'Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality- JONAH'
N.R.
non-profit organization is staffed entirely by volunteers, with Rabbi Rosenberg
assisting as a clinical consultant. JONAH serves as a worldwide information and
referral center, operates therapy groups for people who want to overcome
homosexual orientations, and provides professional guidance to similar groups in
Israel."
Excerpt from 'Struggling To Return
One Jewish group is helping homosexuals return to heterosexuality' full-text at:
http://www.jewsweek.com/society/036.htm
Lisa
>"JONAH — Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality. The New Jersey-based
>non-profit organization is staffed entirely by volunteers, with Rabbi Rosenberg
>assisting as a clinical consultant. JONAH serves as a worldwide information and
>referral center, operates therapy groups for people who want to overcome
>homosexual orientations, and provides professional guidance to similar groups in
>Israel."
"JOSHUA — Jews Offering Successful Homosexual Underrated Alternatives.
The Santa Cruz-based non-profit organization is staffed entirely by
helpful volunteers, with a wide range of psychological *professionals*
assisting as clinical consultants. JOSHUA serves as a worldwide
information and referral center, operates therapy groups for people
who want to overcome their heterosexual indoctrination, and provides
professional guidance to similar groups in Israel."
From a Jewish perspective, JOSHUA is a much more appropriate group
than JONAH, since there are far more halakhic pitfalls for a person
engaging in the heterosexual lifestyle to worry about. One may not
place himself (or herself) in the way of sin, and heterosexuality is
rife with the potential for serious sins, many of which are punishable
by the death penalty or "karet" (being cut off).
JOSHUA helps serious Jews who are only pursuing this dangerous
lifestyle because of the indoctrination they were subjected to as
youths to realize their true potential, as happy gay or lesbian Jews.
From a general perspective, JONAH is nothing more than an offshoot of
the quackery known as "NARTH". NARTH, or the National Association for
the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality, is a joke organization
which has driven numerous people, including a few Jews I know, to the
brink of suicide, by trying to coerce them into behaving in an
unnatural manner (pursuing heterosexual liasons when they are gay or
lesbian). Their peers see them as jokes or worse, and their leaders
spend their time writing such imbecilic scribblings as The Pink
Swastika, in which is it argued that the Nazis did what they did
because they were all gay. Something which would undoubtedly have
come as a major shock to the gays who were herded into concentration
camps and incinerated for being gay.
Jonah, we may recall, is best known for running away from God and
ending his story dying of thirst and heat in the desert. JONAH offers
worse yet to its victims.
Lisa
Lisa
I just wanted to add (tacky as it is, following up to my own post)
that the whole lesson of the book of Jonah is that God cares about all
His creatures. Jonah wanted God to say, "Uck. Yich. Not them.
They're excluded." And all the suffering Jonah went through in the
book was God teaching him, the hard way, that Jonah's gut feelings of
"uck, yich" were not shared by God.
JONAH is a marvelous name for this horrid group.
Lisa
Susan Cohen
Even tho' the only people I know who've been involved with
stuff like this are (okay, were) Xtians, the idea is the same.
The best thing to do is to help people deal with who they are
and accept the rules under which they must live.
Yes, homosexual males wants more than heterosexual males
to do the sexual acts forbidden men in Judaism. This is a shame.
But all it means is that the community must give them more help
& support - not ridiculous crap that only makes *us* feel
better!!
Susan
Henry Goodman
"Lisa" <star...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3b242d82...@news.earthlink.net...
> On 10 Jun 2001 23:58:51 GMT, "N.R." <s...@reply-to.field> wrote:
>
> >"JONAH - Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality. The New
Jersey-based
> >non-profit organization is staffed entirely by volunteers, with Rabbi
Rosenberg
> >assisting as a clinical consultant. JONAH serves as a worldwide
information and
> >referral center, operates therapy groups for people who want to overcome
> >homosexual orientations, and provides professional guidance to similar
groups in
> >Israel."
>
> "JOSHUA - Jews Offering Successful Homosexual Underrated Alternatives.
