Converts to Judaism sometimes face a lonely Christmas
Yussel
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=jewish%20converts&st=cse
j
sheldonlg
Not all Jews keep kosher. Interesting insight into their thoughts and
feelings, though.
cindys
> Yussel wrote:
> > From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
Indeed.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
>
> > j
>
> Not all Jews keep kosher.
> Interesting insight into their thoughts and
> feelings, though.
Here's what the wannabe convert and her Jewish fiance served her
mother and their "Jewish orphan" friends for Christmas dinner, and the
Jewish fiance cooked it all!:
--begin cite---
Though Ms. Jett usually goes to her mother’s house for Christmas, this
year, her mother came to New York instead, and Ms. Jett and Mr. Silver
decided to invite several friends — they affectionately called them
“Jewish orphans” — over for dinner. They planned a traditional
Christmas menu of bourbon-glazed ham, mashed potatoes, roasted
broccoli, Brussels sprouts, green beans and yams, cooked by Mr.
Silver, who works for a real estate investment firm and is the
designated chef in the relationship.
---end cite---
It's fortunate that she and her fiance are so committed to Judaism and
so proud of their commitment that the above was printed in the New
York Times. Nobody is forcing her to "convert." They should be
ashamed, and the one who should be the most ashamed is the rabbi who
is ostensibly converting her. And at the risk of starting an OCR war,
then people wonder why the O don't accept the validity of R
conversions.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
In *this* case I will have to (surprised?) agree with you. After all,
pig is specifically prohibited in the Torah. Had it been meatballs with
fettucini alfredo, then I wouldn't have agreed with you.
mm
wrote:
>From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=jewish%20converts&st=cse
>
>j
Mostly story, the "moral" is in the first sentence and Moral Part II:
Even I, who had never done anything for Xmas, once had a lonely xmas
eve. I was on my way to Costa Rica, and my deadline for leaving
Chicago was to be in Mexico in time for posadas, home xmas parties,
that I had read about and at my young age sounded very exotic. So I
made sure to leave Chicago by Dec. 17, by car, and reach the border by
Dec. 21st. After 2 or 3 days at the border, I reached my first Mexican
city, Monterrey by bus about 6PM Xmas eve, really too late to meet a
Mexican and get invited to a party. But I did come close.
A guy who saw me get off the bus said, in English, that he wanted to
buy me a pastry, and took me into a bakery a few feet from where we
were. Once inside, he soon announced that he had no money! I figured
it was a ruse to get me to buy him pastry, but I didn't volunteer.
Then he helped me find a hotel room, and he talked to the manager of
the first place in Spanish or course, but I thought he was conspiring
somehow. In the hotel room, he asked for my phone number in Chicago,
and I gave it to him, and I asked for his. He wrote it on a piece of
paper. I copied it to my own notebook and wadded the paper and put in
the wastebasket. He retrieved the paper and put it in his pocket. We
were both cautious, in different ways. Now I also do what he did.
He left and I went out to the shopping area. It was quite busy, from
8 up to about 10 or 11 PM, people buying gifts or food, I think. I
watched. I had left a sort-of girlfriend back in Chicago and I was
here alone and everyone was on their way to a party, it seemed.
Moral Part II
I had been alone the previous two nights with no problem, but the
parties made the difference, even though if I were back in Chicago, I
would have done nothing that night.
Story Part II. After a couple hours I went back and in my hotel room,
the original man had come back and left me a banana and a couple
oranges and a note which said that his wife criticized him for not
inviting me to their house that night. So I had come close. IIRC even
though he didn't leave a number or address, I wasn't lonely anymore.
I did get invited to a New Year's Eve party by Mexicans in Mexico
City. Too long a story for here.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Yussel
And I agree with both of you.
j
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 1:49 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> Yussel wrote:
>> > From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>
>Indeed.
>>
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
>>
>> > j
>>
>> Not all Jews keep kosher.
True, but Yussel is specfically referring to someone who plans to
convert. A big difference.
>> Interesting insight into their thoughts and
>> feelings, though.
>
Apparently the article has errors. Why am I not surprised? (I would
never give an interview again without making my own recording of it.)
By Aliza Hausman, one of those interviewed.
http://www.alizahausman.net/ FWIW, here are some, she writes
'.....
The most glaring error is this line: "She still calls her mother on
Christmas Day, but neither of them mention the holiday. " I haven't
spoken to my mother since I was 17 years old! If you don't know why
then you haven't been reading this blog long enough.
"When Ms. Hausman used to call her Dominican grandmother in Washington
Heights to wish her “Feliz Navidad,” she would inevitably be asked why
she was not celebrating Christmas."
My grandmother never asked me why I wasn't celebrating Christmas, she
would ask me HOW I was celebrating Christmas and I would have to
explain again and again that I converted and Jews don't celebrate
Christmas. Also, my grandmother does not live in Washington Heights.
She did but she hadn't lived in Washington Heights for years when I
made the decision to convert. (This year, by the way, I called my
grandmother on Christmas Eve, along with other relatives in my
extended family and not a word was said about Christmas.)
I really wish that the article had touched upon which movements within
Judaism everyone was converting to but I can understand why you
didn't. Unfortunately, I think it will confuse a lot of people because
I think people (outside of Judaism) will read this and not understand
that Jewish fiances in the Conservative movement and Orthodox movement
wouldn't be making Christmas ham for their future in-laws. Also, that
no one I know has a Hanukkah bush (though that the blue-and-silver
decorations was a cute touch).
Like most articles on conversion, there is the implication that
everyone converted for marriage with the brief exception of me and
another convert, Mr. Santamaria.
The article seemed to stress that converts somehow miss Christmas. I
remember the reporter asking me, "But isn't there anything you miss
about Christmas?" There was this surprised tone in her voice. I
thought about it and I said, "I guess I miss getting together with
family the way we used to but then we're doing that still, just in a
different way."
I wish she'd asked me WHY I didn't miss Christmas! I would have told
her that in Judaism, there seems to be a celebration of some holiday
every second of every month. Shabbat is a weekly holiday! Sacrificing
one holiday, however major to the Christian/secular calendar, for a
whole year of endless Jewish holidays, well, it seemed like a good
mathematical decision. :)
Now, since I've done freelance work, please don't think that I
disliked the article overall. I appreciate how hard it is to get all
the details [right] and weave everything together. Already I've gotten
lots of new lurkers on my blog though not so many seemed to understand
the basics about Judaism. I guess I'll just have to explain myself a
little more when I write.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled hiatus!'
>Here's what the wannabe convert and her Jewish fiance served her
>mother and their "Jewish orphan" friends for Christmas dinner, and the
>Jewish fiance cooked it all!:
>
>--begin cite---
>Though Ms. Jett usually goes to her mother’s house for Christmas, this
>year, her mother came to New York instead, and Ms. Jett and Mr. Silver
>decided to invite several friends — they affectionately called them
>“Jewish orphans” — over for dinner. They planned a traditional
>Christmas menu of bourbon-glazed ham, mashed potatoes, roasted
>broccoli, Brussels sprouts, green beans and yams, cooked by Mr.
>Silver, who works for a real estate investment firm and is the
>designated chef in the relationship.
>---end cite---
In the thread with Fiona, I tried to stay neutral but ended up pretty
clearly siding with going out to eat, and I would go to a friend's
too, but I don't think I would have ever been comfortable acting like
a "Jewish orphan" or going to a *festive* meal on xmas eve. I'm not
an ophan because I have no invitations. I don't expect or need
inviations. It's not like Moneterry Mexico where there was nothing to
do in my baren hotel room. (No tv for a dollar a night.)
Needless to say, I wouldn't do the cooking either.
