest extent possible.
Note: if I'm just unaware of an ongoing but incomplete process of re-forming the Sanhedrin exactly for these purposes just let me know.
With my limited understanding of the situation: claiming that you're not stoning people for a controversial law because you don't have the valid judging body in place even though it could be put back in place seems like a cop out.
also note: I'm not saying that stoning or the like would be rampant were the Sanhedrin in place, but at least the possibility would be there.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: 1) Why did the Sanhedrin neuter itself of the ability to try capital cases? (if it didn't do it of its own will just let me know)
Like I said, with the Roman occupation and the various sects, lawlessness was rampant. They decided to exile themselves from the Temple Mount so that they wouldn't have to kill people.
Understand... the optimum situation for us is to be living in our land, independently, at peace, learning Torah and keeping the commandments. In such a situation, crime and violence is a rare thing. Capital punishment is virtually unheard of, because the strictures surrounding it make it tantamount to suicide.
But in a time when sectarianism runs rampant, and the Sicarii are out knifing their political opponents, and no one cares about right and wrong, using a legal mechanism to make capital punishment impossible strikes me as a particularly good idea.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: 2) Why is the Sanhedrin not re-formed right now?
The Romans knew that the Jewish court system was the glue that kept us together as a single nation, regardless of how far we were dispersed. So they dissolved it and made ordination of new rabbis illegal. The penalty for violating this ban was the murder of the entire town in which ordination was granted.
Once ordination had ceased for a generation, we were kind of stuck. According to one of our great Sages, Moses Maimonides, ordination can be reestablished, and it has been, using his technique, more than once. The most well known time was in the 16th century, but it was done again more recently, and a nascent Sanhedrin was established in Tiberias.
It's not a real Sanhedrin. It's the seed around which they're hoping a real Sanhedrin will crystalize. But it's a step in the right direction, in my opinion. Of course, the Sgan Av Beit Din of the body (a high position that I can't exactly translate) used to be my rabbi when I was living in Israel. It's funny, because he and I spent a lot of time talking about ways in which ordination could be renewed. Had my life not taken the path it has since 1995, I'd probably be very much involved with the nascent Sanhedrin right now.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I understand that there are any number of logistical issues with finding the right group of people to fulfil the job, but it seems to me that if you want to keep up the claim that the Torah should still be followed to the letter, that efforts should be made to fulfil the Law to the fullest extent possible.
You're preaching to the choir. It's probably the single biggest failing of Torah observant Jews today. For 16-17 centuries, we couldn't have a Sanhedrin. We developed institutions to the best of our ability in lieu of it. The division of our people into Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Yemenite, etc, with different laws and customs, is one of the results. It's gotten to the point where many of us have made a virtue of a necessity, to the point where when it's become possible to do something about it, habit, more than anything else, is preventing us.
This is something I wrote a number of years ago. Years before the nascent Sanhedrin was formed.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Note: if I'm just unaware of an ongoing but incomplete process of re-forming the Sanhedrin exactly for these purposes just let me know.
We are. But as you'll probably see, if Rivka comments on the nascent Sanhedrin (which she has in the past), there are Orthodox Jews who have little but scorn for the attempt. For a long time, all we could do was say, "God will send the Messiah, and then things will be better. Then we'll have a Sanhedrin. Then we'll have the Temple." And aside from saying that, there was nothing we could actually do. A lot of Orthodox Jews still feel that way, despite the many changes that have happened over the past century.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: With my limited understanding of the situation: claiming that you're not stoning people for a controversial law because you don't have the valid judging body in place even though it could be put back in place seems like a cop out.
It is and it isn't. Any loophole in the law can be (and often is) viewed as a cop-out. But we're talking about a law created by God. If He put the loopholes in there, it's because He wanted to provide that option.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: also note: I'm not saying that stoning or the like would be rampant were the Sanhedrin in place, but at least the possibility would be there.
So long as there are Jews who would happily go into public and light a fire, in the presence of two witnesses who have explained the details of what commandment is being violated and the punishment prescribed for it, and there are plenty of those around today who would do it specifically to contest Torah law, no Sanhedrin is going to sit on the Temple Mount.
Then again, as things stand right now, Jews aren't even allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, so even if we wanted the Sanhedrin to meet there, the State of Israel would never allow it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.
I do not have scorn for the current Sanhedrin; I just do not consider it valid. For a slew of reasons, ranging from the political to the halachic.
But mostly because it is claiming to be something it is not: representing all halachically observant Jews. I think the idea is a fine one. I think the implementation has been seriously flawed, and I am unsure if in the current climate it is possible to have an implementation that is not so flawed.
That makes me sad, not scornful.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Toda raba rebbetzinim.
I think - although my Hebrew is more than a little rusty...
This is why I like hatrack, in just one evening I have found a fascinating new area to look into. Thanks again, in advance for your time and efforts in answering!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The Wikipedia article might be useful as well. It seems fairly well done.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I'm getting a little overwhelmed now by the movements. What exactly would a "Traditional" synagogue be? A handful of congregants appear to be fully observant, including the Rabbi, but I saw cars parked there on a Saturday and the women and men appear to sit together.
I had assumed all along it was Orthodox.
Also I had a very unique (for me at least)experience there. I got there a little early for a meeting, and their representative said they needed 10 men for a brief service. When saying I knew no more then half a dozen words in Hebrew, he said all I had to do was be present. There was a woman there that we appeared to be there for. I got the impression that someone she knew was either sick or dead, any light on this would be great! All I know is that 10 Jewish men are required for certain things.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Where are you, Stephan? In Chicago, a "traditional" synagogue isn't affiliated with any movement. It's a synagogue that basically has Orthodox services except for the mixed seating. No microphones on Shabbat, no playing with the liturgy, no nothing except for the seating. I'm not quite sure how it started, but folks around here seem to think it's mostly a Chicago phenomenon.
But there are a lot of Orthodox synagogues in the US where some of the membership are less than fully observant. Some of them are in the process of becoming more observant, and that can take longer or shorter for different people. It took me about 4 years.
A minyan is made up of 10 Jewish men aged 13 (and a day) or over. Technically, a warm body is all that's needed for it. A warm, breathing body. <grin>
My guess is that the woman needed to say kaddish. When a close relative dies (parent, spouse, sibling or child), we say kaddish for them for the first 11 months after burial, and on the anniversary of the death each year (according to the Jewish calendar). That anniversary is called the yahrzeit (anniversary, in Yiddish).
You can't say kaddish except in the presence of a minyan. It's one of a few items in the liturgy that require a minyan.
You should try walking down Yoel Salomon street in Jerusalem during the afternoon. There are minyanim going for mincha (afternoon service) pretty much constantly, and you're likely to get pulled in to help make a minyan.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: All I know is that 10 Jewish men are required for certain things.
Intra-temple basketball games?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Where are you, Stephan?
Annapolis, MD
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
A minyan is made up of 10 Jewish men aged 13 (and a day) or over. Technically, a warm body is all that's needed for it. A warm, breathing body. <grin>
My guess is that the woman needed to say kaddish. When a close relative dies (parent, spouse, sibling or child), we say kaddish for them for the first 11 months after burial, and on the anniversary of the death each year (according to the Jewish calendar). That anniversary is called the yahrzeit (anniversary, in Yiddish).
Ah, ok. We say kaddish at the Reform congregation every Friday night for all the anniversaries of that week, so now I know where that custom came from. My mom still lights a yahrzeit candle on the anniversary of her parents deaths.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
btw, thanks for the explanation of the Sanhedrin issues. Very informative.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Isiah talks all about Jesus.
I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I dunno. How much do you really like this client?
Yeah, I hate that. But it is rarely worth engaging someone in that sort of situation. Sometimes (and you have to know the person well enough to be able to gauge whether this is likely to make problems) you can say something like, "I disagree, but I like you too much to argue about it. Now, about that doohickey-thingamabob you wanted . . ."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Isaiah talks all about Jesus.
I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
1: Well for one how would you prefer to have somebody respond to you if you were saying that?
2: They are probably Christians, they are entitled to interpret Isaiah as they honestly feel is correct. If some Jewish folks were talking about how it would be nice if the messiah spoken of by Isaiah would show up, I wouldn't get angry and start thinking, "Fools! He came over 2000 years ago, get a clue!"
Ah criminey I forget that this is the, "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread. SORRY! Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
BlackBlade: I'm going to hazard a guess that you also overlooked the "client" context? The issue isn't one of getting angry about an opposing viewpoint, as you seem to be implying; rather, it's dealing with somebody who's overstepping normal boundaries for a business-based relationship.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Isaiah talks all about Jesus.
I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
1: Well for one how would you prefer to have somebody respond to you if you were saying that?
2: They are probably Christians, they are entitled to interpret Isaiah as they honestly feel is correct. If some Jewish folks were talking about how it would be nice if the messiah spoken of by Isaiah would show up, I wouldn't get angry and start thinking, "Fools! He came over 2000 years ago, get a clue!"
Ah criminey I forget that this is the, "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread. SORRY!
You should hear what he said about Mormons. I don't take that personally, so I actually argued that one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Isaiah talks all about Jesus.
I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
1: Well for one how would you prefer to have somebody respond to you if you were saying that?
2: They are probably Christians, they are entitled to interpret Isaiah as they honestly feel is correct. If some Jewish folks were talking about how it would be nice if the messiah spoken of by Isaiah would show up, I wouldn't get angry and start thinking, "Fools! He came over 2000 years ago, get a clue!"
Ah criminey I forget that this is the, "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread. SORRY!
You should hear what he said about Mormons. I don't take that personally, so I actually argued that one.
Was the client aware that you are Jewish?
Also not to sound pessimistic but you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a disparaging comment about Mormons that I have not yet heard.
I went to school in a Lutheran private school, ironically I ended up hanging with the "God Squad" folks, (Very into protestantism and anything Jesus.) They were an amazing group of folks, for some reason their leaders and the school faculty often needed a swift kick to the butt.
As weird as it sounds, I learned to be tolerant of other people's beliefs in large part from them.
edit: BTW thanks for being a defender of the faith Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]Was the client aware that you are Jewish?
Also not to sound pessimistic but you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a disparaging comment about Mormons that I have not yet heard.
I went to school in a Lutheran private school, ironically I ended up hanging with the "God Squad" folks, (Very into protestantism and anything Jesus.) They were an amazing group of folks, for some reason their leaders and the school faculty often needed a swift kick to the butt.
As weird as it sounds, I learned to be tolerant of other people's beliefs in large part from them.
edit: BTW thanks for being a defender of the faith
Definitely knew I am Jewish. He complimented my "I support the Israeli Defense Force" bumper sticker. He was talking about his Jewish son-in-law that is joining a Messianic church. I think he would have been fine if I had debated him, he loves to debate and doesn't consider it arguing. I think I would have just gotten to heated for the work place.
I went to a Catholic high school, so I know the feeling.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
:waves to Stephan from Baltimore:
I don't really know how Jews could be said to be denied the ability to read the New Testament. I mean, that's just weird. Maybe he was expecting you to say "We can read the New Testament" or some other opening for him to offer you a New Testament.
It also made me wonder how much the average Christian reads the New Testament. I asked about the messianic prophecies in Isaiah once, I think Rivka once told me that translations prepared by Christians naturally favor a reading of Christ fulfilling those prophecies. It was probably earlier in this thread...
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: :waves to Stephan from Baltimore:
Heh, I went to Mt St. Joseph High School on Frederick Rd.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, back so soon? I'm notorious for adding to my posts, I'm afraid.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: :waves to Stephan from Baltimore:
I don't really know how Jews could be said to be denied the ability to read the New Testament. I mean, that's just weird. Maybe he was expecting you to say "We can read the New Testament" or some other opening for him to offer you a New Testament.
It also made me wonder how much the average Christian reads the New Testament. I asked about the messianic prophecies in Isaiah once, I think Rivka once told me that translations prepared by Christians naturally favor a reading of Christ fulfilling those prophecies. It was probably earlier in this thread...
I'm not 100% sure what he meant by it. From the surrounding statements I would imagine he was saying by not studying it on a regular basis we are missing out on its truth? I hope he wasn't saying the Rabbis have some secret conspiracy not allowing us to read it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: :waves to Stephan from Baltimore:
I don't really know how Jews could be said to be denied the ability to read the New Testament. I mean, that's just weird. Maybe he was expecting you to say "We can read the New Testament" or some other opening for him to offer you a New Testament.
It also made me wonder how much the average Christian reads the New Testament. I asked about the messianic prophecies in Isaiah once, I think Rivka once told me that translations prepared by Christians naturally favor a reading of Christ fulfilling those prophecies. It was probably earlier in this thread...
I'm not 100% sure what he meant by it. From the surrounding statements I would imagine he was saying by not studying it on a regular basis we are missing out on its truth? I hope he wasn't saying the Rabbis have some secret conspiracy not allowing us to read it.
That is what I thought you were stating the client in effect said.
Not so much secret conspiracy but in the same vein as ministers who say to their congregations, "If you let the Mormon missionaries into your home or read a single page from the Book of Mormon you are making Jesus cry."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Heh. I would have said something like, "Heck, no. I've read it. Wait... is that the one with the robot from the future who wants to kill the woman who's going to give birth to the head of the resistence? No, hold on... there was this movie about a fairy who died and then came back to life when kids started clapping their hands. Was that it?"
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Isiah talks all about Jesus.
Nah. But King David does. Psalms 146:3-4.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
Stigmata?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: Har Har...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Nah. But King David does. Psalms 146:3-4.
Cute.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Hey, rivka: kosher question for you, and I realize I could probably look things up and figure this out on my own, but I figured I'm lazy and it's easier and faster to ask you.
I'm having a snack of Trader Joe's Butternut-Apple soup (mmm, it's so delicious served warm with some cheese and garlic croutons floated in it, but I digress.) It's marked kosher and pareve; so far so good, I know what that means. So then I was noticing on the allergy alerts (yes, I'm a freak, I'm always reading labels, even when they don't apply to me) that it's made on shared equipment with fish.
This brings to mind a question. You mentioned in a thread a while back that fish and meat are not supposed to be served together, right? I was unclear at the time, is this more like a "can't eat meat and dairy" restriction or a "can't eat meat and foods prepared on dairy equipment-- but can serve the dairy equipment food separately and afterwards" restriction? (If the latter, then there being no problem with a pareve food being prepared on shared equipment with fish makes more sense to me.)
Anyway, no reason for asking but, you know, idle curiosity. Care to enlighten me? Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
All fish is parve, which means it isn't meat by kosher rules (however, not all fish is kosher, parve or otherwise). Also, you can have dairy and meat, but they have to be prepared and cooked in completely separate "kitchens" (I know that people often have separate fridges and ovens, but I don't know how much beyond that is common in personal homes), and served on separate plates and utensils.
-Bok
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
ketchupqueen, meat and fish can be prepared using the same utensils. Technically, they could even be served on the same plate if they didn't touch. However, generally we take away a fish plate before serving meat.
The fridge and oven are generally not kashros issues. You can use the same oven and fridge for both. The issues are generally utensils, plates, cookware, sinks, counters, dishracks, etc.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Bok, I know all about the meat/dairy thing (well, not ALL, but enough for a very curious non-Jew who wishes to respect the beliefs and practices of her Jewish friends), I was just curious about fish. If it is pareve, as you say, I am curious about why not serve it with meat. Rivka is good for the "philosophy behind the rule" links so I was hoping for some enlightenment here.
Thanks, Chanie, but I still would like to know why. Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
Basically, the Talmud says that eating meat and fish together is unhealthy. It doesn't really explain why.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: ketchupqueen, meat and fish can be prepared using the same utensils. Technically, they could even be served on the same plate if they didn't touch.
Chanie is correct, although some will not cook fish in a fleishig (meat) pot. (I will.)
Not eating meat and fish together is neither a biblical commandment nor a rabbinical one -- it is a custom. (A very, very strong custom, but still not a law.) What that means in practical terms is that while I would not serve meat and fish together, I don't have separate dishes -- I don't even worry about washing dishes with bits of meat together with dishes with bits of fish. It also means that while Lea & Perrins worcestershire sauce cannot be used in meat dishes, most cheap brands can. (The brand names use substantial amounts of anchovies; the cheap brands just a bit.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: Basically, the Talmud says that eating meat and fish together is unhealthy. It doesn't really explain why.