> The Santa Cruz-based non-profit organization is staffed entirely by
> helpful volunteers, with a wide range of psychological *professionals*
> assisting as clinical consultants. JOSHUA serves as a worldwide
> information and referral center, operates therapy groups for people
> who want to overcome their heterosexual indoctrination, and provides
> professional guidance to similar groups in Israel."
>
> From a Jewish perspective, JOSHUA is a much more appropriate group
> than JONAH, since there are far more halakhic pitfalls for a person
> engaging in the heterosexual lifestyle to worry about. One may not
> place himself (or herself) in the way of sin, and heterosexuality is
> rife with the potential for serious sins, many of which are punishable
> by the death penalty or "karet" (being cut off).
>
What about the mitzvah of peru urevu?
[snip]
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Lisa
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
What about it? I'm gay. My daughter is wonderful. I know tons of
gays and lesbians with children.
But what about pikuach nefesh? The suicide rate for gay and lesbian
teens is *3 times* that of teens in general. And the only reason for
this is the fear of being treated like a pariah because of who they
are. Fear of losing friends or family because people like those
behind JONAH foment a lack of understanding.
Better these kids should die than be gay, right?
Lisa
Micha Berger
:>What about the mitzvah of peru urevu?
: What about it? I'm gay. My daughter is wonderful. I know tons of
: gays and lesbians with children.
This is irrelevent for a number of reasons:
1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
2- It's not obligatory on women.
3- You weren't the person who actually multiplied. While RYBS does mention
adoption as a route to fulfilling an aspect of peru urvu; the actual
codified mitzvah is not fulfilled by raising the child. Many other
mitzvos are, though.
: But what about pikuach nefesh? The suicide rate for gay and lesbian
: teens is *3 times* that of teens in general. And the only reason for
: this is the fear of being treated like a pariah because of who they
: are. Fear of losing friends or family because people like those
: behind JONAH foment a lack of understanding.
: Better these kids should die than be gay, right?
You presuppose your conclusion, that JONAH couldn't make them well adjusted
non-gays. I do not know about the subject to argue that possibility one way
or the other. But you do not make your point.
If JONAH's program works, they aren't fomenting a lack of understanding,
but rather providing hope for happiness in a lifestyle that doesn't come
with an albatross.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
toichen
> Oh, this is bad. This stuff just doesn't work.
> Even tho' the only people I know who've been involved with
> stuff like this are (okay, were) Xtians, the idea is the same.
> The best thing to do is to help people deal with who they are
> and accept the rules under which they must live.
> Yes, homosexual males wants more than heterosexual males
> to do the sexual acts forbidden men in Judaism. This is a shame.
> But all it means is that the community must give them more help
> & support - not ridiculous crap that only makes *us* feel
> better!!
>
> Susan
There are many who say therapy does work, and I don't think the
evidence is conclusive one way or the other.
Being that homosexuality is a sin, I don't see what is wrong in taking
a risk, if any actually exists, and trying to change the homosexual
orientation.
toichen
N.R.
"toichen" <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> There are many who say therapy does work, and I don't think the
> evidence is conclusive one way or the other.
> Being that homosexuality is a sin, I don't see what is wrong in taking
> a risk, if any actually exists, and trying to change the homosexual
> orientation.
I agree with you but I do not think that the 'orientation' itself can be
considered a sin, certainly
when it is completely involuntary, but rather acting upon it.
Eliyahu
While I hate to see another long back-and-forth thread starting on this
topic, didn't we agree the last time this topic arose that the only halachic
prohibition is against one specific act (anal intercourse), and that there
is no specific prohibition against anything else? The apparent gist of your
statement would indicate to most people that just being attracted to a
member of the same sex is in itself a sin.
The biggest risk I see, BTW, in trying to change someone's orientation is
that it not only reinforces the idea that what he or she currently feels is
inherently "bad", but also leaves the vast majority who cannot change with a
feeling that they are a worthless failure for not being able to do so.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Micha Berger
: While I hate to see another long back-and-forth thread starting on this
: topic, didn't we agree the last time this topic arose that the only halachic
: prohibition is against one specific act (anal intercourse), and that there
: is no specific prohibition against anything else?