>It's fortunate that she and her fiance are so committed to Judaism and
>so proud of their commitment that the above was printed in the New
>York Times. Nobody is forcing her to "convert." They should be
>ashamed, and the one who should be the most ashamed is the rabbi who
>is ostensibly converting her. And at the risk of starting an OCR war,
>then people wonder why the O don't accept the validity of R
>conversions.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
--
cindys
So now R = Karaitism? I think a lot of other Rs would disagree with
you. That having been said, I don't think it really matters what they
ate for dinner. The fact remains they were openly and unabashedly
celebrating Christmas.
It's one thing when a born Jew decides he doesn't want to keep kosher,
doesn't want to observe mitzvos, whatever. But this is not a born Jew.
This is a non-Jewish woman who ostensibly *wants* to become Jewish.
But obviously, she doesn't really want to become Jewish because she
continues to celebrate Christmas. And her Jewish fiance celebrates it
with her. Not that we define Judaism as being the absence of
Christianity, but I do think that any wannabe convert from
Christianity to Judaism understands from the minute he/she embarks on
the conversion pathway that becoming Jewish means that he/she can't
celebrate Christmas anymore. Duh!
And if this is too great a sacrifice (as it apparently is for Ms.
Jett), then perhaps she should consider staying a Christian. I really
think she should have called off her "conversion" and gone to her
mother's house just like she always did and have the full-blown
Christmas celebration with the tree and the presents and everything
else. There would have been nothing wrong with that, and at least it
would be honest.
And the only reason I'm not passing all of this off as a sad joke is
because it was apparently featured in the New York Times and read by
many people who don't understand that there is a difference between a
real conversion and this pathetic display of an ersatz conversion, and
it reflects badly on every single Jew, of any persuasion. What a
chillul HaShem.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>> In *this* case I will have to (surprised?) agree with you. =A0After all,
>> pig is specifically prohibited in the Torah. =A0Had it been meatballs wit=
>h
>> fettucini alfredo, then I wouldn't have agreed with you.
>And I agree with both of you.
Yeah, it highlights kind of a tough intellectual/emotional problem with R.
On the one hand, if you, as an R Jew, have determined that you do not need
to keep kosher (via whatever mechanism you've made that decision) that's
one thing, but when it comes to conversion, I guess you have to ask what's
the point? Why do you even need/want to convert? I mean that as a real
question - what's the benefit of the actual conversion? What's it really
mean?
It's one of those multi-level things, on the first level I fully
understand why you'd want your fiancee to convert. But then on the second
level, on reflection, why? So you can do what, exactly? You can certainly
raise your children "as Jewish," for whatever that means to you, without
your wife going through any formal process, and then simply leave it up to
the kids - if they choose to pursue Judaism, then they can convert
themselves. (I know a couple who are more or less doing this) I don't know
for certain but I can't imagine an R synagogue (or even an O one, for that
matter) is going to prevent your wife or husband from attending because he
or she hasn't converted - how would they even know?
BTW - I'm not saying this to judge anybody, please don't take what I'm
saying as any kind of criticism as that's not how I mean it, I'm just
thinking about the issue.
--s
--
cindys
> In <080b857a-c4d9-4e34-b07e-bbb6964f4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> In *this* case I will have to (surprised?) agree with you. =A0After all,
> >> pig is specifically prohibited in the Torah. =A0Had it been meatballs wit=
> >h
> >> fettucini alfredo, then I wouldn't have agreed with you.
> >And I agree with both of you.
>
> Yeah, it highlights kind of a tough intellectual/emotional problem with R.
> On the one hand, if you, as an R Jew, have determined that you do not need
> to keep kosher (via whatever mechanism you've made that decision) that's
> one thing, but when it comes to conversion, I guess you have to ask what's
> the point? Why do you even need/want to convert? I mean that as a real
> question - what's the benefit of the actual conversion? What's it really
> mean?
>
>
snip
---------
I agree. This was pretty much my point as well.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
KarenElizabeth
While I agree with many of your points, I cannot agree with this one.
The bedrock of Judaism is not kashrut. Its the fundamental belief
that HaShem is ONE -- not three, as Christians believe. Belief that
we're waiting for the Moshiach. A person can hold these beliefs
without necessarily committing to kashrut, or taharat mishpacha, or
other beliefs. I'm not suggesting that you need to accept the
conversion of such a person as halachically genuine; nonetheless, one
need not doubt the sincerity of such convert.
I can even understand the nostalgia that these converts feel for the
Xtian holidays, even if they genuinely no longer believe in or
celebrate them. Its more than religion; its family, its part of one's
childhood. When I was a kid, we went out to dinner every Sunday with
my grandparents, usually to a seafood restaurant. I remember the
place we used to go most often, the old scarred wooden booths, deer
and buffalo heads on the walls, a painting of a lobster on the
restroom door. I've kept kosher for about 15 years now, but I still
remember those Sundays, remember that place, with tremendous
fondness. Its not there any more. But if it was, if my family still
ate there every Sunday, it would be hard, even though I now believe
that my religion prohibits my eating the food, not to go. It must be
like that for converts, missing the family, missing their childhood
traditions even if they no longer believe.
cindys
> On Dec 28, 6:03 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 5:33 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > In <080b857a-c4d9-4e34-b07e-bbb6964f4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > >> In *this* case I will have to (surprised?) agree with you. =A0After all,
> > > >> pig is specifically prohibited in the Torah. =A0Had it been meatballs wit=
> > > >h
> > > >> fettucini alfredo, then I wouldn't have agreed with you.
> > > >And I agree with both of you.
>
> > > Yeah, it highlights kind of a tough intellectual/emotional problem with R.
> > > On the one hand, if you, as an R Jew, have determined that you do not need
> > > to keep kosher (via whatever mechanism you've made that decision) that's
> > > one thing, but when it comes to conversion, I guess you have to ask what's
> > > the point? Why do you even need/want to convert? I mean that as a real
> > > question - what's the benefit of the actual conversion? What's it really
> > > mean?
>
> > snip
> > ---------
> > I agree. This was pretty much my point as well.
> > Best regards,
> > ---Cindy S.
>
> While I agree with many of your points, I cannot agree with this one.
>
> The bedrock of Judaism is not kashrut.
And nobody said it was. Steve was just citing that as one example. In
fact I said in another follow-up "I don't think it really matters what
they ate for dinner." The kashrut issue came up because of the ham
dinner, but the real point was about *converting to Judaism* and the
celebration of Christmas when one is ostensibly in the process of
*converting to Judaism.*
> Its the fundamental belief
> that HaShem is ONE -- not three, as Christians believe. Belief that
> we're waiting for the Moshiach. A person can hold these beliefs
> without necessarily committing to kashrut, or taharat mishpacha, or
> other beliefs.
Yes, and there are many non-Jews who hold these beliefs. It's called
"monotheism," and it doesn' t make a person Jewish. There is more to
*converting to Judaism* than being a monotheist, although granted,
it's a start.
> I'm not suggesting that you need to accept the
> conversion of such a person as halachically genuine; nonetheless, one
> need not doubt the sincerity of such convert.
I think I do have to doubt the sincerity of a convert when she openly
continues to celebrate Christmas.
>
> I can even understand the nostalgia that these converts feel for the
> Xtian holidays, even if they genuinely no longer believe in or
> celebrate them. Its more than religion; its family, its part of one's
> childhood. When I was a kid, we went out to dinner every Sunday with
> my grandparents, usually to a seafood restaurant. I remember the
> place we used to go most often, the old scarred wooden booths, deer
> and buffalo heads on the walls, a painting of a lobster on the
> restroom door. I've kept kosher for about 15 years now, but I still
> remember those Sundays, remember that place, with tremendous
> fondness. Its not there any more. But if it was, if my family still
> ate there every Sunday, it would be hard, even though I now believe
> that my religion prohibits my eating the food, not to go. It must be
> like that for converts, missing the family, missing their childhood
> traditions even if they no longer believe.