Not quite. It gives a reason that we don't really understand, which is not quite the same thing. Link Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That link was perfect, rivka. Thanks!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Anytime, hon. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: All fish is parve, which means it isn't meat by kosher rules (however, not all fish is kosher, parve or otherwise). Also, you can have dairy and meat, but they have to be prepared and cooked in completely separate "kitchens" (I know that people often have separate fridges and ovens, but I don't know how much beyond that is common in personal homes), and served on separate plates and utensils.
Bok, I'm not sure what you mean. You know that dairy and meat can't be eaten together even if they were prepared separately, right?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So it's the entire meal they must be separate (in other words, both at the same meal is a no-no)? I thought that as long as they weren't served at the same time, and they were served (and prepared) separately, it's okay?
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Just to clarify, the clause about "separate plates and utensils" is in addition to the separate preparation, not an alternative.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yes, any given meal tends to be either meat or dairy, though they sometimes have completely pareve (neither) meals. It seems like the pareve stuff tended to be kept and prepared in the dairy kitchen.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
From the standpoint of someone who doesn't know that much about Judaism, there seem to be a lot of very specific rules to follow. Does it seem like a lot when you're following them, or does it just become second nature, like how I know that it's not OK to jaywalk?
Do the rules sometimes seem arbitrary or frustrating to follow? Is part of the point that they're inconvenient, in order to remind you why you're doing them?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: So it's the entire meal they must be separate (in other words, both at the same meal is a no-no)? I thought that as long as they weren't served at the same time, and they were served (and prepared) separately, it's okay?
Technically, one could serve certain dairy items (no hard cheese, for example), then remove all the silverware, dishes, tablecloth; put out a meat tablecloth, dishes, etc. Oh, and everyone eating would have to rinse out their mouths and take a bite or two of something parve. (Like bread.)
Is it possible? Yes. But I can't think of too many reasons why anyone would bother. And keep in mind, the reverse would not be true. One must wait after eating meat before eating dairy (generally either 3 or 6 hours, depending on your family's specific custom). And that's true after certain dairy products (like hard cheese) before eating meat.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Yes, any given meal tends to be either meat or dairy, though they sometimes have completely pareve (neither) meals. It seems like the pareve stuff tended to be kept and prepared in the dairy kitchen.
Keep in mind that those of us with kitchens at home do not have two (or three) kitchens, just separate prep areas in one. Contrary to popular belief, most Jews are not hugely wealthy.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: From the standpoint of someone who doesn't know that much about Judaism, there seem to be a lot of very specific rules to follow. Does it seem like a lot when you're following them, or does it just become second nature, like how I know that it's not OK to jaywalk?
Some of each. Most Orthodox Jews who are serious about their observance study the laws (or generally, some specific subset for a time, and then another, etc.) on a regular basis. After all, there will be a test.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Do the rules sometimes seem arbitrary or frustrating to follow?
Not so much now (speaking only for myself here), but definitely when I was a teenager. But sure, sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Is part of the point that they're inconvenient, in order to remind you why you're doing them?
Certainly we should be thinking about what we're doing. Doing mitzvos by rote is rather emphatically discouraged -- but nonetheless is human nature. So anything that forces us to think about them is helpful. And certain ones (kashrus, for instance) certainly are more likely to force us to consider them than others.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Technically, one could serve certain dairy items (no hard cheese, for example), then remove all the silverware, dishes, tablecloth; put out a meat tablecloth, dishes, etc. Oh, and everyone eating would have to rinse out their mouths and take a bite or two of something parve. (Like bread.)
Some families have a custom of waiting a period of time between dairy and meat, usually an hour.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: From the standpoint of someone who doesn't know that much about Judaism, there seem to be a lot of very specific rules to follow. Does it seem like a lot when you're following them, or does it just become second nature, like how I know that it's not OK to jaywalk?
Yeah, it's kind of like that. If there are meat dishes in the sink, I know to put dirty dairy ones either on the counter or in a separate basin we have. It doesn't seem like a lot.
Of course, when I walk past a restaurant and smell barbecued ribs, then it seems like a lot. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Do the rules sometimes seem arbitrary or frustrating to follow? Is part of the point that they're inconvenient, in order to remind you why you're doing them?
They don't seem arbitrary or frustrating. They are what they are, is all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Keep in mind that those of us with kitchens at home do not have two (or three) kitchens, just separate prep areas in one. Contrary to popular belief, most Jews are not hugely wealthy.
We don't even have separate prep areas. Our kitchen isn't big enough for that. We have separate cutting boards, and the like.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
By separate prep areas, I mean about a square foot of counter space. And when necessary, one "flavor" may take over the kitchen (but then all the counters have been cleared of all the others).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Right, I was more wondering, and I guess I should have posed it as a question, if there was any reason the dairy kitchen was the default kitchen. I don't know, it may have been something as mundane as the caterer liking the layout better. I guess it was slightly larger.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Mostly practical, probably. It's easier to keep things parve in a dairy kitchen than in a meat one -- largely because most "dairy" meals have very little actual dairy in them. And because unlike meat, there isn't the grease problem.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Forgive me if this question has already been asked, but if a woman does not menstruate for, say 8 months while she is breastfeeding, is she not niddah for that whole time? I would assume so, but wanted to check. I was reading on Jewfaq about the benefits of taking a break every now and then, and wondered if there is any tendency to do so when one doesn't have to.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
P.S. My question above was answered in the negatory.
I wanted to ask this question separately from the context that inspires it, since it seemed a little heated (or cold, depending on which you don't prefer).
Are pharisees considered exemplary Jews? Would we even know what a pharisee was apart from the accounts in the synoptic gospels, and as such, is the representation of them even considered trustworthy? I guess what I'm asking is whether pharisees even exist in the Jewish tradition or are they a moustache-twirly strawman of sorts?
P.S. Nevermind, wikipedia seems to answer my question pretty well that they are definitely a historically recognized movement. However:
quote:Although the Christian New Testament records explicit criticism by Jesus of the Pharisee's teachings, none of those teachings identified by Jesus were ultimately accepted by mainstream Judaism so as to be included in the Talmud.
[ February 27, 2008, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The rabbis in the Talmud mention the Perushim (Pharisees) as a subgroup of observant Jews who were extra meticulous. The word means "separatist".
It's not unlikely that the Sadducees saw all observant Jews as "Pharisees", since they weren't assimilationist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My rabbi's explanation of the Pharisees is the side who won (in terms of defining traditional Judaism). He's only kind of kidding.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I'm talking to a Christian in another forum, and the subject of whether or not Isaiah 14:12 talks about Lucifer came up. I did my own research and rebutted. Then she came up with the end of Daniel 4, saying Nebuchadnezzar became a believer so Isaiah could not have been talking about Neb being brought down to the netherworld (she uses the word hell).
I'm sort of stuck on this one. My gut instinct says that the difference lies once again in context. I want to say that Isaiah is just insulting Neb dramatically for things he has already done, whereas Daniel is talking about the end of Neb's life which he actually witnessed. But I am having trouble backing that up with something.
Am I on the right track?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, Rashi agrees with you -- it's Nevuchadnetzar. Regardless, why should it be Lucifer? I am not aware of any Jewish text that refers to the Satan that way -- it is an entirely Christian concept that the Satan is a fallen anything.
He does eventually repent in Daniel, but he is definitely brought low beforehand! He ate grass with the animals of the field. Sounds pretty low to me.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Well, Rashi agrees with you -- it's Nevuchadnetzar. Regardless, why should it be Lucifer? I am not aware of any Jewish text that refers to the Satan that way -- it is an entirely Christian concept that the Satan is a fallen anything.
He does eventually repent in Daniel, but he is definitely brought low beforehand! He ate grass with the animals of the field. Sounds pretty low to me.
Thanks!
And just in case you haven't seen the King James version, the word Lucifer is actually used in a mistranslation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think I knew that. But I gave up arguing text with Christians (with the occasional exception, like here on Hatrack) years ago. So the oddities of their mistranslations don't occupy too much of my brain space these days. The Hebrew is "הילל בן שחר", which means "the <something> of the morning" -- with something most often translated as "star." How on earth anyone gets the Satan from that (even with Christian, rather than Jewish theology) is beyond me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I believe that Lucifer is thought to mean Morning Star, or something like that, but I don't recall the actual text that belief is based on any more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I realize that. But that's where it gets very circular, IIRC.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lucifer comes from the Latin meaning "Light Bearer/Carrier" (Luci = light; fer = carry).
-Bok
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Right, but where does that get derived from the original Hebrew, if not through an already determined myth? I see where Avraham becomes Abraham. I see where Yitzchak becomes Isaac. I even see where Khshayarsha becomes both Xerxes and Ahasuerus. I don't see where Hillel ben Shachar becomes Lucifer.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Right, but where does that get derived from the original Hebrew, if not through an already determined myth? I see where Avraham becomes Abraham. I see where Yitzchak becomes Isaac. I even see where Khshayarsha becomes both Xerxes and Ahasuerus. I don't see where Hillel ben Shachar becomes Lucifer.
They basically translated the word from Hebrew to English to Latin, leaving the rest of the passage in English.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Since the Vulgate was translated into Latin around 400 C.E. I'm pretty sure it didn't go through English first.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Facinating, I had no idea our concepts of the devil could differ so much!
So if the devil has repented has anyone filled his role then? Are there just other devils who continually tempt folks? I am reminded of how the Pharisees often accused Jesus of having a devil in him, has this belief in devils evolved since then?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Nebuchadnezzar was a historical person, not a devil.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Right, but where does that get derived from the original Hebrew, if not through an already determined myth? I see where Avraham becomes Abraham. I see where Yitzchak becomes Isaac. I even see where Khshayarsha becomes both Xerxes and Ahasuerus. I don't see where Hillel ben Shachar becomes Lucifer.
They basically translated the word from Hebrew to English to Latin, leaving the rest of the passage in English.
Except that Hillel ben Shachar doesn't translate in any way into Lucifer. Shachar is not light, and Hillel is not bring.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Facinating, I had no idea our concepts of the devil could differ so much!
So if the devil has repented has anyone filled his role then? Are there just other devils who continually tempt folks? I am reminded of how the Pharisees often accused Jesus of having a devil in him, has this belief in devils evolved since then?
You should take that Pharisee story with a big grain of salt. The Christian scriptures don't report on Pharisees accurately.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So if the devil has repented
No, no, no. He hasn't repented -- there is no rebellion, no fall, nothing to repent for/of. The Satan is just an angel, doing his job. He works for God, not against him.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Nebuchadnezzar was a historical person, not a devil.
Potato, potahto. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So if the devil has repented
No, no, no. He hasn't repented -- there is no rebellion, no fall, nothing to repent for/of. The Satan is just an angel, doing his job. He works for God, not against him.
Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. Facinating links
Lisa: are you suggesting that Pharisees or Jews as a whole during that time period did not believe in demonic possession?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: are you suggesting that Pharisees or Jews as a whole during that time period did not believe in demonic possession?
Not in the way Christians do, certainly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: are you suggesting that Pharisees or Jews as a whole during that time period did not believe in demonic possession?
Not in the way Christians do, certainly.
Could you indulge me with an explanation on the difference?
I really am just curious.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Maybe Lisa can. I don't know details; I just know that demons are viewed as destructive forces, less than potential invaders.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Hey rivka, can you explain the whole "G-d" spelling thing for me? The question that follows is, how do you say that?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Hey rivka, can you explain the whole "G-d" spelling thing for me? The question that follows is, how do you say that?
"Hashem", pronounced "Hah-SHEM".
Thing is, the Jews take the Name of G'd to be a Very Big Deal. We don't say it out loud unless we are talking to the Big Guy Himself in prayer. And if we were to write it down, well then, what we wrote it on would take on a bit of holiness and need to be treated with quite a bit of respect and care. So we don't write it down much either, unless we are doing so in a prayer book or the like. You know, to be careful. And yeah, none of these things are the Real and Actual, True NAME, just what we call Him. We want to be careful, anyway, and treat what we call Him with respect, too.
That's why we refer to him as "Hashem", which, really, just translates into "The Name". We aren't saying what name, just, you know, the name.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
It is also worth noting that in Hebrew there are various ways of referring to "The Big J" avoiding the explicit name, like using what is practcally one of two random letters from the Hebrew alphabet followed by a little stroke that looks like an apostrophe.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
They're hardly random, Jonathan. One is "heh" -- the first letter of "Hashem". The other is "yud" -- the first letter of several of His names, including the Tetragrammaton.
It is worth noting that some of us do not consider the word "God" to be one of His names, and therefore only use "G-d" when necessary to avoid bothering those who do. (And I find those who have taken this a step further and started writing "Hash-m" to be just the tiniest bit insane. )
As for saying it, that's actually slightly less problematic than writing it (for several reasons, among them the difficulty of disposing of a written name of His), and so it is pronounced exactly as the non-oblique version is pronounced. (Except when avoided altogether by substitution, as Tante indicated.)
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
There's also "dalet"... Only reason I see is to retreat one back from "heh"; unless it's short for the Aramaic word for merciful ("dachil")...?
And I completely agree with your second paragraph. I know an author who even used the term "EverPresent God" in his book, to get around the problem of translating the Tetragrammaton when quoting phrases from the Bible. :-)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Daled and heh are interchangeable for some purposes, so when they use a daled, it's much the same as using a heh.)
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hey, I know some people who call the soda "Ginger Kale", (to avoid the sound-alike word for G'd) for "ale".
I suppose they must also be sending their kids to "kelementary school".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Hey, I know some people who call the soda "Ginger Kale", (to avoid the sound-alike word for G'd) for "ale".
*sigh*
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hey! It's not me!
I just know people who do that. Me, I think it's kind of silly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know it's not you.
"Silly" doesn't begin to describe it to me. But that's a whole other conversation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
A guy gets set up on a date with a girl. She introduces herself as "Batka". He blinks, and says, "Then I'm Keilikaku".
I know people who literally, when they write names like ירמיה, will write ירמי-ה. It's nutty.
As far as the dalet is concerned, it's the same thing. It's simply an incomplete heh, for the same reason.
There's a story that Rav Soloveitchik, when asked about this in his classroom, went up to the black board, wrote "GOD" in big letters, and then took the eraser and erased it.
God is an Anglicization of the German Gott, which has nothing to do with the One we pray to. It's a kinui, and as such, there may be an issue with non-Jews taking it in vain, but there's certainly no issue when it comes to Jews.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I know people who literally, when they write names like ירמיה, will write ירמי-ה.
At some point, I was taught to do this.
I got over it. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rivka, I left a message for my rav, but he hasn't gotten back yet, and it's time sensitive. I was wondering if you knew the answer.
Can I mush margerine into a baked potato on Shabbat if I'm doing it on my plate at the meal? It wouldn't be like preparation before the meal or anything. I know that you can do things like peeling oranges at the table to eat them, and it isn't borer, so I was wondering if you knew if doing it at the table made it not lisha.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I think it depends on whether the potato is hot. If it is, then the butter will melt and be absorbed by the potato without grinding. No borer. I don't think there is any reason to be concern about that melacha. But I'm curious about what your rav says.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Rivka is in Israel right now, and likely won't be getting back to you right away.