And my memories are not any different from yours. My family also went
out to dinner every Sunday night, and I too can still taste the roast
turkey dinner at The Dickens, and the prime ribs and the lobster tails
at The Downtowner. And there is nothing in the world that comes close
to duplicating the flavor of stuffed Alaskan King crab. And I do miss
that. But I am a born Jew. I didn't get a choice.
Ms. Jett OTOH is freely choosing to *convert to Judaism.* No one is
forcing her. No one is holding a gun to her head. She doesn't have to
give up her seafood or her Christmas or anything else she dearly
loves. She can remain a non-Jew and have all those things, and there
is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
She is converting presumably because she *wants* to be Jewish. But she
is unwilling to give up her Christmas tree or her presents or her ham
dinner. She doesn't have to be Jewish in order to believe in one God,
not three, but if she wants to be Jewish, then dispensing with
Christmas is part of the package. Apparently her rabbi or her fiance
or whomever forgot to explain this inconvenient little fact to her.
And the only reason any of this really matters to me personally is
that it was splashed all over the New York Times, and it makes all
Jews look really bad.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
One comment. I think they were having that dinner because her mother
was visiting her and she did it to honor her mother. In my opinion,
there would not have been a problem with that if the main course had not
be pig.
sheldonlg
....and even I agreed because the dinner they were serving was ham. If
it had been something else, then I would not have wondered "why are they
even converting". Serving pig is an obvious "it's not Jewish", even if
you decide to eat it. You just don't serve it.
You all know I don't keep kosher. However, when I have my seder and
invite guests in (half Jewish, half not), I wouldn't dream of serving
ham or anything like that. If I did, then why even have the seder? It,
well, is "disrespectful and incongruous".
(Yes, there is milk for the coffee even though there are meat dishes.
That isn't an "in-your-face kind of thing, IMHO).
I don't know if I have accurately expressed my feelings, but I hope I
have as this is the best I can do.
Yussel
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:15:46 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
> >On Dec 28, 1:49 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
> >> Yussel wrote:
> >> > From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>
> >Indeed.
>
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
>
> >> > j
>
> >> Not all Jews keep kosher.
>
> True, but Yussel is specfically referring to someone who plans to
> convert. A big difference.
>
> >> Interesting insight into their thoughts and
> >> feelings, though.
>
> Apparently the article has errors. Why am I not surprised? (I would
> never give an interview again without making my own recording of it.)
>
Thanks for checking the website. The byline in the story was
unfamiliar to me and I am guessing it is a stringer, a freelancer not
on staff at the Times. The Times has been having stringer problems
lately, one of the results of cutting newsroom staff. Even the Times
is getting hit and the quality of journalism suffers almost
immediately. I stopped reading the Baltimore Sun when the errors
became obvious. The staff is less than half what it used to be. You
can't outsource journalism.
j
mirjam
some one converts to Judaism , why go on celebrating Christmas ?
mirjam
Yussel
The last time I met one of my closest relative's R rabbi was at a
lunch in which the main dish was shrimp. I understand that R's leave
kashruth as a personal choice but I found that disconcerting.
Then there are folks, including close friends, who have an
immaculately and expensive kosher kitchen at home and will eat
anything outside the home. I haven't worked that out yet.
j
Steve Goldfarb
>One comment. I think they were having that dinner because her mother=20
>was visiting her and she did it to honor her mother. In my opinion,=20
>there would not have been a problem with that if the main course had not=20
>be pig.
Right, to be clear I read the story but I don't really know anything about
these specific people, and I'm not passing judgement on them. To me the
issue isn't one meal or even one holiday. If someone's in the process of
conversion but can't take on everything at once, well, that's not unusual.
It's just that to me, Judaism is more about doing than believing, so if
you're not going to do, what does it mean to convert? Although perhaps you
want to do something else, e.g., be very active in your synagogue and
community, so I think then I could see why you'd want to convert, but I
guess if you don't care about the "acts" so much then why would you care
about the "act" of conversion? Just do it - as Cindy points out, you don't
need to convert to become a monotheist. You just do it.
I don't mean this to sound trite, but if you don't believe that you need
to see brachot before eating and you don't believe that women need to go
to the mikvah every month, then why do you believe that you need a bracha
and a mikvah to become Jewish?
Don't know - just thinking it through.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>Then there are folks, including close friends, who have an
>immaculately and expensive kosher kitchen at home and will eat
>anything outside the home. I haven't worked that out yet.
We used to do that, when we were C - don't know that it was "immaculately"
kosher but we tried. I know people now who do it too. I don't actually see
it as being so dissonant - they're making a distinction between "keeping a
kosher home" and only eating kosher. They see value in the act of
maintaining that kosher home, even if they're unable to go so far as to
keep kosher all the time. I don't knock it.
--s
--
sheldonlg
I agree with you. We had a luncheon out and the main course was a
breaded veal with cheese on top. The rabbi had it without the cheese.
>
> Then there are folks, including close friends, who have an
> immaculately and expensive kosher kitchen at home and will eat
> anything outside the home. I haven't worked that out yet.
Agreed. I find that nonsense as well. You either keep kosher or you
don't. (Or you can say "I won't eat seafood or pork, etc. but won't
follow the meat/milk separation. I can understand that as well). It is
not your house that is kosher, it is you.
sheldonlg
I find it inconsistent and incongruous. If you think the kashreth laws
have validity, then it should always be valid. I think it really is a
black/white thing. However, I don't openly criticize those people. I
keep my feelings on the subject to myself and my wife (and now here).
yzk
...
>
> The bedrock of Judaism is not kashrut. Its the fundamental belief
> that HaShem is ONE -- not three, as Christians believe. Belief that
> we're waiting for the Moshiach. A person can hold these beliefs
> without necessarily committing to kashrut, or taharat mishpacha, or
> other beliefs. I'm not suggesting that you need to accept the
> conversion of such a person as halachically genuine; nonetheless, one
> need not doubt the sincerity of such convert.
>
> I can even understand the nostalgia that these converts feel for the
> Xtian holidays, even if they genuinely no longer believe in or
> celebrate them. Its more than religion; its family, its part of one's
> childhood. When I was a kid, we went out to dinner every Sunday with
> my grandparents, usually to a seafood restaurant. I remember the
> place we used to go most often, the old scarred wooden booths, deer
> and buffalo heads on the walls, a painting of a lobster on the
> restroom door. I've kept kosher for about 15 years now, but I still
> remember those Sundays, remember that place, with tremendous
> fondness. Its not there any more. But if it was, if my family still
> ate there every Sunday, it would be hard, even though I now believe
> that my religion prohibits my eating the food, not to go. It must be
> like that for converts, missing the family, missing their childhood
> traditions even if they no longer believe.
Authentic Judaism = belief that the Torah is G-d's actual Word, rather
than man-made, nothing less.
Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
sheldonlg
Whatever.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >> In *this* case I will have to (surprised?) agree with you. =A0After all,
For most Americans much of what draws us to holidays as adults is the
rosy glow of childhood memories. Passover, the High Holidays,
Chanukkah all make up things that we look back on. This is even true
among the non religious Jews.
It is the same with non Jews in America. Remember Christmas is mostly
a secular holiday these days that has little to do with religion.
What most look back on was family memories, especially as they age.
If Christmas was a religious holiday, and practiced as such, we would
not have evangelicals calling for a return to religion in the season.
Thus it is more about being cut off from childhood memories that seems
to bother converts than it is anything religious. BTW, I thought that
Turkey was the big Christmas meal, not ham.
BTW, the Puritans rejected Christmas and did not practice such.