I'm not competent to poskin on anything; it's the kind of thing I'd ask my rabbi.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"2) Strongly discouraging conversion helps ensure that all who do convert do so for love of God and Judaism, not for other reasons. Conversion cannot be undone, and it is FAR FAR better to be a non-Jew who keeps the Noachide laws than a Jew who has chosen to keep all 613 and then throws that away at a later date." So, if I was raised Jewish, but only kind of (both parents are Jewish but not really religious), had a bar mitzvah etc. Then I decided that I didn't really believe in all the stuff and stopped being a Jew, but I still follow the Noachide laws would I go to heaven?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
He hasn't had time to look it up, so he said he was paskening off the cuff that generally speaking, only borer has the exemption about it being at the time you're eating; not lush and not tochen.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: "2) Strongly discouraging conversion helps ensure that all who do convert do so for love of God and Judaism, not for other reasons. Conversion cannot be undone, and it is FAR FAR better to be a non-Jew who keeps the Noachide laws than a Jew who has chosen to keep all 613 and then throws that away at a later date." So, if I was raised Jewish, but only kind of (both parents are Jewish but not really religious), had a bar mitzvah etc. Then I decided that I didn't really believe in all the stuff and stopped being a Jew, but I still follow the Noachide laws would I go to heaven?
We don't have heaven and hell as concepts the way other religions do. We say that all Jews have a place in the World to Come. Whether you have orchestra seats or you're stuck behind a pillar so far back that you need binoculars is another question.
Only God can weigh these things. If you mean does God think that's okay (for you to just keep the Noachide laws), the answer is obviously no. How not-okay is His deal.
The way Judaism looks at it, every time you transgress, you harm yourself, you harm the entire Jewish people, and you harm the very fabric of creation. And vice versa for every time you comply with God's commandments.
PS: You can't stop being a Jew. It's like Hotel California: "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The irksome thing is that I wouldn't have even thought there was a question had I not learned it a couple of years ago in Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilcheta. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Well that's a rip off, I didn't choose to be Jewish. Oh well, thanks.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I didn't choose to be Jewish.
Me neither. I did choose to follow the commandments, though, as best as I can.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Yes, as do I simply because they are logical, but then there are laws which are not logical or part of the moral system that I was brought up in and are solely revealed laws that are part of the 613 commandments. That's where my problem lies.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Please don't take this as a cheap shot, but how much have you learned about Judaism? Is your judgement of it based 100% on the moral system you were brought up in? Have you taken the opportunity to do some intensive learning, even for a short time? Just to make an informed decision, I mean.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Well, my problem is that my Rabbi isn't the brightest fellow (he's a nice man, no offense to him intended) and he can't really answer any of my questions about Judaism beyond telling me to do something like "read Maimonides." A very intelligent Rabbi who's also a professor of theology visited and we had a wonderful discussion, but he had to go back to New York.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Ouch. That's unfortunate. Have you considered taking a year off to learn in Israel? Not in one of the black hat places, obviously, but there are places like Brovenders where you can get a solid grounding without being pressured.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Maybe you can find a rabbi who will be a better teacher to you. Just because he leads the congregation that your parents belong to doesn't mean that he has to be your rabbi.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Oh no, Tante, he doesn't lead my parents congregation. He's just my Uni's main Rabbi, and he invites me to his house every Sabbath. I don't think there are any other Rabbis within a convenient distance (I lack a car).
Edit: Concerning taking a year of: unless I'm already confident that I have a deep interest in it, there's no way I'm spending a year in Israel studying a religion that is only truly mine in the cultural sense (from the internal perspective).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: uh... What are difference between the christians and the jews?
This thread isn't for questions about Christianity. If you want to start a thread that's going to get locked fairly quickly, you could try starting one on that subject. But I refuse to address that question in a thread I'd rather not see locked.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Edit: Concerning taking a year of: unless I'm already confident that I have a deep interest in it, there's no way I'm spending a year in Israel studying a religion that is only truly mine in the cultural sense (from the internal perspective).
Hmm... I guess it's like the paradox of needing experience to get a job and needing a job to get experience.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You shouldn't do it unless you absolutely have to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: He hasn't had time to look it up, so he said he was paskening off the cuff that generally speaking, only borer has the exemption about it being at the time you're eating; not lush and not tochen.
That's certainly what I was taught. Tochen especially I know of no exceptions for.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I know this thread isn't for me, but I'm curious and I'm not familiar with the terminology. In summary: mushing margarine OK or not?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
What makes something kosher?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Here is a page about what makes things kosher. You can also ask questions through an IM interface.
ooooooooooo Thanks Minerva .
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I know this thread isn't for me, but I'm curious and I'm not familiar with the terminology. In summary: mushing margarine OK or not?
Mushing margarine isn't the issue. Mushing it up with potato on Shabbat if you're Jewish is. And no, it's not okay. It falls into the categories of both kneading and grinding.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Just to illustrate the differences to MattP, I was told by my orthodox rabbi that it was ok if the potato was hot enough that it would just melt into the potato and be absorbed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I should ask my rav that, because that's not what I asked him. I was talking about mushing solid margerine into solid potato. If the margarine were to melt but stay separate from the potato, presumably there'd still be the problem of kneading, but the grinding problem would be gone.
I'm not sure I see how the margarine could melt in. Maybe if the potato was completely mushed up first... hmm.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I should ask my rav that, because that's not what I asked him. I was talking about mushing solid margerine into solid potato. If the margarine were to melt but stay separate from the potato, presumably there'd still be the problem of kneading, but the grinding problem would be gone.
I'm not sure I see how the margarine could melt in. Maybe if the potato was completely mushed up first... hmm.
If the potato is hot enough, the margarine will melt rather quickly just being set on top of the potatoe. If the potatoe has been mushed up completely first, it will be quickly absorbed by the potato but less so if the potato is more solid.
This discussion has made me wonder about what's acceptable for feeding children on the Sabbath. Can a parent cut up meat or other large pieces on a child's plate or before it's put on a child's plate? Can they mash up food to be fed to a very young child? Is there a distinction made between mashing up the child's food with a fork and grinding it in a blender? Would all the above have to be done before sun down on friday?
Are there any exceptions, for example if I (presuming I was Jewish) had invited friends to share my Sabbath meal and being childless had forgotten to grind up the child's food before hand, would it be acceptable to do it on the Sabbath or would I have to choose between Sabbath violation and letting the child go hungry.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I should ask my rav that, because that's not what I asked him. I was talking about mushing solid margerine into solid potato. If the margarine were to melt but stay separate from the potato, presumably there'd still be the problem of kneading, but the grinding problem would be gone.
I'm not sure I see how the margarine could melt in. Maybe if the potato was completely mushed up first... hmm.
This has made me curious. Would the same rules apply if you put gravy on the potatoes? Since gravy is already liquid, the grinding problem would be gone but wouldn't the kneading issue still be there if you mushed the gravy into the potatoe?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Mushing margarine isn't the issue. Mushing it up with potato on Shabbat if you're Jewish is.
I got that. I just didn't want to restate the whole question. Thanks for clarifying.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
After being intrigued by the margarine question, I noticed this post way back in the thread:
quote:In other words -- and I have had this confirmed by several rabbis now -- if you already own a wig whose origins you do not know IT IS FINE.
I had the impression that even accidentally violating a Jewish law was something a Jew should make every effort to avoid so I was a little surprised that in this case it was "When in doubt, don't worry about it." Can someone elaborate on how this situation is different or perhaps how my impression is incorrect?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If the potato is hot enough, the margarine will melt rather quickly just being set on top of the potato. If the potato has been mushed up completely first, it will be quickly absorbed by the potato but less so if the potato is more solid.
I've always just (incompletely, so the whole thing stays together) bisected the potato in both directions, and let the pat melt. Then again, I don't think I've ever done that on Shabbos. (Just because I don't generally have baked potatoes then, not for any religious reason.)
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This discussion has made me wonder about what's acceptable for feeding children on the Sabbath. Can a parent cut up meat or other large pieces on a child's plate or before it's put on a child's plate? Can they mash up food to be fed to a very young child? Is there a distinction made between mashing up the child's food with a fork and grinding it in a blender? Would all the above have to be done before sun down on friday?
Are there any exceptions, for example if I (presuming I was Jewish) had invited friends to share my Sabbath meal and being childless had forgotten to grind up the child's food before hand, would it be acceptable to do it on the Sabbath or would I have to choose between Sabbath violation and letting the child go hungry.
Cutting up in large pieces is fine -- for the child or an adult. Mashing would generally have to be done before Shabbos, but I know there are cases where one can (when it is already Shabbos and there isn't much choice, but certainly not a priori) mash or kneed for an infant, but one must use a different manner than usual (and there are guidelines as to what that would mean).
The blender is electric, so that's just a non-starter ( ) to begin with. But yes, a fork would be preferable to a ricer. (In fact, the only way I could see a ricer being permitted at all on Shabbos would be if the food were for a seriously ill person.) The handle of the fork is better yet.
(BTW, while as host I would certainly try to accommodate guests, including their children, as a parent it is absolutely the parents' responsibility to bring food (if necessary) for their child, if the child is too young for regular table food.)
Oh, and cutting up meat is not considered grinding, even into small pieces. Only fruits, vegetables, grains, and other things that grow from the ground are an issue. So when making eggs and onions on Shabbos, you can mash the eggs as finely as you want. But the onions must be cut larger than usual.
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:In other words -- and I have had this confirmed by several rabbis now -- if you already own a wig whose origins you do not know IT IS FINE.
I had the impression that even accidentally violating a Jewish law was something a Jew should make every effort to avoid so I was a little surprised that in this case it was "When in doubt, don't worry about it." Can someone elaborate on how this situation is different or perhaps how my impression is incorrect?
The short answer is: it's complicated.
The long answer is, there is a general concept of a compound questionable being permitted in many cases. That is, if it is questionable whether a certain thing is an issue to begin with, and also questionable whether even if it IS an issue, whether said issue applies to a specific case. Most particularly when there are other mitigating factors (such as in this case, where hefsed merubah, a large financial loss, applies).
Regardless, there are quite a substantial number of rabbonim who agree that there is no problem even with hair known to be from India, for a variety of reasons. (Both technical and practical.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't have a question...at least not one I have to have answered right away. I just wanted to thank everyone involved in this thread for participating. I have learned a lot, and there is always something good to be said about a forum of discussion where you can ask questions in a non-confrontational setting.
So many times in the past, both here and IRL, I have seen people take offense when none was intended.....and just as many times (if not more) I have winced at the way some people ask questions about serious topics.
It is a pleasure to be involved in a conversation where everyone on BOTH sides of the conversation assume the best rather than the worst of the other person. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This has made me curious. Would the same rules apply if you put gravy on the potatoes? Since gravy is already liquid, the grinding problem would be gone but wouldn't the kneading issue still be there if you mushed the gravy into the potatoe?
I'd imagine so. But I've never put gravy on baked potatoes. Not even on mashed potatoes. Not my thing.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Shvester!
(I never eat gravy, ever. Not even on Thanksgiving turkey.)
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Not even on biscuits? Or chicken-fried steak? Or pan-fried chicken? Or hush puppies? Since Southern cooking doesn't exist without gravy, I can't imagine not eating it. Though I tend to serve non-Southern fare for Shabbat.
We switched to an Orthodox shul this spring and we're (very) slowly making the transition to being more frum. Andrew, who was raised in a secular household, attends shul once a month and holidays, which is a good start. I go every week with Aerin, who loves it.
My only problem is the candy. There's an actual secret stash of candy and they give it out to the kids like crazy. They also put bowls of jelly beans and lollipops on the tables at the luncheons. I have a few problems with this. First, we have a lot of toddlers who can reach the tables and the candy is very colorful and a major choking hazard. Second, we don't allow Aerin to eat candy and no one ever asks me if it's okay for her to have. Third, I strongly disagree that we need candy to make the kids like shul and help them learn to love Torah. I don't think we need to bribe children to love Torah. I also think it has the effect of communicating to children that Torah isn't worthy of being loved for itself, but needs candy to make it sacred.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I let my children have candy on Shabbos. I have a big stash in a cabinet of a bunch of Halloween-sized candies. We have a little "party" after a little Shabbos shluffen, and everyone gets to pick a piece, even my husband and me. It's the only time they are allowed candy.
I think for my younger children, it helps them see Shabbos as a special day and makes them look forward to Shabbos. It also makes candy seem more like a special treat, rather than something we eat every day.
I don't see candy as having anything to do with making Shabbos sacred. Just like I usually make potato kugel for Shabbos. That's not because I think we need kugel to make Shabbos sacred. It's just another way to make the day a little more special for children who can't fully understand yet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not even on biscuits? Or chicken-fried steak?
What kind of gravy do you use for these? Whenever I've gotten them in the south, the biscuits have sawmill gravy (with milk), and chicken fried steak has a milk-based gravy (similar to sawmill but without the sausage or beef).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Mrs.M, slowly is definitely the way to go. And I agree with you on the excessiveness of candy in many shuls. (I let my kids have some candy etc. on Shabbos, but the sheer quantity it is often possible to get in an hour's time in some shuls is astounding. At least Simchas Torah is only once a year!)
I agree with Minerva though -- it's not about "sacred"; it's about "special". Candy is the kid equivalent of basar v'dagim v'chol matamim. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: Not even on biscuits? Or chicken-fried steak? Or pan-fried chicken? Or hush puppies? Since Southern cooking doesn't exist without gravy, I can't imagine not eating it. Though I tend to serve non-Southern fare for Shabbat.
We switched to an Orthodox shul this spring and we're (very) slowly making the transition to being more frum. Andrew, who was raised in a secular household, attends shul once a month and holidays, which is a good start. I go every week with Aerin, who loves it.
My only problem is the candy. There's an actual secret stash of candy and they give it out to the kids like crazy. They also put bowls of jelly beans and lollipops on the tables at the luncheons. I have a few problems with this. First, we have a lot of toddlers who can reach the tables and the candy is very colorful and a major choking hazard. Second, we don't allow Aerin to eat candy and no one ever asks me if it's okay for her to have. Third, I strongly disagree that we need candy to make the kids like shul and help them learn to love Torah. I don't think we need to bribe children to love Torah. I also think it has the effect of communicating to children that Torah isn't worthy of being loved for itself, but needs candy to make it sacred.
We moderate Tova's candy intake. If she gets a bag of candy, she can have a little, and the rest goes into the pantry, where we dole it out on special occasions. It makes a great reward, and in moderation, it's fine.
She has a bad habit at kiddush of loading her plate up like crazy. Particularly if they have those little gefilte fish balls. So we try and be close by so we can "say when".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I don't see candy as having anything to do with making Shabbos sacred. Just like I usually make potato kugel for Shabbos. That's not because I think we need kugel to make Shabbos sacred. It's just another way to make the day a little more special for children who can't fully understand yet.
I make potato kugel once every month or two. For one thing, it's wicked fattening, and for another, I get a huge hug from Tova when she finds out I made it. Particularly if I make it with my special barbecue sauce meatballs.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Not even on biscuits? Or chicken-fried steak?
What kind of gravy do you use for these? Whenever I've gotten them in the south, the biscuits have sawmill gravy (with milk), and chicken fried steak has a milk-based gravy (similar to sawmill but without the sausage or beef).
I've never had chicken fried steak. I've always been curious about it, though.
I'll put gravy on meat that doesn't look moist enough, but I guess I was just never raised to put it on bread or potatoes.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
If I put anything on biscuits, it's butter. I just am not a gravy-eater.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've never had chicken fried steak. I've always been curious about it, though.
If done well (not well-done), it's delicious. And it doesn't really need the gravy.
It's often done badly, though. I generally won't order it without a recommendation from a local, because it's too it or miss.
quote:I'll put gravy on meat that doesn't look moist enough, but I guess I was just never raised to put it on bread or potatoes.
I'm with you on the potatoes and any bread except biscuits. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Gravy and butter (mushed in) on potatos for me, please! Butter and jam or honey on biscuit. No gravy!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm not usually a chicken-fried steak person, but there's a place in Amarillo that has absolutely great food, including delectable chicken-fried steak (or at least there was 5 years ago.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Oh, and I don't put gravy on biscuits, or fried chicken. But I love it on rice with the fried chicken. And it always goes on turkey, stuffing, and mashed potatoes, and sometimes veggies, at Thanksgiving, but that's usually the only time I eat it.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Okay, I take that back. I totally eat gravy on my meatballs at IKEA.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'll put gravy on meat that doesn't look moist enough, but I guess I was just never raised to put it on bread or potatoes.
I'm with you on the potatoes and any bread except biscuits.