As for your point about belief that HaShem is one, not three (ie
Trinity), I have been running into more and more evangelicals who
reject the idea of the Trinity. They do not see Jesus as god the son
but merely the son of G-D, a man (like Adam). Remember most of those
who founded the US (ie were present at the writing of the
Constitution) were not deists but rather unitarians who rejected the
Trinity (often due to being Freemasons). Washington, Franklin,
Madison, Adams and Hamilton were such unitarians. Jefferson, who was
sent to France as a way to get him out of the way, was a deist with
really weird ideas. Thus the US has long had a unitarian (ie Jewish)
view of G-D.
Asher N
e3daff...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> Thank you Cindy , i might be looking strange to all of you , but if
> some one converts to Judaism , why go on celebrating Christmas ?
> mirjam
>
Family. It's not exactly celebrating, but I went to Xmas dinner at my
parents house. It was just another occasion to have the family together.
cindys
> mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote in news:2b2fc21b-6b9e-41ae-bb4d-
>
> > Thank you Cindy , i might be looking strange to all of you , but if
> > some one converts to Judaism , why go on celebrating Christmas ?
> > mirjam
>
> Family. It's not exactly celebrating, but I went to Xmas dinner at my
> parents house. It was just another occasion to have the family together.
Yes, but this is quite different from having your own tree, cooking a
ham dinner, and then inviting your family members and assorted guests
to help you celebrate in your own home.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mirjam
> Family. It's not exactly celebrating, but I went to Xmas dinner at my
> parents house. It was just another occasion to have the family together.
Asher
I understand that one wants to be with family , and that a holiday is
the right time ,,,,, but one could just go choose what one
eats ,,,,,If your family respects your choice to change your faith ,
they could respect your choices of not eating some foods. After all
you respect them and love them enough to join in this holiday ..
mirjam
Joe Bruno
> Yussel wrote:
> > From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>
>
> > j
>
> Not all Jews keep kosher. Interesting insight into their thoughts and
> feelings, though.
Most Jews I know personally obey the Kasruth laws partially. They
don't eat ham or pork, but they do eat shellfish.
They don't keep separate dishes for meat and dairy products.
cindys
He said he went to dinner at his parents' house, but he never said
exactly what he ate there. I went to dinner at a relative's treif
country club when their son was celebrating his bar mitzvah. I told
them in advance I was bringing my own tuna salad and egg salad. I
supplemented that with some fresh fruit off the buffet.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Herman Rubin
yzk <yaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 3:06=A0am, KarenElizabeth <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
. ..
>Authentic Judaism =3D belief that the Torah is G-d's actual Word, rather
>than man-made, nothing less.
>Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
There are few non-Orthodox scholars who are willing to
accept this. One can try to justify some of it, such
as the Garden of Eden, as allegory, but there is too
much history stated to accept that can be the Word of
God, unless God is deliberately lying to us.
Divinely inspired, yes; the actual Word, no.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
Think of similar problems with a daughter who is vegetarian, even
worst if they are vegan. A lot of families, to include Jews, have to
deal with this. Food is the new "religious" issue.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
> In article <98a0ef7f-7469-4e9d-b3cd-1dc98ab61...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,yzk <yaaq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 3:06=A0am, KarenElizabeth <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> . ..
>
> >Authentic Judaism =3D belief that the Torah is G-d's actual Word, rather
> >than man-made, nothing less.
> >Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
>
> There are few non-Orthodox scholars who are willing to
> accept this. One can try to justify some of it, such
> as the Garden of Eden, as allegory, but there is too
> much history stated to accept that can be the Word of
> God, unless God is deliberately lying to us.
>
> Divinely inspired, yes; the actual Word, no.
> --
1. the Bible is wrong
2. we interpret it wrong. (worst yet that we translate the orignal
language wrong and do not understand the culture of East which the
Bible was written)
3. we just can not accept that it is what it is, that we we twist
things because the truth makes uncomfortable.
4. we are just guessing as to what we know of the past due to not
having lived then. That we interpret even history within respect to
our current lives and culture.
It is very possible that both evolution and a Creator exist. That
what we have in Gensis is about a recreation of the Earth after a war
in heaven. After all the portion that is translated "was without form
and void" should have been translated "became without form and void".
Also that people did live longer thousands of years ago as their
bodies were stronger and healthier. That our genetic code has been
screwed with which makes us live fewer years.
mm
wrote:
>>
>> Family. It's not exactly celebrating, but I went to Xmas dinner at my
>> parents house. It was just another occasion to have the family together.
>
I'm not a convert, so I haven't faced these issues, but I think below,
Mirjam is expecting a lot. My reply isnt' for your case but in
general.
>Asher
>I understand that one wants to be with family , and that a holiday is
>the right time ,,,,, but one could just go choose what one
>eats ,,,,,If your family respects your choice to change your faith ,
First off, who says someone's family respects that person's choice?
Maybe they're very opposed to it, but have no power to change it.
Maybe it's all they can manage to keep their mouths shut. (Maybe they
don't even do that.)
>they could respect your choices of not eating some foods.
It depends on what the meaning of could is. Anyone who is 30 pounds
overweight could in theory diet and lose 15 pounds, but some don't
seem able to do this. Almost anyone under 40 who dieted and trained
enough could run a mile in 5 minutes, or 6, I think, but plenty can't.
They could but they can't.
Maybe in one way or another, they make coming to dinner an ultimatum.
"You expect me to not give your kids Xmas presents, to stand by while
they're not baptized, and you won't even come to dinner once a year,
when your grandparents, brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces are
there!"
> After all
>you respect them and love them enough to join in this holiday ..
>mirjam
--
Yussel
wrote:
I have a daughter who is a vegetarian and I am currently trapped in
the house with her until her mother comes home on Sunday. It's awful.
j
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Dec-2009, Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Think of similar problems with a daughter who is vegetarian, even
> > worst if they are vegan. �A lot of families, to include Jews, have to
> > deal with this. �Food is the new "religious" issue.
>
> I have a daughter who is a vegetarian and I am currently trapped in
> the house with her until her mother comes home on Sunday. It's awful.
Ask her if the medical term "vegetable"counts as
well - I mean, turkeys are pretty much brain dead....
Susan, ever the smart-aleck.
Asher N
eea03e...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
Absolutely. I can see celebrating in your home if that is the most
convenient. Even that...
After my conversion, my sister switched the main course to turkey, and made
sure that there was a selection of non-pork, non-shellfish apetizers.
Asher N
Vegeterian by proxy here. The cow eats the veggies for me.
sheldonlg
ROTFL
Herman Rubin
In article <fa460f91-5c66-4011...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch <omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 2:02=A0pm, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article <98a0ef7f-7469-4e9d-b3cd-1dc98ab61...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.=
>com>,yzk =A0<yaaq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 29, 3:06=3DA0am, KarenElizabeth <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com> wrote=
>:
.....................
>> >Authentic Judaism =3D3D belief that the Torah is G-d's actual Word, rath=
>er
>> >than man-made, nothing less.
>> >Yaakov K. in Yerushalayim
>> There are few non-Orthodox scholars who are willing to
>> accept this. =A0One can try to justify some of it, such
>> as the Garden of Eden, as allegory, but there is too
>> much history stated to accept that can be the Word of
>> God, unless God is deliberately lying to us.
>> Divinely inspired, yes; the actual Word, no.
--
>1. the Bible is wrong
This is the general opinion among non-Orthodox scholars.
>2. we interpret it wrong. (worst yet that we translate the orignal
>language wrong and do not understand the culture of East which the
>Bible was written)
We have a fairly good understanding, especially with the
discovery of Ugaritic writings, and recent archaelogical
findings.
>3. we just can not accept that it is what it is, that we we twist
>things because the truth makes uncomfortable.
False.
>4. we are just guessing as to what we know of the past due to not
>having lived then. That we interpret even history within respect to
>our current lives and culture.
This is not the problem. We have many writings from ancient
times which show us the situation then, INCLUDING validating
quite a bit of Nach.