I think the last time I had a real biscuit was when I was a kid, before I kept kosher, at KFC.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: (Okay, I take that back. I totally eat gravy on my meatballs at IKEA.)
Uh... isn't that a furniture store?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think the last time I had a real biscuit was when I was a kid, before I kept kosher, at KFC.
That would explain it.
Plus, without buttermilk, biscuits just ain't right. And with buttermilk, no gravy for you.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
They (Ikea) have a little restaurant as well, where they serve Swedish meatballs to go with your Swedish furniture.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yep. You can buy them to take home too, in the Sweden Shoppe.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I don't see candy as having anything to do with making Shabbos sacred. Just like I usually make potato kugel for Shabbos. That's not because I think we need kugel to make Shabbos sacred. It's just another way to make the day a little more special for children who can't fully understand yet.
I make potato kugel once every month or two. For one thing, it's wicked fattening, and for another, I get a huge hug from Tova when she finds out I made it. Particularly if I make it with my special barbecue sauce meatballs.
Calories do not count on Shabbos.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I didn't always keep kosher (and I'm slowly introducing it to Andrew, who, frankly, is struggling). I have come up with some pretty good kosher alternatives for traditional Southern fare, but it's really hit-or-miss.
It's not that I object to sweets on Shabbat all around. We do allow Aerin to have treats at shul that she doesn't get at home (mostly cookies). It's the type of candy and the volume and the attitude about it. Aerin has major mouth issues, as well as Autism, and won't let us brush her teeth. Therefore, we're very picky about what she eats and we limit processed sugar as much as possible. Luckily, she doesn't have much of a sweet tooth. Our dentist told me that the worst candy you can give a child is lollipops and jelly beans. Lollipops coat the teeth with sugar every time you lick it and jelly beans stick to the teeth. He told us to avoid hard candy, chewy candy (skittles, etc.), and caramels. Chocolate is a much better option because most of it is washed off the teeth by saliva. It bothers me how concerned the kids are about the candy. They're constantly talking about it and begging for more and comparing how much they got. And I'm not talking about one lollipop a piece, either. They get cups from the kitchen and fill them up (these are the 12 ounce size). Then they go back for more.
I do love everything else about our shul, though. I'm the only pregnant woman (which is unusual) and everyone is super excited.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I hate all forms of sawmill gravy. Usually, at least in my experience, chicken fried steak is served with sawmill gravy as well, so it is a no go for me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I don't see candy as having anything to do with making Shabbos sacred. Just like I usually make potato kugel for Shabbos. That's not because I think we need kugel to make Shabbos sacred. It's just another way to make the day a little more special for children who can't fully understand yet.
I make potato kugel once every month or two. For one thing, it's wicked fattening, and for another, I get a huge hug from Tova when she finds out I made it. Particularly if I make it with my special barbecue sauce meatballs.
Calories do not count on Shabbos.
You know, I keep telling myself that, and maybe I'm just not having the proper kavana, but it seems not to work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I hate all forms of sawmill gravy. Usually, at least in my experience, chicken fried steak is served with sawmill gravy as well, so it is a no go for me.
Have you had it from a really good source? I ask because I thought it was gross until I finally got some good gravy.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
New query:
This stems from the Kosher Sauerkraut thread, but my question to the Rebbetzim* is this:
If you make a mistake and eat something that's not kosher what happens? Is there a purification ritual you can do, or would you have to call in a Rabbi? (I guess this question is valid for any kind folks who have a special dietary requirements for religous reasons)
Likewise if someone uses a meat pan for a dairy product - do you just cleanse the pan or does the whole kitchen need to be recertified?
* not sure if this is a valid plural, I only have very basic 'kitchen' Hebrew - most distinctly lo tov... Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If you accidentally eat something non-kosher, you do teshuva (repent). You confess to God (in words) that you did it, you regret doing it, and you commit not to do it in the future.
(And if the Temple is standing, you have to bring a sin offering, but since it isn't, you don't.)
If you treyf a pan (make it non-kosher like you describe), you can kasher the pan, depending on what it's made of. And if you didn't cook in the pan or get it hot, you might not even have to do that. You definitely don't have to redo the whole kitchen.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Do you kasher only when you accidentally treyf a pan, or is it also done to deliberately re-purpose a pan?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: is it also done to deliberately re-purpose a pan?
Not generally allowed (because of concerns of having something you kasher frequently and forget the status of), but it is done for Pesach. In fact, the simplest way to make a meat pot milchig (for example) is to kasher it for Pesach -- now it can be whatever "gender" you want.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We have a bunch of treyfed up silverware on top of the refrigerator. Whenever something gets treyfed (or possibly treyfed) we put it up there, and when we go to do hag'ala for Pesach, we bring that along with us.
For the record, not everything can be kashered. China, for example. Other ceramic based stuff (including Pyrex, I'm told, because it's a ceramic/glass mixture) as well.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: (And if the Temple is standing, you have to bring a sin offering, but since it isn't, you don't.)
That kind of answers question number 1: Why don't modern Jews still do animal sacrifices and grain sacrifices and whatnot?
Question 2: I saw on this list of the Jewish laws this whole thing about "remember what Amalek did" and whatnot, along with exterminating the Canaanites. Why just those occurrences? Why not include other groups that persecuted Jews, like Nazis and whatnot?
Question 3: This kind of goes along with question 1. Say the temple is rebuilt tomorrow(just a hypothetical situation), and the Jews all over the world had to start offering sacrifices again. Would every jew actually have to GO to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifice, or could they set up a sort of "online sacrifice" where sheep herders and whatnot have sacrificial sheep for sale, and you buy one online and it's sacrificed for you at the temple? This is completely hypothetical and branches from my tired, Vicodin-addled mind(I'm having serious health issues again), so forgive me if it sounds weird. Just curious.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Well! Sawmill gravy was something I hadn't heard of before, so I googled it, and, yeah, I'm thinking it's a good thing I havne't had it before. I am just not a gravy person.
Yeah, late to the part. Again. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
FTR, I've never had sawmill gravy on chicken fried steak...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Also FTR, I think "treyfed up" is an awesome phrase construction.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: (And if the Temple is standing, you have to bring a sin offering, but since it isn't, you don't.)
That kind of answers question number 1: Why don't modern Jews still do animal sacrifices and grain sacrifices and whatnot?
We can't. We don't have access to the Temple Mount, and the place of the altar. In fact, if a Jew goes up to the Temple Mount, the police watch very carefully, and if they move their lips in a way that appears to indicate that they're praying, they're arrested or removed from the area. Out of fear that the Arabs will riot.
We're not allowed to bring sacrifices elsewhere.
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Question 2: I saw on this list of the Jewish laws this whole thing about "remember what Amalek did" and whatnot, along with exterminating the Canaanites. Why just those occurrences? Why not include other groups that persecuted Jews, like Nazis and whatnot?
It's a specific requirement. Not the Canaanite thing, just Amalek. Amalek was special. I wrote a blog post about it once. Link.
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Question 3: This kind of goes along with question 1. Say the temple is rebuilt tomorrow(just a hypothetical situation), and the Jews all over the world had to start offering sacrifices again. Would every jew actually have to GO to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifice, or could they set up a sort of "online sacrifice" where sheep herders and whatnot have sacrificial sheep for sale, and you buy one online and it's sacrificed for you at the temple? This is completely hypothetical and branches from my tired, Vicodin-addled mind(I'm having serious health issues again), so forgive me if it sounds weird. Just curious.
Sorry you're not feeling well. And... you'd have to go. But there's an obligation to go to Jerusalem (when the Temple is standing) three times a year anyway. Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot. Presumably, you'd be able to bring any required sin offerings at that time as well.
On the other hand, the Rambam (Maimonides) says that two of the things the Messiah will do (things by which we'll know that he's the Messiah) are bringing all the Jews back to Israel, and rebuilding the Temple. So presumably, your question would only be relevant for people who were outside of Israel temporarily.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: (Also FTR, I think "treyfed up" is an awesome phrase construction.)
Jewspeak. That's actually how I'd say it in real life. Other fun examples:
"I'm having Shabbos lunch by the Bergers".
"So... what can we learn out from the fact that Rashi and Tosfot disagree?"
Non-standard English, but any frum Jew will understand it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
But, but, by me, that's standard!
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Thanks, Lisa. And now I'm curious: How many Jews are there, the world over? And how could they all possibly fit inside the walls of Jerusalem? I realize that probably can't be answered, I'm just trying to imagine the Jews as a people all in one place, and it's mind boggling.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't know how many. And we don't all have to be within the walls of Jerusalem at one time. Passover is seven days. Sukkot is effectively 8 (seven days plus Shmini Atzeret), and even though Shavuot is only 1 day, we get a week to get all the holiday sacrifices done.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: But, but, by me, that's standard!
Heh. I remember reading an article where this guy was lamenting the fact that translations of Jewish texts use this kind of Jewspeak. He thought it made us look bad. I figure jargon is jargon. It's a kind of dialect, is all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For the record, not everything can be kashered. China, for example. Other ceramic based stuff (including Pyrex, I'm told, because it's a ceramic/glass mixture) as well.
Pots/pans with nonstick coatings are also a problem, as is all plastic (according to most opinions, anyway).
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Presumably, you'd be able to bring any required sin offerings at that time as well.
I have seen discussions that indicate that this certainly was the expected behavior, and see no reason why it would not be again.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: (Also FTR, I think "treyfed up" is an awesome phrase construction.)
Jewspeak. That's actually how I'd say it in real life. Other fun examples:
"I'm having Shabbos lunch by the Bergers".
"So... what can we learn out from the fact that Rashi and Tosfot disagree?"
Non-standard English, but any frum Jew will understand it.
There is a difference between your first and third examples and the second: the first and last have no equivalent English phrasing that means the same thing. The second does, and there is no reason to use the very ignorant sounding Yiddishism (unless one is speaking Yiddish, of course). Having lunch "by someone" has a meaning in English -- sitting outside their house. Possibly on the sidewalk? Try "at their home" or "with" them.
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Thanks, Lisa. And now I'm curious: How many Jews are there, the world over? And how could they all possibly fit inside the walls of Jerusalem?
It required a miracle, and it will again.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "I'm having Shabbos lunch by the Bergers".
There is a difference between your first and third examples and the second: the first and last have no equivalent English phrasing that means the same thing. The second does, and there is no reason to use the very ignorant sounding Yiddishism (unless one is speaking Yiddish, of course). Having lunch "by someone" has a meaning in English -- sitting outside their house. Possibly on the sidewalk? Try "at their home" or "with" them.
<shrug> Sorry if it bothers you. Where I'm from, it's normal usage. It doesn't sound ignorant to anyone around here. But I guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. I mean, "treyfed up" sounds wrong to some people, even if it doesn't to you.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
By me, "having burgers by the Bergers" sounds fine. It's a dialect and a regionalism. I know from ignorant, and this isn't it.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Southern Jews sometimes feel left out when non-Southern Jews use "Yiddishisms" or "Jewspeak." Not that anyone is doing it deliberately, but a lot of phrases just aren't used in the South. Of course, you'll never hear anyone say, "I'm fixing to go to shul," outside the South.
Funny story - our shul had a Jewish food festival last spring. I was looking at the desserts and there was something called mandel bread that I'd never heard of before. I said to the gentleman manning the table, "Excuse me, sir, can you tell me what's in this mandel bread?" I pronounced it like you would Howie Mandel's last name. Apparently, this is not the correct pronounciation and the gentleman was not a native Southerner. He looked at me like I was nuts and said, "Do you mean the mandel bread?" I felt like a jerk and nodded. He let me taste some and it was really good, like biscotti. He also had me flustered, so my accent got a little thicker and I asked him for a mess of them to take home. Again, the look like I was insane. "How much is a mess?" "Oh, just a whole bunch, please." "How about four?" I gave him my tickets and booked.
I called my mother that night and asked her if she'd ever heard of mandel bread. Of course she had. Thanks a lot, Big Momma. We had nearly identical conversations when I moved to New York about things like babka and rugalah. I'm still kind of annoyed that she never gave me a proper Jewish food education.
Maybe it's because my father is gentile, but there are a lot of Jewish foods that I just can't stand, especially herring, gefilte fish, kishkes, and cholent. I'm planning the menu for the kiddush luncheon we're sponsoring for the twins' naming, so Jewish food in on my mind. There will be none of the aforementioned food on the menu, to the sorrow of Andrew's family.
I'm also having a hard time coming up with a Hebrew name for the second baby. Aerin's is Sela Shoshana and mine is Keren Miriam. I'm going to give each twin just one and I have one picked out for the first baby. Any suggestions? We have living relatives named Elisheva, Bayla, Ruth, Rachel, and Rivka, so those are out.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: I'm also having a hard time coming up with a Hebrew name for the second baby. Aerin's is Sela Shoshana and mine is Keren Miriam. I'm going to give each twin just one and I have one picked out for the first baby. Any suggestions? We have living relatives named Elisheva, Bayla, Ruth, Rachel, and Rivka, so those are out.
My sister did a baby naming for her daughter last Friday night. Her name is Billie Isabel, and she named her Basha Yisraela. I came up with the Yisraela for her, because Isabel is basically Jezebel, and I didn't think that'd be a good Hebrew name.
Do you have any deceased relatives you want to name her for? What's her English name?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Mazel tov on your niece! That's a lovely name. My grandmother's English name is Isabelle and her Hebrew name is Bayla b/c it sounds kind of like Bella.
Aerin is named for Andrew's aunt (Sela) and grandmother (Shoshana). All of our other close relatives are living or have already been named after the ones who are deceased. The English names are Camille Victoria and Leni Ann - we're not sure which baby is getting which name. The name I've picked for one of them isn't close sounding to either English name, it's just one I've loved for years.
It's funny how you can't seem to win with kids. One of my cousins hates having an English name and had it legally changed to her Hebrew name. Our rabbi's oldest daughter is furious that she doesn't have an English name. Of course, she's 4, so I'm sure that will change. I always liked having both, personally, but it's very important to me to choose a Hebrew name that I love in case the girls want to go by that. I hope they'll all be frum, so it's a real possibility.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Hebrew: Camille - Abital or Carmel Leni - Leah
Or Yiddish: Camille - Sisel or Tzeitel (actually a nickname) Leni - Leba
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think with those names I might choose a Hebrew name that was close to the MEANING of the name, instead of the sound, if it were me (which of course it's not. Camille comes from "virginal, unblemished character", and Leni from "torch." So is there a name you like that has a meaning related to any of the following concepts?
That's the direction I would go with it (being very into baby names and such.)
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lisa: For the record, not everything can be kashered. China, for example. Other ceramic based stuff (including Pyrex, I'm told, because it's a ceramic/glass mixture) as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pots/pans with nonstick coatings are also a problem, as is all plastic (according to most opinions, anyway).
Does that have to do with being porous?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Does that have to do with being porous?
Among other things. Earthenware cannot be kashered either.
There are a lot of female names that mean "light"! Among them: Meira, Eliora, Keren, Liora, Ora.
quote:brightness, understanding, wisdom
Bina (lit.: understanding or wisdom)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ooooh, I love Eliora or Liora for Leni.
And I think Tova or Emunah is nice for Camille.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I think with those names I might choose a Hebrew name that was close to the MEANING of the name, instead of the sound, if it were me (which of course it's not. Camille comes from "virginal, unblemished character", and Leni from "torch." So is there a name you like that has a meaning related to any of the following concepts?
Tamar might be good for Camille. Tami, a common nickname for Tamar, sounds like "tam", which means "pure, perfect, unblemished", while Tamar itself means a date palm, which carries imagery of being tall and strong.
Bina means understanding, and Liora is the Hebrew for "I have light".
Malka means "queen", and sounds a little like Camille (swap the syllables).
Emunah means "faith". Tova means "good"
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That's the direction I would go with it (being very into baby names and such.)
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lisa: For the record, not everything can be kashered. China, for example. Other ceramic based stuff (including Pyrex, I'm told, because it's a ceramic/glass mixture) as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pots/pans with nonstick coatings are also a problem, as is all plastic (according to most opinions, anyway).