>It is very possible that both evolution and a Creator exist. That
>what we have in Gensis is about a recreation of the Earth after a war
>in heaven. After all the portion that is translated "was without form
>and void" should have been translated "became without form and void".
I have no problem with evolution and a Creator. I find the
first 2+ "days" as written in the Hebrew can be translated
in excellent accord with the Big Bang theory.
>Also that people did live longer thousands of years ago as their
>bodies were stronger and healthier. That our genetic code has been
>screwed with which makes us live fewer years.
There have been many articles showing that the ages
correspond to lunar months. The Septuagint has
slightly different ages for the birth of the named
son, and these also correspond to lunar months.
The ages of the Patriarchs and others in that generation
make excellent sense if the period is half-years. This
would make Abraham 50 and Sarah 45 and post-menopausal,
and the age of Isaac at the time of Sarah's death 18,
which corresponds with the term "lad" in the Akedah.
maxine in ri
> And the only reason I'm not passing all of this off as a sad joke is
> because it was apparently featured in the New York Times and read by
> many people who don't understand that there is a difference between a
> real conversion and this pathetic display of an ersatz conversion, and
> it reflects badly on every single Jew, of any persuasion. What a
> chillul HaShem.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
The one serving the ham is not yet converted (altho her Jewish fiancee
was the cook, but I won't go there), so for her and her mother, it's
not a problem to be eating the pork, is it?
The NYTimes has a history of printing stories of "modern" Jews, those
who do not observe mitzvos but proudly claim to be "cultural" Jews,
and how they are melding their traditions with the mainstream
culture. Stories like this one make me shudder, but don't surprise me
in the slightest.
maxine in ri
maxine in ri
> Then there are folks, including close friends, who have an
> immaculately and expensive kosher kitchen at home and will eat
> anything outside the home. I haven't worked that out yet.
That's how I was raised. Then there is the other set of dishes, the
ones used for eating the leftovers from the meal eaten out.
maxine in ri
maxine in ri
> > Think of similar problems with a daughter who is vegetarian, even
> > worst if they are vegan. A lot of families, to include Jews, have to
> > deal with this. Food is the new "religious" issue.
>
> I have a daughter who is a vegetarian and I am currently trapped in
> the house with her until her mother comes home on Sunday. It's awful.
All I can say is "learn to cook."
<g>
maxine in ri
cindys
> On Dec 28, 5:00 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > And the only reason I'm not passing all of this off as a sad joke is
> > because it was apparently featured in the New York Times and read by
> > many people who don't understand that there is a difference between a
> > real conversion and this pathetic display of an ersatz conversion, and
> > it reflects badly on every single Jew, of any persuasion. What a
> > chillul HaShem.
> > Best regards,
> > ---Cindy S.
>
> The one serving the ham is not yet converted (altho her Jewish fiancee
> was the cook, but I won't go there), so for her and her mother, it's
> not a problem to be eating the pork, is it?
There isn't a halachic problem with the ham, no. But that wasn't the
real issue/question. The issue/question was that this woman is in the
process of converting, ostensibly wants to be Jewish, yet she's still
having a full-blown Christmas celebration. So, what is her purpose in
converting? What does this net her? Didn't anybody ever explain to her
than when you convert to Judaism, it means that you don't celebrate
Christmas anymore? And it wasn't as if she went to her mother's house
to share in the family celebration. This was her own personal
celebration, at her house! If she wants to continue to celebrate
Christmas, great! But then, don't convert to Judaism.
For most people, the time approaching conversion is supposed to be a
learning time, a get-acclimated to Judaism time. When my younger son
was ostensibly going to convert to Judaism (when the conversion was
just a few months off, before he decided not to convert), my sister
asked if our policy was that my son could eat treif until he
converted, and if he could go to Friendly's with them? (FTR, until my
younger son decided not to convert, he never ate treif in his entire
life, to the best of my knowledge). My sister's question just baffled
me. If a person is in chinuch (the learning period) to be a ger tzedek
(righteous convert), why would he go out and eat treif at the 11th
hour? It was just bizarre.
If someone is going to find conversion such a hardship that he's got
to go out for that cheeseburger, got to have that Christmas tree, then
maybe he really doesn't want to convert and needs to rethink his
position. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but that's the way I see it.
No one is suggesting the woman in the article should run out and cover
her hair, but if she's converting to Judaism, I don't think it's
unreasonable to expect that she's going to give up eating ham and
celebrating Christmas.
>
> The NYTimes has a history of printing stories of "modern" Jews, those
> who do not observe mitzvos but proudly claim to be "cultural" Jews,
> and how they are melding their traditions with the mainstream
> culture. Stories like this one make me shudder, but don't surprise me
> in the slightest.
>
Yes. and I said before, it makes all Jews look bad. It gives the non-
Jewish public the false impression that all Jews behave like this. And
I think to a large extent that's what the American public likes to
see.
Do you remember the movie we discussed here about six months back?
About the chareidi girl whose ba'al teshuvah husband dies, and she
marries his secular brother? That's the one where a few SCJMers were
miffed because the actress/comedian who played the role of the mother
said Chassidic women were "ugly." Didn't I predict that the "happy"
ending was that the main character was going to abandon frumkeit and
become secular? Well, guess what... she even joined an R temple and
became good friends with the female rabbi. The likelihood of this
happening in real life is close to zero, but it gave the American
public what they wanted to see. They would never have wanted to see
the secular husband become frum.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Yussel
How about the fact the family that controls the newspaper used to be
Jewish and is now Episcopalian.
j
cindys
Who would have guessed?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
moi moi
> From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
>
> j
*yawn*
Isn't Chanukah about not assimilating?
When I converted, I got rid off all my Xmas stuff, including the $2K
creche and $$$ hand blown glass tree bulbs.
All my relatives celebrate Christmas to the hilt. Never felt the need
for a Chanukah bush for the past 20 years or any of the other parts.
It's a wonderful feeling not being part of the Xmas madness.
Nan-->that article sounded so whiney.....
Abe Kohen
"mirjam" <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote in message
news:2b2fc21b-6b9e-41ae...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Thank you Cindy , i might be looking strange to all of you , but if
> some one converts to Judaism , why go on celebrating Christmas ?
> mirjam
This is an excellent question and leads us back to a story about our
matriarchs (in Genesis/B'reishit) wherein she stole her father's idols at a
time when our Ivri patriarchs were marrying (albeit before matan tora)
non-Ivri women.
The lesson IMHO, is that even for a ger tzedek, it is difficult at times,
but we should help them make the transition, not - has v'halila - by helping
them celebrate Xmas, but by providing them with alternatives to be in Jewish
company.
(Mirjam, please QUOTE what you are replying to. Many of us do not use google
groups, and can only guess what you are replying to.)
Best,
Abe
Abe Kohen
"maxine in ri" <wee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6efe5d47-af09-4b2d...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------
I couldn't figure out what his problem is. Thanks for the clarification.
We have worked around vegetarian/vegan/likes/dislikes as a family and have
never had problems.
Better yet - teach her to cook. Some of the most delicious food I've eaten
has been cooked by a vegetarian offspring. The flavors are really special.
Best,
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Yussel" <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac725b2c-e20a-4300...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for checking the website. The byline in the story was
unfamiliar to me and I am guessing it is a stringer, a freelancer not
on staff at the Times. The Times has been having stringer problems
lately, one of the results of cutting newsroom staff. Even the Times
is getting hit and the quality of journalism suffers almost
immediately. I stopped reading the Baltimore Sun when the errors
became obvious. The staff is less than half what it used to be. You
can't outsource journalism.
j
----------------------------------------
Perhaps you can and perhaps you cannot outsource journalism, but the NY
Times has outsourced truth for a very long time.
Bloomberg (the company, not the mayor) is hiring journalists like crazy.