Does that have to do with being porous?
Yup.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Emunah has the same "name feel" as Camille to me. I can't explain it and I don't know why, but it does. Tamar is pretty close, about as close as Tova. Malka is a little more different but I like it, too.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: I was looking at the desserts and there was something called mandel bread that I'd never heard of before.
I was actually thinking the other day that somebody ought to make a Menger sponge out of mandelbrodt for double the fractal goodness...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*GROAN*
(I have to tell my parents that one!)
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Just thought I'd say Shanah Tovah to everyone.
Also wanted to let y'all know that Jelly Belly jelly beans are now kosher! Whoo hoo!
I discovered this when the mom of the 2 Lubavitch girls invited to Aerin's birthday party called to let me know that they can't have OUD food (I'd already ordered the ice cream cake of course). I had Hershey Kisses and 3 Musketeers (because Aerin was 3) in the gift bags and I didn't want the 2 little girls to be the only ones without candy. Thank goodness for Jelly Belly. And organic apple juice.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
How did I miss that? I'm on their alert list, so I must have gotten something. That is pretty cool.
Hi Rivka - could you spare a couple of lines to explain the video please?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Very cool video, Rivka.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: How did I miss that? I'm on their alert list, so I must have gotten something. That is pretty cool.
Though nothing will ever beat the wonderous days when Oreos and Milanos (!!!) became kosher.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Hi Rivka - could you spare a couple of lines to explain the video please?
It's a montage illustrating a direct, phrase-by-phrase translation of a prayer from the Rosh Hashana / Yom Kippur liturgy, which dramatically sets out the central theme of the High Holiday season. At some points the translation is accompanied by the original Hebrew on the soundtrack.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And the blog (linked on the bottom of the video) goes into a great deal more detail.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wikilink about the prayer.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: How did I miss that? I'm on their alert list, so I must have gotten something. That is pretty cool.
Though nothing will ever beat the wonderous days when Oreos and Milanos (!!!) became kosher.
Take that, Hydrox!
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
לשןה טובה
L'shanah tovah!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
May it be a good year for all of us. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
*breaks out the apples and honey*
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I saw Hydrox in the supermarket. They are dairy, though. I thought they used to be pareve.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Here is a question. Why does the secular humanist Jewish organization in Washington DC have Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur services? I burst out laughing when I saw the advertisement. At least they were not charging.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ask them, not me.
At least they have services, not a dance.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
They have a lot to atone for.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Oh great Rebbetzin,
Can you tell me the lyrics to Dradle, dradle, dradle? My nephew is playing it in his beginning band concert this year and I sang what I knew.
Dradle, dradle, dradle, I made you out of clay.
That's all I know.
Also, can you give me the significance of the dradle? Why is it synonymous with Hanukkah.
Thanks,
Jack
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The rebbetzin wonders if next time you could ask after Shabbos, instead of right before?
It's actually spelled dreidel, and the wikipage is pretty good. Song.
Origin Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Would an orthodox Jew be offended if a Gentile lit the appropriate number of candles for each night, without saying the appropriate prayers?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Maybe my mispelling was what was the problem. I only got the South Park version.
Sorry about the Shabbos timing. Thanks for the info and enjoy your day of rest (at least I hope you enjoyed it since you probably are not going to read this until Sunday).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Would an orthodox Jew be offended if a Gentile lit the appropriate number of candles for each night, without saying the appropriate prayers?
"Offended" is too strong a word. I consider it mystifying.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think it's kinda cute. The major reason for the lighting of the candles in teh first place is "Pirsumei Nissa" - Publicizing the miracle. I suppose it's pretty cool if gentiles want to publicize it too...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know about it being "the major reason"; it is one of them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, I think Armoth is right about it being the major reason. In fact, it may be the only reason. Can you think of any others? Certainly all the rules about where the candles have to be (height, etc) are based on pirsumei nisa.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Commemorating the nes. Pirsumei nisah has to be secondary to that, almost by definition. And since if you are alone on a desert island, you still light, clearly not the only reason.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My husband's grandfather was Jewish, but not his grandmother. So, kinda random traditions have been passed down. I was baffled when I got a tray of Christmas cookies that included hamatashan. Sadly, my mother in law didn't even know what they were supposed to go with- just that they were yummy cookies her father loved to eat and were somehow Jewish. Now that we have a toddler, we are deciding what traditions we want to keep and what we want to modify and all that. I don't want to take a Jewish holiday and celebrate it in a way that would offend Jewish people. If I looked up prayers online and did them, would that be better?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Rivka - Pirsumei Nissa does not mean publicizing the miracle only to others, but also to yourself.
Scholarette - While some people get offended, I probably would never be offended by the way you choose to practice unless you had that intention.
That having been said - I always find that tradition is always great especially when it is meaningful. Prayers are always good - there are some nice Chanuka songs (My Acapella group performs Ma'oz Tzur and I happen to think it's really pretty). And thre are traditions to eat donuts, and latkes (pretty much anything fried in oil) to commemorate the miracle that happened with the oil.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No, I think Armoth is right about it being the major reason. In fact, it may be the only reason. Can you think of any others? Certainly all the rules about where the candles have to be (height, etc) are based on pirsumei nisa.
Pirsumei nisa is the major reason why they're lit publically instead of privately; commemoration, recognition, and appreciation of the miracles would be the major reasons for lighting at all.
More to the point, a major -- I'd say the major -- theme of Chanukah is the restoration of full Jewish observance, defeating external forces and internal assimilationists. I won't go as far as saying it would be offensive for a non-Jewish family with some Jewish blood to light a menorah, but I do think the irony would be staggering.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Point taken.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Theres a whole lotta Jews on hatrack btw!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Rivka - Pirsumei Nissa does not mean publicizing the miracle only to others, but also to yourself.
It's been years since I learned these discussions inside, but IIRC, whether lighting the menorah alone (desert island or at midnight on a small street) qualifies as pirsumei nisah hinges on precisely that point, and there are opinions both ways.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: More to the point, a major -- I'd say the major -- theme of Chanukah is the restoration of full Jewish observance, defeating external forces and internal assimilationists. I won't go as far as saying it would be offensive for a non-Jewish family with some Jewish blood to light a menorah, but I do think the irony would be staggering.
Well said.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
See, when I first answered, I didn't realize that we were talking about a family that involved intermarriage. That does change things.
Around ten years ago (back before I mellowed -- yes, this is me mellow), I had responded to a request from a woman on a newsgroup who was asking for information on Hanukkah, so that she and her non-Jewish daughter could share it with the non-Jewish daughter's Jewish husband. My reply was super-intemperate, and while I wouldn't necessarily phrase it the same way today, I do stand by the facts. Link.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, when I first answered, I didn't realize that we were talking about a family that involved intermarriage. That does change things.
So if non-Jews b'nai non-Jews want to light a menorah, that's better?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Would an orthodox Jew be offended if a Gentile lit the appropriate number of candles for each night, without saying the appropriate prayers?
"Offended" is too strong a word. I consider it mystifying.
Ooooo . . . fire. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, when I first answered, I didn't realize that we were talking about a family that involved intermarriage. That does change things.
So if non-Jews b'nai non-Jews want to light a menorah, that's better?
It's certainly less ironic.
In my opinion, Orthodox Jews have a lot of bitter pills to swallow about the state of Judaism in the modern world. That having been said - even though it may be ironic, perhaps it is best to smile at those who seek to re-connect to tradition.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, when I first answered, I didn't realize that we were talking about a family that involved intermarriage. That does change things.
So if non-Jews b'nai non-Jews want to light a menorah, that's better?
It's certainly less ironic.
Maybe if they are practicing b'nei Noach. Otherwise, the irony of Yevanim lighting seems to me no less than Misyavnim doing so.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Ooooo . . . fire.
I'm going to assume you're kidding.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm okay with not lighting the candles if it's offensive to anyone (okay, not that I have a great desire to do so-- though I am always interested in observing others' traditions and by observing I mean watching, not practicing religous observances) but can I get in on some of the latkes? I love latkes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Ooooo . . . fire.
I'm going to assume you're kidding.
I interpreted this as a statement about what was actually left if one removed the prayers and other elements.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, when I first answered, I didn't realize that we were talking about a family that involved intermarriage. That does change things.
So if non-Jews b'nai non-Jews want to light a menorah, that's better?
Yes, I think so. Non-Jews can be righteous.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I've been at a seder table with non-Jews, and enjoyed having them there. As far as non-Jews making a seder of their own, I admit to not seeing the point, but figure I don't need to.
OTOH, I've heard of churches using a seder as a missionary tactic, and that I would take issue with.
I was showing a friend this thread and I thought it was kinda cool that years and years ago you had a similar discussion. Okay, maybe not a discussion, but a similar point!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
As far as I'm aware, it's actually assur to have non-Jews at the seder. It's problematic to have non-Jews at a yom tov meal at all, but the seder is particularly problematic.
And I want to clarify what I said in my previous post. The struggle on Hanukkah was not against non-Jews. The enemy on Hanukkah was assimilated Jews. Frankly, while even non-religious Jews are obligated to light the candles on Hanukkah, I'd rather see non-Jews do it than Jews who would absolutely have been on the side of the Hellenists had they lived back then.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
rivka, dag got it right -- you said you were mystified why non-Jews* would want to light a menorah. The only reason I could think of was that lit candles are pretty. And fun to light. Although I don't think I ever would.
Except maybe in a situation like the one in Montana in '92.
*hadn't thought about the situation of partial-Jewish families wanting to keep some of the traditions.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Ooooo . . . fire.
I'm going to assume you're kidding.
I interpreted this as a statement about what was actually left if one removed the prayers and other elements.
Like air, water and earth.
My reaction to the non-Jewish adoption of the menorah as a holiday symbol or decoration tends to be tolerant but bemused. I work in a nursing home with a mostly non-Jewish clientele and staff, and, alongside the trees and Santas and reindeer and other stuff, there are menorahs and dreidls. I see it as them wanting to be inclusive and not make anyone feel left out. Which is nice.
Mostly, I just ignore the displays, but I can't seem to resist quietly "correcting" the electric menorahs to the right number of lights every night.
I have, both here and at other jobs, refused to participate in menorah lighting ceremonies, though. I understand that my colleagues want me to feel included in their celebrations, and that is a nice sentiment, but asking me to lead a ceremony where I light the candles and say the prayer at lunchtime (not the appropriate time for the ceremony) mostly makes me feel put on the spot. I have to respectfully explain why I'd rather not, and then have to rebut my colleagues' arguments about the "true meaning of Channukah" (or Christmas, or Solstice) being that we are all one people bringing light into darkness or someother such made-up stuff. Which, as I said, is nice and well-meaning, but really not representing my beliefs.
And, especially cringe-worthy, was when, after I excused myself, I was told that I should just be there and observe, so that I could be a part of the group, and I had to witness the other Jewish staff member (a non-observant Jew) attempt to pull it off by lighting the candles and then, partway through the benediction, realizing that she didn't actually know the proper benediction, so, instead, pronouncing the benediction over eating bread.
Quite honestly, I'd rather my non-Jewish colleagues enjoy their holiday without apology. Christmas is a big-deal Christian holiday. There is nothing wrong with wanting to celebrate it and publicise that miracle. I'm really more content being left out of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Ooooo . . . fire.
I'm going to assume you're kidding.
I interpreted this as a statement about what was actually left if one removed the prayers and other elements.
Understood. But it's not like plenty of Christians don't light candles for Christmas, right? Although it seems strings of lights have largely replaced them, there are definitely people with candles in old holiday paintings. In like, museums and stuff. And on stamps! And I think in Norman Rockwell paintings.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As far as I'm aware, it's actually assur to have non-Jews at the seder. It's problematic to have non-Jews at a yom tov meal at all, but the seder is particularly problematic.
While true, there are ways around it. My rav has non-Jews at his seder table on a regular basis.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And I want to clarify what I said in my previous post. The struggle on Hanukkah was not against non-Jews. The enemy on Hanukkah was assimilated Jews.
Who exactly do you think were the soldiers on the other side? There were Yevanim too.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Quite honestly, I'd rather my non-Jewish colleagues enjoy their holiday without apology. Christmas is a big-deal Christian holiday. There is nothing wrong with wanting to celebrate it and publicise that miracle. I'm really more content being left out of it.
Exactly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As far as I'm aware, it's actually assur to have non-Jews at the seder. It's problematic to have non-Jews at a yom tov meal at all, but the seder is particularly problematic.
While true, there are ways around it. My rav has non-Jews at his seder table on a regular basis.
Interesting. I wonder how he pulls that off.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And I want to clarify what I said in my previous post. The struggle on Hanukkah was not against non-Jews. The enemy on Hanukkah was assimilated Jews.
Who exactly do you think were the soldiers on the other side? There were Yevanim too.
So I'd be irked at Syrian Greeks lighting Hanukkah candles. Maybe even Greeks in general. But Greek != Non-Jew. Yavan != Edom, either.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was referring to an attitude, not a nationality.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Non-Jews aren't supposed to be at seder? The college Hillel did a passover seder that anyone who paid could go to- and so did the local synagague one year. Is this a difference between reform and orthodox?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Almost certainly.
Although as I said, there are differing opinions (and methods) among Orthodox on this issue.
(Lisa, there is a relevant discussion on the Avodah listserv, April 2005. Looks like the relevant posts start Volume 14 : Number 114.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Thanks.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'm okay with not lighting the candles if it's offensive to anyone (okay, not that I have a great desire to do so-- though I am always interested in observing others' traditions and by observing I mean watching, not practicing religous observances) but can I get in on some of the latkes? I love latkes.
My (very reform) neigbour brings over potatos and her Vitamix and makes us latkes every year. I don't know if this offends Orthodox Jews though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not even the tiniest bit. Latkes are a custom -- not a religious ritual.
Have a jelly donut too! Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm offended. Why don't I get any latkes?!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Come over next week. I'll make you some.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
My mother makes some kind of low-carb, fat-free latkes, out of mushed up cauliflower and baked in the oven.
She's missing the point.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Aerin goes to public school (and will continue to - our local Torah academy has no special needs program at all, which I see as a big failing of Orthodox education in general, but that's another matter) and they're really nice about working with us regarding the holidays. The public schools here celebrate Christmas, not "winter holidays." They have carols and Christmas plays and Santa actually comes to the school. We're just keeping Aerin home that day. Her wonderful teachers have provided alternate Hanukkah art projects for Aerin to do while her Christian classmates do their Christmas projects. She painted a menorah last week and it was actually the first thing she painted ever (this is a child who wouldn't do any arts and crafts at all before she started school).
BTW, we picked the Hebrew names for the twins, finally. Leni's is very close in sound to her English name, but Camille's is very far. We ended up giving them both 2 names - it just didn't sound right for them to have just one. Now I just have to break the news to Andrew's parents that there won't be herring at the naming.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: which I see as a big failing of Orthodox education in general
Agreed. My son has bounced from school to school, including public school for over a year, for exactly that reason.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Come over next week. I'll make you some.
Can I come too? Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:My mother makes some kind of low-carb, fat-free latkes, out of mushed up cauliflower and baked in the oven.
Seriously, how can something made of cauliflower and baked be called latkes?
That's like putting broccoli into a muffin tin and pouring cheese sauce on top and calling it cupcakes.
Um, no offense to your mom.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Come over next week. I'll make you some.
Can I come too?
If you're a very good girl. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Hmmm, I'm not sure I know how to be...
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:My mother makes some kind of low-carb, fat-free latkes, out of mushed up cauliflower and baked in the oven.
Seriously, how can something made of cauliflower and baked be called latkes?
It's actually not that much of a stretch. I've had baked potato latkes, though not for Chanukah... it makes as much sense as baked french fries. [Edited to clarify that I regard the latter as totally normal.] Postulate an intermediate step of mashed cauliflower patties fried in oil, which could easily be termed cauliflower latkes, then stick 'em in the oven instead. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've had (fairly good) baked latkes on Chanukah. If you spray the pans with olive oil, you're even yotzi!
My mom doesn't like greasy foods -- or at least, they don't like her. So she makes baked latkes. Or my sister does. Sadly (for me, although not for them), this year my parents will be away for Chanukah.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
This thread is making me so hungry!
Thanks Rivka, my mom makes a wicked latka so I think I'll just pick some up from her.
I love Chanukah...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Thanks Rivka, my mom makes a wicked latka so I think I'll just pick some up from her.
Probably less of a shlep.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
This thread is making me hungry. For latkes. And I have a stomach virus. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Re: Cauliflower in place of potatoes
My roommate has Type 1 Diabetes and always uses cauliflower in place of potatoes. She makes this Shepherd's Pie with mashed cauliflower...it is amazing.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I'm thinking about doing a short lesson on Chanukah for my students tomorrow, since they are clueless about it. Curious what you all would include if it were up to you.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Sorry if this has been answered on one of the 24 pages of this post...
Why the different spellings for Hanukkah (Chanukah)? I see Hanukkah much more, and it seems that the Chanukah crowd try to make a point that they are spelling it right. Insights?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Sorry if this has been answered on one of the 24 pages of this post...
Why the different spellings for Hanukkah (Chanukah)? I see Hanukkah much more, and it seems that the Chanukah crowd try to make a point that they are spelling it right. Insights?
::shrug:: Doesn't matter to me. Hanukkah seems to be the way to spell it if one is not at all concerned with the true Hebrew pronunciation. Chanukah seems more natural to me - the Ch resembling the sound of a Chaff, pronounced as a guttural, kinda like the noise you make before you spit.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
You are taking a language with a different alphabet and translating into English. There really is no one way to do it. I had to explain the same thing to my students when we studied Egypt, and they saw different spellings for the names of pharaohs.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Actually, Armoth, I think Hanukkah is the most faithful to the Hebrew. A het is much closer to a heh (\h\) than it is to the English \ch\ sound. And like it or not, most English speakers read \ch\ as in cherry. Not as in achtung. Actually, a het is closer to a heh than it is to a khaf. I'd rather have someone pronounce Hanukkah with an \h\ than with a \ch\ as in cherry.
My partner spells her name Havah. Not Chava. And I've heard people pronounce Chava like a Germanic "java".
What irks me is two \n\s. In Hebrew, the kaf has a dagesh (dot), which means it really is doubled. The nun does not. And I'm ambivalent about ending with an \h\ to match the Hebrew heh. But I write Torah and not Tora (though my daughter's name is spelled Tova and not Tovah, so I guess I'm not all that consistent after all).
Btw, Stephan, the thing with Egyptian royal names is also a matter of different readings. The order of the elements that make up a name in ancient Egyptian is sometimes arbitrary. So for example, Pasenhor and Horpasen are both conjectural readings for the same name.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Btw, Stephan, the thing with Egyptian royal names is also a matter of different readings. The order of the elements that make up a name in ancient Egyptian is sometimes arbitrary. So for example, Pasenhor and Horpasen are both conjectural readings for the same name.
Thanks! I'll mention that when I come back to it next year.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Do any of y'all know of a place that will ship uncut OU or OUD bagels to Richmond before the 17th?
Apparently our shul can't get uncut bagels here. I honestly can't imagine why not and I don't know why they don't have other resources. Since my mother-in-law is coming from NYC, I asked her to bring the bagels. The plan was that she would bring them on the train and we'd deliver them to the shul to be frozen until the naming. She told me it would be easy for her to do. I figured it shouldn't be hard to find kosher bagels in NYC, right? It is if you're my mother-in-law (who is Jewish, btw). So now I'm stuck trying to find these bagels, which is the last thing I need to be doing right now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
H&H Bagels Star-K (which is at least as strict as the O-U), parve -- even yoshon!) and overnight shipping to anywhere in the US.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Bagel Boss ships. Their bagels are pas yisroel.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Maybe they want to use them for lechem mishneh on Shabbat.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Btw, I don't know whether anyone has mentioned this (and I have no connection to them other than once having received a birthday gift from my coworkers), but if you haven't tried Fairytale Brownies, you're missing out. They're kosher, and unbelievably yummy.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Are they chalav yisroel? I've been looking very hard for prepackaged brownies without much success.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
no they're not. someone gave them as a prsesent to my family and I'm the only one who can't eat them Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Looks like no. They do look yummy though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(For other non-Jews who were interested in the discussion of chalav yisroel: I had had this discussion with Rivka in person once but was fuzzy on the details, and found this article which clarified things for me again. Someone please tell me if that article is not accurate. )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Quite accurate. And the O-U is always a good source for kosher-related questions.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's what I figured. Thanks rivka.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
We ended up getting them from Bagels & Co. They were delicious.
The babies and my mother and I missed the naming, because I underestimated the time it would take to get 2 newborn and a toddler ready in the worst cold snap in Richmond in years. I didn't even change the twins out of their sleepers. The Hebrew names are:
Leni Ann = Leah Aviva Camille Victoria = Sarah Yael
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
How important is the oral tradition in relation to the Torah? Just as important? Less important?
Also, I think I read somewhere here on Hatrack (maybe from Tom D.) that there's a tradition or story about arguing with God & winning? Any light to be shed on that?
Thanks!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: We ended up getting them from Bagels & Co. They were delicious.
The babies and my mother and I missed the naming, because I underestimated the time it would take to get 2 newborn and a toddler ready in the worst cold snap in Richmond in years. I didn't even change the twins out of their sleepers. The Hebrew names are:
Leni Ann = Leah Aviva Camille Victoria = Sarah Yael
I like them! BTW, how do you pronounce "Leni?" Is it "Lennie" or "Laney?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: How important is the oral tradition in relation to the Torah? Just as important? Less important?
The Oral Law (which was much later transcribed as the Talmud) was given at Sinai, just as the Written was. Trying to understand the Written without the Oral is like trying to read someone else's notes -- in shorthand -- from a lecture you didn't attend.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Also, I think I read somewhere here on Hatrack (maybe from Tom D.) that there's a tradition or story about arguing with God & winning? Any light to be shed on that?
You're going to have to be more specific. Jews have a long tradition of arguing with God -- goes all the way back to Avraham (who argued about S'dom).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That reminds me of the story of Rachel...is that what you are referring to?
[ January 22, 2009, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Armoth ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
When babies are transitioning from breastfeeding to solid food, do they have to stick to dairy and parve food? Sorry if this has been asked before. I was reading a pretty old thread on sakeriver yesterday that sparked the question.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I can't imagine it being a burden if it is. Even my Similac has the kosher symbols on it.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Breastmilk is pareve, like a vegetable. It can be eaten with milk or meat (but not milk and meat at the same time).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Exactly right. In fact, if one wished to use it in cooking for adults, one could do so. I think I'll stick with soy and rice milk. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I believe it's actually assur for adults. At least I remember hearing that.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I have a friend who made cheese with the last of her freezer stash after her last child weaned. Her rav told her that she could only feed the cheese to children under 2.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I believe it's actually assur for adults. At least I remember hearing that.
Not as far as I know. There may be a prohibition against adults suckling it directly from a woman -- and I'm guessing that's a gezeirah on moral grounds -- but drinking expressed milk is fine.
One caveat to Rivka's statement is that while human milk is pareve, intentionally cooking it together with meat is forbidden, due to maris ayin (that is, people might see it and think you're cooking dairy milk with meat). See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 87:4.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: One caveat to Rivka's statement is that while human milk is pareve, intentionally cooking it together with meat is forbidden, due to maris ayin (that is, people might see it and think you're cooking dairy milk with meat). See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 87:4.
Would that mean that cooking rice or soy milk with meat would also be forbidden?
--Mel
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: Would that mean that cooking rice or soy milk with meat would also be forbidden?
In theory, had it been around at the time when most of these rules were being enacted, I suppose it might have been.
On the other hand -- and I think this is a key point -- had soy milk been common centuries ago, it might have been taken for granted that people would know it was soy... human milk has been around forever, but it's never been something people usually cook with. (See Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's position regarding margarine and pareve ice cream.)
Finally, one might note that soy milk is normally in a distinctive container, making such confusion unlikely.
(With all of that having been said, I'm answering off the cuff here. Ask your local rabbi, etc.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: One caveat to Rivka's statement is that while human milk is pareve, intentionally cooking it together with meat is forbidden, due to maris ayin (that is, people might see it and think you're cooking dairy milk with meat).
Leave the container on the table?
Also, while I have never asked the sheiloh myself, I know women who have been told they could use it in cooking -- for adults. As Minerva's friend's answer proves, that is not a universally-held position. There are similarly divergent opinions on whether soy/rice/almond milks are currently an issue or not.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Sometimes, if someone serves something with almond milk, they will put a couple of almonds on the dish just to make it a little clearer. And everyone I know cooks with soy milk/margarine all of the time, no problem. The issue might be a little more pronounced if it were something like soy cheese on a burger, where it clearly looks like something prohibited.
Also, just from a practical standpoint, human milk often has a strong flavor (like the foods that the mother has eaten), and probably wouldn't be good in most dishes anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Also, just from a practical standpoint, human milk often has a strong flavor (like the foods that the mother has eaten), and probably wouldn't be good in most dishes anyway.
Also true.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: The issue might be a little more pronounced if it were something like soy cheese on a burger, where it clearly looks like something prohibited.
I've seen kosher pizzarias on both sides of this... one with pareve "cheese" and real meat (there was very prominent signage explaining this; I would imagine the boxes were emphatic about this point as well, but I never actually tried it, and the shop didn't last long), some with real cheese and pareve "meat" toppings (usually fake pepperoni).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kosher Subways have fake cheese. When I was in Israel, there was this one pizza place that used to cut veggie hotdogs into chunks and cook them with a little hot paprika (I guess that'd be cayenne pepper here in the US), and then use them as a pizza topping. Scrumptious!
Btw, I made cheese bourekas tonight, and they were the best bourekas I've had since I've been in the US.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: hot paprika (I guess that'd be cayenne pepper here in the US)
Hot paprika does exist in the U.S.! I'm a fan of it. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Really? I've never seen it. Believe it or not, we still have some left from the large container we brought with us from Israel in 2001.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The Middle Eastern markets around here carry it (big surprise) and so do the spice specialty places. I prefer sweet paprika myself.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
There was one time long ago when I accidentally used the hot paprika instead of the sweet paprika in making the family's chicken for Shabbos. This did not turn out well as far as most of the family was concerned, but I found it a bit of a revelation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I made paprika chicken with it, and even after using only half of what the recipe called for, my daughter couldn't eat it. But mmm... it was delicious!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Right. Neither of you is EVER allowed near my spice cabinet.
Y'all are dangerous!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
My mom makes a dish with potatoes, salami, onions and paprika. She confused the paprika with the cinnamon. Fortunately, I'm one of those people who will eat anything with cinnamon on it. It was delicious.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Salami, onions and cinnamon? Gag me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Salami, onions and cinnamon? Gag me.
I don't know. Cinnamon is often used in savory dishes in Indian and Mexican cuisine and can be quite good. I'd have to try that combination to see, but I couldn't automatically guess if it would work or not.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Once, my ex made a cholent using a recipe that included a cut up chicken, frozen french fries, and cinnamon. Oddly enough, it wasn't bad. But I doubt I'd try it again.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I make pasta pretty often, and I put cinnamon in several kinds of sauces. A little goes a long way, though.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I have a couple of curious questions, if someone doesn't mind answering.
Recently, I was sitting in our student union while a Rosh Hashonah service was going on in a room nearby (I could hear the singing, and it was awesome). When the service was over, I noticed a lot of the men were carrying what looked like blue velvet pillows with something stitched into the side in gold. Any idea what those were?
The other question has to do with Jewish mourning. I know for thirty days after the burial, it's custom for the men to refrain from shaving. Would this be lifted for a man in the military, or other profession where shaving is expected?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Recently, I was sitting in our student union while a Rosh Hashonah service was going on in a room nearby (I could hear the singing, and it was awesome). When the service was over, I noticed a lot of the men were carrying what looked like blue velvet pillows with something stitched into the side in gold. Any idea what those were?
Tallit bags.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Would this be lifted for a man in the military, or other profession where shaving is expected?
Sure. There are actually a two mourning periods in the Jewish calendar both lasting around 3 weeks. One is allowed to shave for work if people would not understand and it would cause you to lose your livelihood.
My father would shave during those periods. But when there is a death in the family, people can be pretty understanding - my father grew his beard out for the 30 days after his father died, and his work gave him no trouble.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Recently, I was sitting in our student union while a Rosh Hashonah service was going on in a room nearby (I could hear the singing, and it was awesome). When the service was over, I noticed a lot of the men were carrying what looked like blue velvet pillows with something stitched into the side in gold. Any idea what those were?
OH!!! I would never have figured out that was what she meant, but of COURSE it is!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I've been wondering about the prohibition on Jews either charging or paying interest to other Jews. How does this work in the modern world? All the major banks are owned by stock holders that almost certainly include some Jews and things like mortgages are packaged and sold as part of Equities Funds.
It seems that strictly obeying this rule would require observant Jews to avoid doing business with all public banks, retirement funds, or even holding government bonds. Is this the case or are these types of transactions considered sufficiently different from a personal loan that the rule does not apply?
I can imagine that a close knit community might have its own fund that would provide interest free mortgages and loans to other members of the community. My bigger question is about how it works in the other direction. What measure is an observant Jew expected to take to make sure the interest they are collecting on their 401K wasn't paid by other Jews?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That's a really interesting question that I don't know the answer to. I've thought about it in the past, and spoke about it with my father - it isn't clear that corporations are viewed the same as individuals. I know that there are books, in English out there on this subject, if you're interested. But I shall discuss with knowledgeable friends and rabbis. Unless someone here already knows the answer.
And yea, in my community you can get small interest-free loans from a whole lot of people.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
In classical Jewish law, the only two entities were individuals and partnerships. Corporations didn't exist, you see. So when they were created, the rabbis needed to figure out whether they were one or the other or something new. What they decided was to follow the secular idea of a corporation as an individual, and say that it is Jewish or not depending on whether a majority of the company is owned by Jews.
This has a great deal of significance every year on Passover, because a liquor company that is more than half owned by Jews is considered Jewish. Which means that any beer or whiskey (and whatever other drinks are chametz) that the company owns during Passover are non-kosher forever for Jews. The only way around it is if either the corporation sells the drinks to a non-Jew for the duration of Passover, or if enough Jewish shareholders divest themselves over the course of Passover that the corporation is no longer considered "Jewish".
With a partnership, even a single Jewish partner makes the partnership Jewish. But corporations are deemed to be different.
There was an interesting article about this recently.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Also, in cases where the bank is owned primarily by Jews, one uses a heter iskah. Works for loans from individuals as well.
Thanks for the answer--I never would have thought they were bags, but I saw some pictures that looked identical to what a couple of the men were carrying.
I did find it interesting that of the thirty or so men (and by men I mean males who look to be high school age or older), only two or three of them had those bags, and a few weren't wearing kippot (I think that's the plural). There was one who appeared to be around my age (I'm 22 now) who had apparently either forgotten his or was trying to joke about it who was wearing a large coffee filter attached to his hair by bobby pins. I don't even know if there's a synagogue in this town--every holiday service I've ever known of was held through the Jewish student organization on campus, and was help either in the student union or in the house the organization owns.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Also, in cases where the bank is owned primarily by Jews, one uses a heter iskah. Works for loans from individuals as well.
Isn't that basically make a loan with interest and just calling it something else to prevent it for violating the rule?
Not trying to be rude, I promise, just interested in why what you call something matters more than what the actual outcome is, particularly since that link specifically said these are allowed even when the only reason one is used is to find a kosher way of doing an otherwise prohibited action.
(see, I really did read it )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Isn't that basically make a loan with interest and just calling it something else to prevent it for violating the rule?
Not just calling it something else; actually changing the nature of the transaction. (There are certain practical implications of this change that are alluded to in both the contract and the article.) But, yes.