It's their next strategic growth area.
Best,
Abe
Abe Kohen
> From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>
>
> j
Thank you for posting this. It touches on honoring one's parents vs engaging
in forbidden behavior.
I had the great fortune to sit next to Rabbi Professor Harold Reichman of YU
on the return flight from Israel and while he was editing his writings based
on Rav Soloveichik's teachings, he taught me a topic in Talmud on the first
chapter in Yevamot. Here is a small part of what he taught me which may be
relevant to the article and corrects an erroneous assertion that one should
celebrate Xmas out of respect for one's parents.
Any and all mistakes are mine.
There is a general rule that a positive commandment overrides any negative
commandment. One exception is when a parent (whom you are obligated to
respect and fear) commands you to violate a negative mitzvah. For example, a
parent commands you to eat pork. You are not allowed to eat the pork. Where
is the respect? In that you are not allowed to argue/fight with your parent.
Don't eat the pork but keep quiet - out of respect.
Best,
Abe Kohen
mm
This works if someone thinks of commandements as commandments and
rules as rules.
Remember that blog by Aliza Hausman, one of those interviewed,
http://www.alizahausman.net/ , that I excerpted. This is some of
what she wrote:
"I really wish that the article had touched upon which movements
within Judaism everyone was converting to but I can understand why you
didn't. Unfortunately, I think it will confuse a lot of people because
I think people (outside of Judaism) will read this and not understand
that Jewish fiances in the Conservative movement and Orthodox movement
wouldn't be making Christmas ham for their future in-laws. Also, that
no one I know has a Hanukkah bush (though that the blue-and-silver
decorations was a cute touch)."
chsw
Bloomberg sees the SkyNews Group's expansion into business news
as a strategic threat. Hence, they will expand their business
coverage, and perhaps even try to invade SkyNews' turf.
chsw
mm
That seems fair.
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> Ask her if the medical term "vegetable"counts as
> >> well - I mean, turkeys are pretty much brain dead....
> >>
> >> Susan, ever the smart-aleck.
> >>
> >
> >Vegeterian by proxy here. The cow eats the veggies for me.
>
> That seems fair.
Hey, you know that any evil devourer of those
innocent vegetables deserves the death penalty!
Susan
Joe Bruno
> From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>
>
> j
If they have converted to Judaism, why would they care about or
celebrate Christmas?????
The article makes no sense.
Joe Bruno
> Yussel wrote:
> > From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
>
> > j
>
> feelings, though.
I don't know any Jews(and I know hundreds) who eat ham or pork,
That is one part of Kasruth they all obey.
Of course, they are all Conservatives. Perhaps the Reform Jews eat
pigs.
Don Levey
Some simply go to restaurants where they don't eat any *visible* treif,
but still use the same plates and utensils, and eat food cooked with
non-visible treif ingredients in the same cookware that cooked shrimp,
pork, and milk/meat mixtures.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
chsw
People for Ethical Treatment of Invertebrates and People for
Ethical Environments for Vegetables (PETI and PEEV) are annoyed
with you.
chsw
sheldonlg
> On Dec 28 2009, 10:49 am, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> Yussel wrote:
>>> From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
>>> j
>> Not all Jews keep kosher. Interesting insight into their thoughts and
>> feelings, though.
>
> I don't know any Jews(and I know hundreds) who eat ham or pork,
> That is one part of Kasruth they all obey.
I belonged to a C synagogue for about eight years. In all that time I
ate pork and ham. As I said, I don't keep kosher. So now you have one.
BTW, I knew MANY such.
Don Levey
fla...@verizon.net
My work here is done!
(Who was that masked woman...?)
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Jan-2010, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 5-Jan-2010, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Ask her if the medical term "vegetable"counts as
> >>>> well - I mean, turkeys are pretty much brain dead....
> >>>>
> >>>> Susan, ever the smart-aleck.
> >>>>
> >>> Vegeterian by proxy here. The cow eats the veggies for me.
> >> That seems fair.
> >
> > Hey, you know that any evil devourer of those
> > innocent vegetables deserves the death penalty!
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM
So is meat - tasty, TASTY murder!
(I wore that shirt to work - made sure to
show the guys behind the meat counter....)
Susan
Harry Weiss
> On Dec 28, 10:12?pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
> > cindys wrote:
> > > On Dec 28, 5:33 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >> In <080b857a-c4d9-4e34-b07e-bbb6964f4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > >>>> In *this* case I will have to (surprised?) agree with you. =A0After all,
> > >>>> pig is specifically prohibited in the Torah. =A0Had it been meatballs wit=
> > >>> h
> > >>>> fettucini alfredo, then I wouldn't have agreed with you.
> > >>> And I agree with both of you.
> > >> Yeah, it highlights kind of a tough intellectual/emotional problem with R.
> > >> On the one hand, if you, as an R Jew, have determined that you do not need
> > >> to keep kosher (via whatever mechanism you've made that decision) that's
> > >> one thing, but when it comes to conversion, I guess you have to ask what's
> > >> the point? Why do you even need/want to convert? I mean that as a real
> > >> question - what's the benefit of the actual conversion? What's it really
> > >> mean?
> >
> > > snip
> > > ---------
> > > I agree. This was pretty much my point as well.
> > > Best regards,
> > > ---Cindy S.
> >
> > ....and even I agreed because the dinner they were serving was ham. ?If
> > it had been something else, then I would not have wondered "why are they
> > even converting". ?Serving pig is an obvious "it's not Jewish", even if
> > you decide to eat it. ?You just don't serve it.
> >
> > You all know I don't keep kosher. ?However, when I have my seder and
> > invite guests in (half Jewish, half not), I wouldn't dream of serving
> > ham or anything like that. ?If I did, then why even have the seder? ?It,
> > well, is "disrespectful and incongruous".
> >
> > (Yes, there is milk for the coffee even though there are meat dishes.
> > That isn't an "in-your-face kind of thing, IMHO).
> >
> > I don't know if I have accurately expressed my feelings, but I hope I
> > have as this is the best I can do.
> The last time I met one of my closest relative's R rabbi was at a
> lunch in which the main dish was shrimp. I understand that R's leave
> kashruth as a personal choice but I found that disconcerting.
> Then there are folks, including close friends, who have an
> immaculately and expensive kosher kitchen at home and will eat
> anything outside the home. I haven't worked that out yet.
> j
What I found disconerting was a few years back, there was Jewish hertiage
night at the rivercats (the local AAA baseball team). Sitting in front of
me was a man with a kipah ordering from the vendor a treif hot dog.
Later I found he was a new R Rabbi in town.(He is actually a very nice man
and does try to educate his community)
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Joe Bruno
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Dec 28 2009, 10:49 am, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
> >> Yussel wrote:
> >>> From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
> >>> j
> >> Not all Jews keep kosher. Interesting insight into their thoughts and
> >> feelings, though.
>
> > I don't know any Jews(and I know hundreds) who eat ham or pork,
> > That is one part of Kasruth they all obey.
> > Of course, they are all Conservatives. Perhaps the Reform Jews eat
> > pigs.
>
> Some simply go to restaurants where they don't eat any *visible* treif,
> but still use the same plates and utensils, and eat food cooked with
> non-visible treif ingredients in the same cookware that cooked shrimp,
> pork, and milk/meat mixtures.
The question is a practical one of scientific fact. Metal utensils and
cookware are not porous, so they don't retain juices
of anything cooked in them. Ceramic pots do.
Don Levey
ceramic - or wood?
Not mentioning, of course, that the traditional standards of kashrut and
scientific standards are orthogonal.
Joe Bruno
I'm quite sure that the San Diego County Health department requires
metal cookware in all the restaurants they inspect and certify.
Abe Kohen
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:hib8kk$7fr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
IMHO, not orthogonal, just reflective of the rabbis' understanding of
materials science at the time, using macro properties, not micro, and surely
not nano.