Shall we talk about tax loopholes in US law next? Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I was showing the Jew Faq site to a friend who was asking about Jewish weddings. At the bottom it talks about kohein marriages being stricter then most (I understand why), does it mean that children of a woman who is kohein and a non-Jew are mamzerim? It talks about a man marrying a woman on the site, so I was curious. If that is the case am I correct that the mamzerim off-spring would be forbidden from marrying a Jew?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Isn't that basically make a loan with interest and just calling it something else to prevent it for violating the rule?
Not just calling it something else; actually changing the nature of the transaction. (There are certain practical implications of this change that are alluded to in both the contract and the article.) But, yes.
Shall we talk about tax loopholes in US law next?
I don't think of those the same way. One has to obey the letter of the US tax laws in order to avoid civil consequences - jail, fines and so forth. One looks for loopholes in order to "get around" an imperfectly written law that one doesn't want to obey. If I were choosing to obey a law I believed was good, I would not be trying to find loopholes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: At the bottom it talks about kohein marriages being stricter then most (I understand why), does it mean that children of a woman who is kohein and a non-Jew are mamzerim? It talks about a man marrying a woman on the site, so I was curious.
No. The offspring of a kohein and a non-Jew would simply be non-Jews, just like the offspring of any Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman. Women cannot BE kohanim.
And the offspring of a kohein and a Jewish woman forbidden to him (such as a divorcee) is also not a mamzer. ONLY the results of incest and adultery are mamzerim.
(As for whether a mamzer can marry a Jew, that is a very complicated question. But the short version is not generally.)
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think of those the same way.
How nice for you. I think you are wrong on how both US tax law AND Jewish law work.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not saying anything in particular about Jewish law to be wrong about. Just responding to the idea of "loopholes". Maybe we are using the word differently? Is it not a way to "get around" laws?
Does one not have consequences when one breaks US tax law? I am trying to figure out what you think I am wrong about.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not saying anything in particular about Jewish law to be wrong about.
Sure you did. You said/implied that it is supposed to be perfect.
But it is not, any more than wheat is. Wheat must be taken by people and threshed, milled, kneaded, baked (or soaked and boiled, etc.)
Rivka et al should be free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that prohibitions such as the one against lending to other Jews (note: I am simplifying) are evaluated on very specific terms. If the specific prohibitions are systematically dealt with so that they are not violated, then it isn't a "loophole" that is letting one do something forbidden by fancy footwork, it is removing the aspects of the thing that were forbidden to create a new thing, similar as it may seem, that is not forbidden at all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
When we talk about loopholes, we're talking about ways of evading what may appear to be the intent of the law by means which do not violate any laws in the process.
We aren't allowed to own leavened products in our possession on Passover. By selling all of our leavened products to a non-Jew prior to the onset of Passover, we're complying, even if the stuff is still in our homes, because we don't own it. But it's a loophole, because the apparent meaning of the law is that we should get rid of it, and what we do is buy it back as soon as Passover is over.
The thing is, since God is omniscient and not bound by time, any loophole in the system is in there by intent. By definition. It's impossible to find a loophole that God didn't think of.
To use the US tax law analogy, which is only of limited use, if I donate my car and the tax exempt charity gives me a paper that says the value of the car was X when in my opinion it wasn't even worth half of X, what would you say about me taking X off on my taxes? I can do so and be in full complience of the law. It may be that the charity could get in trouble at some time in the future, but then again, maybe they won't. Or maybe my opinion of the car's value is the thing that's in error and it really was worth X.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rivka et al should be free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that prohibitions such as the one against lending to other Jews (note: I am simplifying) are evaluated on very specific terms. If the specific prohibitions are systematically dealt with so that they are not violated, then it isn't a "loophole" that is letting one do something forbidden by fancy footwork, it is removing the aspects of the thing that were forbidden to create a new thing, similar as it may seem, that is not forbidden at all.
Exactly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The thing is, since God is omniscient and not bound by time, any loophole in the system is in there by intent.
This is a truly beautiful rationalization.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rivka et al should be free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that prohibitions such as the one against lending to other Jews (note: I am simplifying) are evaluated on very specific terms. If the specific prohibitions are systematically dealt with so that they are not violated, then it isn't a "loophole" that is letting one do something forbidden by fancy footwork, it is removing the aspects of the thing that were forbidden to create a new thing, similar as it may seem, that is not forbidden at all.
Well said, fugu. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Women cannot BE kohanim.
I was not aware of that, thanks for answering.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The thing is, since God is omniscient and not bound by time, any loophole in the system is in there by intent.
This is a truly beautiful rationalization.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, Tom.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The thing is, since God is omniscient and not bound by time, any loophole in the system is in there by intent.
This is a truly beautiful rationalization.
So is using evolution as an excuse not to believe in God.
Welcome to rationalist religion. It's a whole different animal than "leaps of faith" and Ouija boards.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, none of this matters to me. It's not like I'm going to lie awake at night wondering whether you're feeling guilty about working around the mandates of the God you believe in.
Like I said, it's a truly beautiful rationalization. It is, in fact, something that helps you sleep at night, and I'm kind of impressed by it. (I wouldn't describe it as "rationalist," though, myself, although I can understand why you feel you need to.)
(Let me also note: I have never attempted to use evolution to not believe in God. The best reason not to believe in God is the complete absence of evidence for a God.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not saying anything in particular about Jewish law to be wrong about.
Sure you did. You said/implied that it is supposed to be perfect.
But it is not, any more than wheat is. Wheat must be taken by people and threshed, milled, kneaded, baked (or soaked and boiled, etc.)
No. I wrote (and meant to imply) that it was considered good. Reading the responses of others it seems that we are using "loophole" differently. If it is intended than it isn't a loophole and one is not "getting around" anything. A loophole, to me is a way to subvert what the law intends.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A loophole, to me is a way to subvert what the law intends.
But I don't believe that to be true of most loopholes in US tax law either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting. What does "loophole" mean for you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lisa's example regarding tax law is a good example. So are the various benefits that US tax law gives business owners, including those filing a Schedule C (sole proprietorship, which includes consultants and the like).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. So we are using loophole differently. I would not consider those loopholes.
Loophole looks weird when you type it a lot.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Welcome to rationalist religion. It's a whole different animal than "leaps of faith" and Ouija boards.
Considering that judaism is based on leaps of faith, no. Same animal.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Welcome to rationalist religion. It's a whole different animal than "leaps of faith" and Ouija boards.
Considering that judaism is based on leaps of faith, no. Same animal.
Since it isn't, you're mistaken.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Welcome to rationalist religion. It's a whole different animal than "leaps of faith" and Ouija boards.
Considering that judaism is based on leaps of faith, no. Same animal.
Since it isn't, you're mistaken.
::blink:: clearly. that's why I said it.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
We already went over this issue in detail and there was a very drawn out argument over the ways which you considered your religion not to be "faith based". You were not able to muster a credible defense of the notion that judaism was not faith based, so just saying it is again isn't a very credible advancement. Wou?d you care to be linked to the relevant posts where your ideas were soundly challenged?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: We already went over this issue in detail and there was a very drawn out argument over the ways which you considered your religion not to be "faith based". You were not able to muster a credible defense of the notion that judaism was not faith based, so just saying it is again isn't a very credible advancement. Wou?d you care to be linked to the relevant posts where your ideas were soundly challenged?
::yawn:: link-away
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
From the OP:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: This thread is NOT for politics or attacks on anyone's beliefs. Please take 'em elsewhere.
Please knock it off.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is pointing out that a religion is obviously faith based, and that this has been demonstrated clearly before during forum discussions, an 'attack' on beliefs?
I can see why you would prefer it be exported to another thread, but..
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: From the OP:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: This thread is NOT for politics or attacks on anyone's beliefs. Please take 'em elsewhere.
Please knock it off.
You can't ask the Rebbetzin about her beliefs?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is pointing out that a religion is obviously faith based, and that this has been demonstrated clearly before during forum discussions, an 'attack' on beliefs?
Once? I think not. Persistently and belligerently?
Armoth, huh?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm just saying, it's odd you can't discuss whether or not Judaism is faith-based on the "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Belligerence? Interesting. The persistence is on both sides. Judaism is a faith based religion; there are leaps of faith. Particular to Armoth, with whom this discussion has already been had and essentially wrapped up, there's a leap of faith where it must somehow be impossible that the mass revelation is not what it is claimed to be by Judaism. To want to point out that a leap of faith is a leap of faith in response to an already existent assertion otherwise is hardly inherently belligerent.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Belligerence? Interesting. The persistence is on both sides. Judaism is a faith based religion; there are leaps of faith. Particular to Armoth, with whom this discussion has already been had and essentially wrapped up, there's a leap of faith where it must somehow be impossible that the mass revelation is not what it is claimed to be by Judaism. To want to point out that a leap of faith is a leap of faith in response to an already existent assertion otherwise is hardly inherently belligerent.
Is it a leap of faith to believe that man walked on the moon?
Here's the trap many fall into. We can't absolutely prove anything. You can't prove that I exist, or that you are speaking to me, or that you are not in the Matrix. But that doesn't matter. We don't make decisions on what we can prove, we make decisions based on probabilities and overwhelming probabilities.
As such, the mass revelation is just as credible as the knowledge that man walked the moon, if not more so, and although the possibility exists that it did not happen, and that it was conspiracy, that possibility is just as large as the probability that we are all in the Matrix.
I'd even go so far as to say that one who does not realize that this is how they make most of their decisions, consciously or otherwise, and demands a higher level of "proof" when it comes to religion, when one does not demand that level of proof for their day to day decisions, is lying to themselves.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Do you believe that the evidence for the mass revelation is as credible as the evidence for the moon landing?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Belligerence? Interesting. The persistence is on both sides.
I was hoping both would stop.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Welcome to rationalist religion. It's a whole different animal than "leaps of faith" and Ouija boards.
Considering that judaism is based on leaps of faith, no. Same animal.
Since it isn't, you're mistaken.
::blink:: clearly. that's why I said it.
Excuse me? I was replying to Parkour. Agreeing with you. So your reply seems to be a non sequitur.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I was replying with you, not against you, sorry for the confusion.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
While I think thread drift will happen, and the vast majority of threads here permit this, I see no reason why we cannot have threads that retain a certain focus in their scope. Of course you have the right to refuse to stay on a certain topic, but it's common courtesy to start a new thread. It's also not very difficult.
rivka has discussed her faith in myriad threads. There isn't anything unique about this one that cannot be replicated in another, assuming she would like to discuss the topic in the first place.
Please take it somewhere else boys, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Public apology to Rivka: I'm sorry. I would have pursued on a separate thread, but when others kept posting, I felt it necessary to keep posting, over your explicit wishes. Sometimes it's hard to give proper respect in the heat of the moment and for that I apologize.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Dear Rebbetzin, I am still single but don't wish to be, how can I alleviate this plight? Thank-you.
Hobbes Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
More of a Hebrew question, but asked in the context of the Torah:
Some Christians, Mormons in particular, consider "thee" or "thou" to be a more respectful, reverent form of "you" and use those forms when addressing prayers to deity. Does Hebrew have formal/informal forms of "you" and, if so, do Jews follow a similar convention when addressing G'd vs addressing others?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hebrew only has one second person singular pronoun per gender. Ata (pronounced ah-TAH) for a male and at (pronounced AHT) for a female. There's a plural masculine and plural feminine as well. Only first person is ungendered.
To the best of my knowledge, English used to have a singular second person pronoun (thee) and a plural second person pronoun (you). And over the years, the plural came to be used as well for the singular, and thee just dropped out. Similar blurring has happened in modern Hebrew as well, in certain other cases. First person singular future tense verbs have all but disappeared in common speech, particularly among kids.
But no, there's no distinction made between addressing a person and addressing God, grammar-wise.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Dear Rebbetzin, I am still single but don't wish to be, how can I alleviate this plight?
Dear Hobbes,
You seem to have mistaken this thread for the matchmaker thread we had floating around a few years back.
Also, as the rebbetzin is also single, she may not be the best person to ask this question. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Is it possible to produce an e-reader that is usable during Shabbat?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
For single page books? Possibly.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Dear Rebbetzin, I am still single but don't wish to be, how can I alleviate this plight?
Dear Hobbes,
You seem to have mistaken this thread for the matchmaker thread we had floating around a few years back.
Also, as the rebbetzin is also single, she may not be the best person to ask this question.
Dear Rebbetzin,
Darn.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For single page books? Possibly.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I would think something similar to a Shabbos elevator might work, as well? (That is, a book that turned pages on its own at predefined intervals, with no input from the reader.)
Not sure why you'd want one, though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Seriously. That would drive me crazy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And what happens when you have to leave the room for a minute? That's it, you missed 5 pages.
I see no way this could work, practically.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Would something that senses eye or head movement be permissable?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Definitely no.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
How about the Force? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm going to have to go with no.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I always wondered about psychic/super powers. Like, if you had telekinesis, would it be permissible to move something with your mind on Shabbat outside of an eruv? Would that be considered inherently a shinui? How about lighting fires with your mind?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The last time I asked my rav -- after he stopped snickering -- he said he could see no reason why it wouldn't be just as problematic as using direct physical action. But that once I developed such powers, I should come back and ask him again.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
You should read Dean Koontz's Breathless, I think he is friends with this guy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
With which guy? My rav?
It's not impossible.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: With which guy? My rav?
It's not impossible.
Lisa'a clip. The book turns into a creationist rant.
edit - I guess she deleted it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all seriousness, what about robots? They're non-sentient; you could argue that they're basically a glorified timer that can operate multiple devices at once.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What ABOUT robots? You want one to turn pages for you?
You cannot have an animal do work for you on Shabbos either. Sentience is not required.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
a robot is not an animal?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Didn't say it was. I think it may be more analogous to an animal than to a timer, though.
(Not that everybody is so thrilled with timers, anyway. And even timers can only be used for certain things.)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Is there discussion about future transition to digital books?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think the toughest thing is going to be once there are real AIs and one of them wants to convert.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Is there discussion about future transition to digital books?
All religious issues aside, there will always be print books. I like ebooks a lot, but there is nothing like holding a book in your hands.
Lisa, given how many mitzvos require a physical body, what would that even MEAN?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The first Reform Jewish AI tries to move to Israel.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Linky no worky.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Is there discussion about future transition to digital books?
All religious issues aside, there will always be print books. I like ebooks a lot, but there is nothing like holding a book in your hands.
Lisa, given how many mitzvos require a physical body, what would that even MEAN?
I assume that once we have true AI, making bodies for them will be a relatively trivial exercise.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I dunno, depends on your browser plugins?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Don't think so. Looks like the site doesn't support hotlinks.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think the toughest thing is going to be once there are real AIs and one of them wants to convert.
There being no human mohel strong enough, the robo-proselyte had to take matters into his own hands.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Dear Rebbetzin, If you could recommend any book to a non-Jew interested in learning more about Judaism, what would it be?
Thanks in advance, Erin
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Could you be more specific about what you're looking for? History, daily living, theology, stories, what?
There are a LOT of books on the subject! Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Um... all of the above?
I suppose I'm most curious about the Oral Torah, and the teachings of Maimonides, but I have no idea where to start.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, his Guide to the Perplexed is a classic for a reason. There are many translations out there; I'd suggest this one.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Thanks, Rivka!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by emns (Member # 12706) on :
wow i wouldn't mind seeing this thread come back to life!
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
For general background, I've always liked "This is My God" by Herman Wouk.
Have a couple questions about food. If dishes are no longer useable, can you give them to a non-jew?Can you use the same dishwasher for both set of cookware? If you start out the day with milk. are all the rest of the day- milk meals?Lived in Chicago 198o to 1979, enjoined all kinds of food. Butera was a small chain store, just 3 stores back then. One Wednesday I asked the butcher if there were any stewing hens left. He told me yes and then said I didnt know you were Jewish. I laughed and said just like chicken and noodles, he said the Jewish ladies always came in on a Wednesday for stewing hens, and never come in on Thursday, because all the hens would be gone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by jaysedai6: Have a couple questions about food. If dishes are no longer useable, can you give them to a non-jew?
Sure.
quote:Originally posted by jaysedai6: Can you use the same dishwasher for both set of cookware?
Not according to most Orthodox authorities.
quote:Originally posted by jaysedai6: If you start out the day with milk. are all the rest of the day- milk meals?
No. After most dairy things (exception: hard cheese) there is either no required waiting period or some people have a custom of waiting one hour. So you could easily have a latte with breakfast, a dairy lunch, and a meat supper. Or even a meat lunch and a dairy supper, as long as there was at least 3-6 hours (varies by family custom) in between.
Posted by jaysedai6 (Member # 8856) on :
Thank you very much.I can get bagels and smoked salmon here in Iowa, no chicken liver mix in this town of 25,000. Maybe I can find a Jewish deli in Des Moines or Iowa City.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There used to be a very nice kosher deli and market in Des Moines. Not sure if it's still there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bookmark the page, thank you so much. Could you tell what the chicken liver mix is called? I am 73 and and what it is, is stuck somewhere in a space in my brain and lots of papers are piled on top.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It can be called several different things, but I think it mostly just gets sold as chopped liver. (I can't tell you for sure because I hate the stuff.) Certainly if you ask for chopped liver they should know what you mean.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Well, I got the Guide for the Perplexed on my Kindle for much cheaper than the bookstore had it (A different translation than the one you recommended, but still). I got two chapters in and realized a copy of the Tanakh would probably also be a worthwhile investment, since the translations differ so radically on some key verses (I have an NIV Bible and a NRSV Catholic Bible, but they don't help much when reading JEWISH philosophy). So far, so good. Thanks for the recommendation!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
For Tanach, I suggest Artscroll.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For Tanach, I suggest Artscroll.
Not JPS?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Definitely not. Others may disagree, but I find JPS entirely too dependent upon Christian translations.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Framing the question: many LDSs feel alchool is not only improper for a member to drink, but fundementally, morally wrong. Thus they will not, or at least prefer not to buy beer, wine, etc... even when it is for others since they don't want to support something they find morally wrong.
Question: is this a common sentiment as well in the Jewish community as it relates to non-Kosher food? For example, would someone have an issue buying a ham salad for a friend they knew really liked ham salad and was coming over for dinner that night?
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I won't have unsealed containers of non-kosher food in my home, and I certainly wouldn't serve it. But that's not because of what you're asking.
As far as giving non-kosher food for someone, if they are a non-Jew, there's no problem. So if there are non-kosher samples in a box of something I bought, I give them to my housekeeper. But I wouldn't give them to a Jew, whether they keep kosher or not.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I won't have unsealed containers of non-kosher food in my home, and I certainly wouldn't serve it. But that's not because of what you're asking.
Why is it then?
quote:As far as giving non-kosher food for someone, if they are a non-Jew, there's no problem. So if there are non-kosher samples in a box of something I bought, I give them to my housekeeper. But I wouldn't give them to a Jew, whether they keep kosher or not.
So it wouldn't bother you at all to fork over money specifically to buy non-Kosher food (not just in addition to Kosher food because it's packaged that way, but with the intent of purchasing the non-Kosher portion) to give to someone else who isn't Jewish?
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:I won't have unsealed containers of non-kosher food in my home, and I certainly wouldn't serve it. But that's not because of what you're asking.
Why is it then?
Too easy for things to get confused, for my kosher dishes to get non-kosher food on them, etc. It would turn what should be a relaxing, fun event (sharing a meal with friends) into a stressful one.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: So it wouldn't bother you at all to fork over money specifically to buy non-Kosher food (not just in addition to Kosher food because it's packaged that way, but with the intent of purchasing the non-Kosher portion) to give to someone else who isn't Jewish?
I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario where I would do this, but in theory.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Too easy for things to get confused, for my kosher dishes to get non-kosher food on them, etc. It would turn what should be a relaxing, fun event (sharing a meal with friends) into a stressful one.
Makes sense. Thanks.
quote:I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario where I would do this, but in theory.
It's your close, non-Jewish friend's birthday, and after months of dieting she really wants to take this day off her plan and have a BLT with you on the Plaza at which you feel you should treat her since, you know, it's her birthday. How's that?
In the LDS-framing this comes up for people often when non-member, relatives or friends are coming to stay for a few days (or something) and you both want to be hospitable and are aware that they like to drink coffee in the morning/have a beer with dinner/whatever.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's your close, non-Jewish friend's birthday, and after months of dieting she really wants to take this day off her plan and have a BLT with you on the Plaza at which you feel you should treat her since, you know, it's her birthday. How's that?
Just cause I wanna make sure I have it right, let's test my answer: Just as long as they're not a jew themselves. If they are, it doesn't matter if they are a practicing jew or not, you're not supposed to help them break the rules
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I know plenty of Mormons who keep a bit of wine or Scotch on hand for social occasions.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Just cause I wanna make sure I have it right, let's test my answer: Just as long as they're not a jew themselves. If they are, it doesn't matter if they are a practicing jew or not, you're not supposed to help them break the rules
That's the way I understand Rivka's answer as well. But I want to be sure; my question was really: do any signficant portion of Jews feel that either: a) the very act of purchasing non-Kosher food is wrong or b) by purchasing non-kosher food you are supporting an immoral endevour and thus is wrong (albiet indirectly).
quote:I know plenty of Mormons who keep a bit of wine or Scotch on hand for social occasions.
As do I. In fact, I've been one of those Mormons, but there's a lot who won't buy alchool at all either.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario where I would do this, but in theory.
It's your close, non-Jewish friend's birthday, and after months of dieting she really wants to take this day off her plan and have a BLT with you on the Plaza at which you feel you should treat her since, you know, it's her birthday. How's that?
Nope. I avoid going to non-kosher restaurants if at all possible, and every close friend of mine knows that. I'd be happy to take her somewhere kosher, though.
I could see getting her a gift certificate, though.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: do any signficant portion of Jews feel that either: a) the very act of purchasing non-Kosher food is wrong or b) by purchasing non-kosher food you are supporting an immoral endevour and thus is wrong (albiet indirectly).
It can be problematic for a religious Jew to purchase non-kosher food (not only can't I eat it, I can't get benefit [defining this can get complicated] from it either), but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a non-Jew purchasing, cooking, or eating non-kosher food.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
What are the implications on you if this story turns out to be true? Are you going to be held responsible for eating a non-kosher hot dog, or are you OK since you did your best to keep kosher?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I actually thought that this has been common knowledge for a while now.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Most people I know who keep kosher have not considered Hebrew National products acceptable for over a decade. Maybe longer.
The Triangle K hechsher is not generally considered reliable, especially for meat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Are you going to be held responsible for eating a non-kosher hot dog
There's actually a prison term, and a public shaming
srs answer: no
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
So exactly how diligent do you have to be to remain blameless in the case of fraud or accident? It sounds like you're pretty well read on how your food is processed if you knew that HI wasn't trustworthy.
What if you had a friend that ate tainted food from HI that they could have avoided if they'd done your level of research? Or what if one of the companies that you do trust has issues that you're unaware of? Does it all come down to personal conscience, and if so, what is the incentive to spend a lot of time thoroughly exploring the situation?
I mean, I realize that it's impossible to be 100% positive that you've never touched anything unclean in your life. But there is a spectrum between the guy who takes a bite out of a mystery sandwich and thinks, "this doesn't smell like pork," and the guy who's crawling through air ducts uploading pictures of production lines to Wikileaks. Where do you draw the line?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's why there are companies that provide supervision, like the O-U, OK, Heart-K, etc., etc. They are referred to as hechsherim (singular: hechsher).
I have rabbis I depend on (my main rabbi and one whose specialty is kashrus) to whom I direct questions regarding any hechsher with which I am not already familiar.
I also subscribe to several email lists which notify me of irregularities (e.g. http://www.kashrut.com/Alerts/), things to look out for, and so on. Major items on those lists are likely to also end up in weekly synagogue newsletters (I'm on about 6 of those lists, for various reasons (mostly social)) or other community email lists.
Posted by Annie Mayhem (Member # 6203) on :
Re: Not Eating Parts of a Living Animal.
Would an exception be made for stone crab claws, since the claws grow back? (This is a serious question . . . I live in stone-crab country!).
The most conscientious crabbers only harvest one claw per crab (leaving one so it can feed and defend itself), then return the crabs to the water to heal and reproduce. Yeah, not much fun for the crabs, but I imagine it beats being dead.
(And, yes, I know crabs aren't kosher!).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie Mayhem: (And, yes, I know crabs aren't kosher!).
And as far as I know, all the animals with the ability to regrow limbs are non-kosher ones, so this is not really a meaningful question.
Nonetheless, I see no reason why the fact that an animal can regrow a limb should be a reason to make an exception to forbidding ever min ha chai.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Would this apply to meat from cultured cells? For that matter, would that be kosher at all?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: For that matter, would that be kosher at all?
A current subject of debate. I am not aware of any definitive decisions as of yet.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Would this apply to meat from cultured cells?
I don't know that a swab constitutes an ever, a limb. I suspect it does not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:There is nothing wrong with doing this halachically because "Ever Min Hachai" doesn't apply to shellfish and fish.
So I was wrong about those crabs.
[ July 10, 2012, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Thanks Rivka.
Hobbes Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
What do "Orthodox" Jews (inverted commas mean "orthodox", "quite orthodox" or "Jews that care about their religion") think of Jews that are unorthodox? What do they think of Jews who converted to other religions?
Let me expound- I, atheist, asked my best, catholic, friend, how would he react if I converted to Protestantism or Islam. He answered that he would be very happy, because this way I'd be closer to God. Is such errr... ecumenism, for a lack of better word, acceptable?
What do you personally think?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: What do "Orthodox" Jews (inverted commas mean "orthodox", "quite orthodox" or "Jews that care about their religion") think of Jews that are unorthodox?
As a group, or as individuals? I have some serious, quite negative feelings about some of the non-Orthodox groups of Jews, but those feelings are primarily directed at their leadership, not at the rank-and-file. I have friends and relatives who are various flavors of non-religious or non-Orthodox. I think their religious beliefs and practices are incorrect. They presumably think the same about me.
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: What do they think of Jews who converted to other religions?
They are deluded. Once you are a Jew, you are always a Jew. It is a covenant, an unbreakable contract. They can deny it, but they are still bound by it.
ambyr, isn't it?
gnixing, I am quite aware of the situation in Germany, but I have no idea what you are asking me.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
rivka, I just want to know your thoughts about the situation. To me, it seems to be an appalling situation, but you seem to have always been well able to communicate logically rather than emotionally and I'm curious as to your view either in support of the outrage or in support of the decision made by the German courts.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Germany tried to kill all the Jews in the 1940s. Most of those who survived got the hint and emigrated. Germany now appears to be determined to make it so uncomfortable to be a Jew (or Muslim) living there now that those remaining will emigrate as well.
It's not just an anti-Jewish thing; it's an anti-religious thing, and only one example of anti-religious laws and rulings in Europe in the past decade. It's frightening and horrifying.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I think their religious beliefs and practices are incorrect. They presumably think the same about me.
Would it be appropriate for me to offer a non-Orthodox Jew's angle on this, rivka? It's your thread, and I don't want to intrude. But I don't precisely think of Orthodox Jews' beliefs and practices as being "incorrect," and I don't think I'm alone in that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Please feel free. Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Okay, I'll give it a shot. I (raised Conservative, by parents who were respectively raised Orthodox and Reform, and currently probably closest to Reconstructionist in outlook although I still go to Conservative shul--none of which groups I make any claim of being able to speak for, just giving some background) tend to think of religious practice as both a way of binding a community together and a personal conversation between an individual and G-d. I would never describe someone else's decision to observe halakha as "incorrect." I might describe their belief that I need to follow the same practices as incorrect, but I assume the practices they follow are correct for them, based on their relationship with G-d and their local community.
So that's practices. On the matter of beliefs, yeah, we're going to be in mutual and irreconcilable disagreement there.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Germany tried to kill all the Jews in the 1940s. Most of those who survived got the hint and emigrated. Germany now appears to be determined to make it so uncomfortable to be a Jew (or Muslim) living there now that those remaining will emigrate as well.
It's not just an anti-Jewish thing; it's an anti-religious thing, and only one example of anti-religious laws and rulings in Europe in the past decade. It's frightening and horrifying.
I agree completely, but only with the second part. What do you mean by Germany? The government? Or the people? Are you accusing them of antisemitism? Killing Jews is one thing and disallowing circumcision is something different. While I personally think it is unwise not to allow circumcision, I can comprehend why people want to stop it. It's a broader problem in Europe. This continent as a whole is extremely leftist. There seems to be less and less time and place for religion, in schools, in public places (France and Muslims- just as outrageous, I think), and so on. I don't think this anticircumcision project has anything to do with antisemitism, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Killing Jews is one thing and disallowing circumcision is something different.
If you think I said otherwise, you need to re-read my post.
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I don't think this anticircumcision project has anything to do with antisemitism, though.
As I said, I believe the impetus is a general anti-religious one.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
Thanks rivka, that's been my understanding as well. However, I've been having conversations with some very atheistic folk who argue that the ruling is about protecting infants and their rights to choose, and preventing a 4000 year old barbaric tradition, not about antisemitism. I'm not an expert on Germany and the 1940's Jews, but I suspect that the Nazi party used similar arguments to justify their actions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Based on what I've been reading in the German press, this isn't reflective of attitudes that are widespread among Germans. It certainly isn't "leftist" as the left wing has been the most vocal in decrying the ruling and has been strongly advocating a law that would protect the religious practice of circumcision.
The ruling itself was in regard to a case brought against Islamic parents. It seems to be driven not by liberals atheists but by the Christian right wing who are becoming progressively Islamaphobic.
[ July 16, 2012, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Killing Jews is one thing and disallowing circumcision is something different.
If you think I said otherwise, you need to re-read my post.
I re-read and I still think that there is no connection between 1940s' killings and today's topic about banning circumcision. Thus, my statement.
What I meant is that the ruling is about human rights and has nothing to do with Germans' attitude towards the Jews.
edit:I messed up the quotes
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
I don't think this is a topic to debate the issue! A different topic should be created for such. I bring it up here because I was interested in rivka's particular perspective as an intelligent and educated Jewish woman.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
rivka, a recent thread was bumped that has your perspective on my topic linked. I will review that rather than ask you to rehash. Thank you!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: What do "Orthodox" Jews (inverted commas mean "orthodox", "quite orthodox" or "Jews that care about their religion") think of Jews that are unorthodox? What do they think of Jews who converted to other religions?
Let me expound- I, atheist, asked my best, catholic, friend, how would he react if I converted to Protestantism or Islam. He answered that he would be very happy, because this way I'd be closer to God. Is such errr... ecumenism, for a lack of better word, acceptable?
What do you personally think?
As someone who spent a few years in a reform congregation, I have to agree a bit with the orthodox stance. It truly is to make assimilated Jews feel better.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
pierced for a while now and I do believe it is going to happen right after I get my tax return back. Now aside from any personal feelings, is it wrong of me to want to get it done before my conversion proceeds any further? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) "I'm just curious" type questions about Jewish practices, customs, etc. (I'll still be happy to answer them by email or IM, of course.)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) Orthodox Jewish practices. If I provide a link, it means I think there is helpful information on the topic; it should not (necessarily) be taken an an endorsement of the owner of the linked page or of his/her beliefs.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
zgator!
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
, but here's their info (from Superpages Online)![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Rivka spent quite a few hours answering my questions via AIM and most recently, email. Now, it came to be that I have been having lots of money problems lately and my mom said I could earn a few bucks by cleaning her house once a week. I was cleaning the basement bookshelf and what book was staring at me but, Choosing a Jewish Life ? I read it in one night. I asked my mom the next day why she had that book, see my mother is not a religious person. She said that our mutual friend Sarah had converted a while back and she loaned that book to my mom to answer some common questions.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I have rarely had so enthusiastic a reference. Can I have potential employers call you? ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Tsk. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
) Have you discussed this possibility with your dentist? Are you aware of the large potential for infection (your mouth is the germiest part of your body), scarring, and damage to your teeth?![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Hello! Just showin' my newbieness and ineptitude. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)