Best,
Abe
Joe Bruno
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Dec 28 2009, 10:49 am, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
> >> Yussel wrote:
> >>> From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
> >>> j
> >> Not all Jews keep kosher. Interesting insight into their thoughts and
> >> feelings, though.
>
> > I don't know any Jews(and I know hundreds) who eat ham or pork,
> > That is one part of Kasruth they all obey.
>
> I belonged to a C synagogue for about eight years. In all that time I
> ate pork and ham. As I said, I don't keep kosher. So now you have one.
> BTW, I knew MANY such.
So that's why you became Reform-so you could ignore the Kasruth laws?
I've been a C Jew all my life. Some of my relatives keep Kosher, some
don't.
But I know that NONE of them eat pork or ham.
I decided on my own last year to begin keeping Kosher. It was my
decision alone.
I'm going to do it by the book,on the basis of what the Torah says,
not on the basis of what someone tells me is Kosher.
>
>
>
sheldonlg
> On Jan 6, 5:54 am, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> Joe Bruno wrote:
>>> On Dec 28 2009, 10:49 am, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>> Yussel wrote:
>>>>> From the New York Times. And note the reference to the ham dinner.
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/nyregion/26convert.html?_r=2&scp=1&...
>>>>> j
>>>> Not all Jews keep kosher. Interesting insight into their thoughts and
>>>> feelings, though.
>>> I don't know any Jews(and I know hundreds) who eat ham or pork,
>>> That is one part of Kasruth they all obey.
>> I belonged to a C synagogue for about eight years. In all that time I
>> ate pork and ham. As I said, I don't keep kosher. So now you have one.
>> BTW, I knew MANY such.
>
> So that's why you became Reform-so you could ignore the Kasruth laws?
Aaaarrrrgh. I give up.
Art Werschulz
Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> writes:
> I've never seen ceramic forks, knives or spoons. Have you?
Ceramic soup spoons at Chinese restaurants.
--
Art Werschulz (agw STRUDEL comcast.net)
.... insert clever quote here ...
Dvora
Re: Converts to Judaism sometimes face a lonely Christmas
Group: soc.culture.jewish.moderated Date: Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 3:36pm
(EST+5) From: a...@comcast.net (Art Werschulz)
Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> writes:
I've never seen ceramic forks, knives or spoons. Have you?
Ceramic soup spoons at Chinese restaurants.
--
AND CERAMIC DISHES AND BOWLS !!!!!!
Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
Amitai
Torah" or simply that you intend to follow the rules strictly? In the
latter case, which rules do you intend to follow?
Amitai
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Joe Bruno
The Talmud was originally oral, but is now in print.
There is no more oral law.
I mean the written Torah, most specifically Leviticus, chapter 11.
Tne ban on mixing meat and dairy products is based on one passage of
the Torah which can be interpreted many ways.
It does not necessarily apply to Kasruth.
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Jan-2010, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > The question is a practical one of scientific fact. Metal utensils and
> > > cookware are not porous, so they don't retain juices
> > > of anything cooked in them. Ceramic pots do.
> >
> > Are you positive that every utensil and dish used is metal and not
> > ceramic - or wood?
> > Not mentioning, of course, that the traditional standards of kashrut and
> > scientific standards are orthogonal.
> >
> > --
> I've never seen ceramic forks, knives or spoons. Have you?
Yes, Ihave.
Maybe they don't need kashering between switching
uses, but metal ones would.
> I'm quite sure that the San Diego County Health department requires
> metal cookware in all the restaurants they inspect and certify.
Which is fine, if this were a newsgroup for dicusson of health laws.
Susan
meir b.
Where does Leviticus 11 (or any other verse in the Torah) use the
term "kashruth"? That term, since its inception (and it is centuries
post-Talmudic), was never limited to Leviticus 11. If that is all you
are observing, then at least display the verbal accuracy and the
intellectual honesty not to refer to it as keeping kosher. What you
are observing are the laws of pure and impure species. That'what the
Torah calls it, right there in Leviticus 11.
The Torah also prohibits eating neveila and tereifa. How do you
understand these restrictions, and how do you observe them? And what
about Leviticus 3:17, prohibiting all suet and blood? Is your meat
salted to avoid eating the blood it contains, and trimmed to remove
suet?
Meir B.
sheldonlg
an aside:
Growing up my home was kosher. When we could afford steak, it was
COOKED. What I mean by that is that it was akin to eating shoe leather.
I never liked steak, or hamburgers, or fish, etc. (My mother could burn
water :-). A "cook" she wasn't).
When I went out on my own and began cooking for myself, I discovered I
loved steak (and fish, etc.). Of course, I eat it medium-rare. That
means that it is juicy (AKA, bloody). What makes it juicy is two things
-- not overcooking it so that the inside has just become pink at the
center and not removing the fat.
BTW, I wasn't aware until your post that removing the fat was a
requirement. (I had to look up "suet").
Yes, I know it is healthier to remove the fat -- but you only live once
and when I eat red meat, I want it "almost red".
cindys
It's not all fats. "Suet" refers to only a certain kind of fat. Also,
there is no prohibition on eating medium rare meat. The blood is
considered to be removed as a result of the draining and salting
processes. Assuming this has been done in accordance with halacha, you
can cook the meat to whatever temperature you want, and it is
considered to be kosher, even if it still appears to contain blood.
The one exception is liver which must be broiled, as it is considered
to contain so much blood that the usual blood removal methods are not
sufficient.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Harry Weiss
> an aside:
A rare steak can be strictly kosher. there are two types of fats in an
animal, some kosher some not. The marbling in a kosher steak is not the
prohbitited type.
mm
AIUI, there is no prohibition against eating raw meat, except liver,
for the reasons you give below. Not all meat tastes good raw. And my
mother used to tell me that cooking it a lot makes it tender, and that
is true after a certain point. But the first part of the cooking
makes at least some meat tougher, then later cooking makes it tender.
Somewhere I read that it's the meat with collagen that needs long
cooking to be tender.
>The blood is
>considered to be removed as a result of the draining and salting
>processes. Assuming this has been done in accordance with halacha, you
>can cook the meat to whatever temperature you want, and it is
>considered to be kosher, even if it still appears to contain blood.
>The one exception is liver which must be broiled, as it is considered
>to contain so much blood that the usual blood removal methods are not
>sufficient.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will not discuss this matter with you or anyone else on SCJM. If I
need advice, I will get reliable professional advice from a
Conservative rabbi. I do not want advice from Reform or Orthodox Jews.
Joe Bruno
If I need advice I will ask a Conservative rabbi to insure the advice
I get is reliable and professional.
.I do not want any advice from Reform or Orthdox Jews.
Joe Bruno
advice on Kasruth, I'll get reliable professional advice from the
rabbi.
Don Levey
Having spent some time as a professional cook: yes, I have. As well as
other cookware.
> I'm quite sure that the San Diego County Health department requires
> metal cookware in all the restaurants they inspect and certify.
>
In my area quite a number of the (East-) Asian restaurants use wood and
or bamboo implements in the kitchens.
Don Levey
Perhaps at the time. At this time, though, they don't seem to be related.
Don Levey
>> ------
>> It's not all fats. "Suet" refers to only a certain kind of fat. Also,
>> there is no prohibition on eating medium rare meat.
>
> AIUI, there is no prohibition against eating raw meat, except liver,
> for the reasons you give below. Not all meat tastes good raw. And my
> mother used to tell me that cooking it a lot makes it tender, and that
> is true after a certain point. But the first part of the cooking
> makes at least some meat tougher, then later cooking makes it tender.
>
> Somewhere I read that it's the meat with collagen that needs long
> cooking to be tender.
>
example, was always made with cheap (and tough) cuts of meat. Roasting
for several hours allowed the collagen to break down and the meat to
become fork-tender. Using "better" cuts of meat for a pot roast would
actually be counter-productive, as they lack the collagen and connective
tissue, don't break down, and just become tough.
sheldonlg
meat is tender if it is a good quality meat and also depends upon the
cut/location. Too much cooking makes it tougher (LIKE SHOE LEATHER).
sheldonlg
He guys he is trying to make O and R allies against C. Wow.
sheldonlg
Liver would never have been a problem. I even hate chopped liver.
meir b.
> I will not discuss this matter with you or anyone else on SCJM. If I
> need advice, I will get reliable professional advice from a
> Conservative rabbi. I do not want advice from Reform or Orthodox Jews.
I believe the technical term for your response is "copout."
I wasn't giving advice; I was pointing out incinsistencies and
asking questions about your practice, and your response would seem to
indicate that you have no answers.
Meir B.
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
Another exception: If 72 hours have elapsed since the schechita and
the meat has not yet been salted, salting will no longer suffice, and
the meat must be broiled, the same as liver. And in such case, the
meat must be eaten broiled. It may not be cooked in any other manner
after broiling. Most authorities hold that this also applies to liver
that was not broiled until after 72 hours.
GEK
Harry Weiss
> On Jan 10, 4:37?pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
then why post here instead of asking. Of course you said, and when called
on it you reiterated that your are gone from here, so the value of your
word is qute clear
Steve Goldfarb
>When I went out on my own and began cooking for myself, I discovered I
>loved steak (and fish, etc.). Of course, I eat it medium-rare. That
>means that it is juicy (AKA, bloody). What makes it juicy is two things
>-- not overcooking it so that the inside has just become pink at the
>center and not removing the fat.
>BTW, I wasn't aware until your post that removing the fat was a
>requirement. (I had to look up "suet").
>Yes, I know it is healthier to remove the fat -- but you only live once
>and when I eat red meat, I want it "almost red".
Meat juice isn't blood, and the fat on a steak isn't suet.
--s
--
Joe Bruno
That's your opinion and it really doesn't matter to me.
cindys
Unless the meat has been washed down at regular intervals. Before some
changes in our butcher shop, the butcher used to carry the "regular"
meat and the "three-day meat." For someone who didn't know what this
meant, the image was....less than appealing.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
Isn't meat normally aged? The best way is called "dry aging" and takes
from two to four weeks.
cindys
> cindys wrote:
snip
> > Unless the meat has been washed down at regular intervals. Before some
> > changes in our butcher shop, the butcher used to carry the "regular"
> > meat and the "three-day meat." For someone who didn't know what this
> > meant, the image was....less than appealing.
> > Best regards,
> > ---Cindy S.
>
> Isn't meat normally aged?
Not kosher meat, that I know of. I have never heard that expression
used with respect to kosher meat. I don't even know what that means,
that meat (like fine wine) ideally needs to sit around for a while in
order to taste good?
At any rate, according to halacha, in order to be kosher, meat needs
to undergo the salting process within 72 hours (three days) of
slaughter. If this is not possible, there is a workaround/loophole
wherein the meat can be washed down within the 72-hour timeframe, and
then more than 72 hours can pass before the salting process, and the
meat will still be kosher. My understanding of the "three-day meat" or
"72-hour meat" is that this workaround/loophole was not utilized, and
the meat was salted within the 72-hour timeframe. I am open to
correction on any of what I wrote above.
> The best way is called "dry aging" and takes
> from two to four weeks.
As I said, I've never heard of this WRT kosher meat.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>Not kosher meat, that I know of. I have never heard that expression
>used with respect to kosher meat. I don't even know what that means,
>that meat (like fine wine) ideally needs to sit around for a while in
>order to taste good?
Basically, yes - from what I understand it's really only something you do
with beef, and especially steaks. They're left in the cooler to age for
some period of time, up to 3 weeks or so I guess. This dries out some of
the water (up to 20%, according to askthemeatman.com) and thereby
concentrates the flavors. I think there might also be a tenderizing effect
from enzymes. Since the "moistness" you get in cooked meat is from the
fat, not the water, it shouldn't affect that. It's something they do in
high-end steak houses.
>At any rate, according to halacha, in order to be kosher, meat needs
>to undergo the salting process within 72 hours (three days) of
>slaughter. If this is not possible, there is a workaround/loophole
>wherein the meat can be washed down within the 72-hour timeframe, and
>then more than 72 hours can pass before the salting process, and the
>meat will still be kosher. My understanding of the "three-day meat" or
>"72-hour meat" is that this workaround/loophole was not utilized, and
>the meat was salted within the 72-hour timeframe. I am open to
>correction on any of what I wrote above.
Don't know why you couldn't salt it and then dry age it after, but
apparently it's not done.
Alton Brown did a segment on it, he recommends just keeping your beef in
the refrigerator for a couple weeks (but I'm sure there are details
involved, so don't do that based on what I'm saying)
--s
--
Don Levey
> In <af25eb2c-0f6d-4dab...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>> Not kosher meat, that I know of. I have never heard that expression
>> used with respect to kosher meat. I don't even know what that means,
>> that meat (like fine wine) ideally needs to sit around for a while in
>> order to taste good?
>
> Basically, yes - from what I understand it's really only something you do
> with beef, and especially steaks. They're left in the cooler to age for
> some period of time, up to 3 weeks or so I guess. This dries out some of
> the water (up to 20%, according to askthemeatman.com) and thereby
> concentrates the flavors. I think there might also be a tenderizing effect
> from enzymes. Since the "moistness" you get in cooked meat is from the
> fat, not the water, it shouldn't affect that. It's something they do in
> high-end steak houses.
>
The meat itself starts to break down a bit, making it more tender. It
*must* be dry-aged, as additional moisture would make a more hospitable
environment for bacteria.
It may be that this doesn't tend to happen at kosher restaurants because
they don't see the market for it, rather than any particularly religious
reason.
cindys
> In <af25eb2c-0f6d-4dab-849f-789a71f67...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
snip
>
> >At any rate, according to halacha, in order to be kosher, meat needs
> >to undergo the salting process within 72 hours (three days) of
> >slaughter. If this is not possible, there is a workaround/loophole
> >wherein the meat can be washed down within the 72-hour timeframe, and
> >then more than 72 hours can pass before the salting process, and the
> >meat will still be kosher. My understanding of the "three-day meat" or
> >"72-hour meat" is that this workaround/loophole was not utilized, and
> >the meat was salted within the 72-hour timeframe. I am open to
> >correction on any of what I wrote above.
>
> Don't know why you couldn't salt it and then dry age it after, but
> apparently it's not done.
For all I know, maybe it is. I've just never heard of it.
>
> Alton Brown did a segment on it, he recommends just keeping your beef in
> the refrigerator for a couple weeks (but I'm sure there are details
> involved, so don't do that based on what I'm saying)
Not me. You are talking to the queen of "check that expiration date."
I wouldn't keep raw beef in my refrigerator for more than a few days.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>The meat itself starts to break down a bit, making it more tender. It
>*must* be dry-aged, as additional moisture would make a more hospitable
>environment for bacteria.
>It may be that this doesn't tend to happen at kosher restaurants because
>they don't see the market for it, rather than any particularly religious
>reason.
Did a little more reading, and it also adds considerably to the cost as
meat is sold by weight, and when you dry age beef it becomes lighter, and
further apparently you need to discard some rind-like parts, so you lose
some quantity there, too.
I don't recall ever trying real dry aged beef, but a Web site says it's
kind of an acquired taste as it's gamier.
Also, it works best on certain well-marbled cuts, and since the best steak
cuts are in the rear which isn't used in the US for kosher meat...
So there's a bunch of reasons why even if it's possible to dry age kosher
beef why no one bothers.
--s
--