I remember our conclusion as agreeing to disagree over what other
activities are prohibited. Moshe brought some solid sources for a much
broader prohibition than what Lisa indicated.
: The biggest risk I see, BTW, in trying to change someone's orientation is
: that it not only reinforces the idea that what he or she currently feels is
: inherently "bad"...
But if it's a desire to do something that is a sin, then that desire IS
bad. (Not to say homosexuality is entirely in the domain of the erotic,
and has nothing to do with other aspects of a relationship. I don't know
enough to assert that.)
The evil is in the hands of those who make the issue of sexual orientation
a matter of self-definition rather than a feature. Think of the difference
between skin color and eye color. People self-define by one and not the
other. Ever hear of someone feeling inferior because their eyes are blue,
rather than the brown eyes most of the world's leaders and American
presidents have had?
Eliyahu
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:9g8bmm$3f1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> On 13 Jun 2001 17:31:47 GMT, Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : While I hate to see another long back-and-forth thread starting on this
> : topic, didn't we agree the last time this topic arose that the only
halachic
> : prohibition is against one specific act (anal intercourse), and that
there
> : is no specific prohibition against anything else?
>
> I remember our conclusion as agreeing to disagree over what other
> activities are prohibited. Moshe brought some solid sources for a much
> broader prohibition than what Lisa indicated.
>
is a sin."
> : The biggest risk I see, BTW, in trying to change someone's orientation
is
> : that it not only reinforces the idea that what he or she currently feels
is
> : inherently "bad"...
>
> But if it's a desire to do something that is a sin, then that desire IS
> bad. (Not to say homosexuality is entirely in the domain of the erotic,
> and has nothing to do with other aspects of a relationship. I don't know
> enough to assert that.)
>
But didn't we have a fairly general acceptance here that it wasn't the
desire, but specific acts ("which ones" were the sticking point IIRC) that
were forbidden?
[I'd just as soon drop it here, if that's okay, as I think we pretty well
beat the topic to death last winter.]
> The evil is in the hands of those who make the issue of sexual orientation
> a matter of self-definition rather than a feature. Think of the difference
> between skin color and eye color. People self-define by one and not the
> other. Ever hear of someone feeling inferior because their eyes are blue,
> rather than the brown eyes most of the world's leaders and American
> presidents have had?
>
I think we draw a better parallel if we make that an example where someone
is told not only that their blue eyes make them inferior, but that having
blue eyes is sinful and they need to find a way to change them or hide them.
To add a more specific answer to this question as well... Many of you
already know about my locating my daughter after 27 years of searching.
Anyhow, among the various abuses she endured from her mother and her
mother's family was the (relatively minor) one of being told repeatedly that
her hazel brown eyes (same color as mine) made her less attractive than the
rest of her mom's blue-eyed family. So, Yes, people can be made to feel
inferior over so minor a thing as eye color. Some people will seize on any
little thing if it gives them the opportunity to hurt someone else. <sigh>
Lisa
>On 12 Jun 2001 19:38:46 GMT, Lisa <star...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>What about the mitzvah of peru urevu?
>
>: What about it? I'm gay. My daughter is wonderful. I know tons of
>: gays and lesbians with children.
>
>This is irrelevent for a number of reasons:
>
>1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
You have to start with one.
>2- It's not obligatory on women.
So your question was kind of lame, wasn't it. Since we were talking
about homosexuality, which pertains to both men and women, you should
have asked, "What about the mitzva of pru urvu in the case of men?"
In which case, I would have said more or less the same thing. That I
know numerous gays and lesbians with children. Note that I said gays
and lesbians. In that context, the word "gays" means "gay men".
However, there are poskim who exempt gay men from that mitzvah, or
state that there are other ways of fulfilling it than getting married
and having kids.
>3- You weren't the person who actually multiplied. While RYBS does mention
> adoption as a route to fulfilling an aspect of peru urvu; the actual
> codified mitzvah is not fulfilled by raising the child. Many other
> mitzvos are, though.
>
>: But what about pikuach nefesh? The suicide rate for gay and lesbian
>: teens is *3 times* that of teens in general. And the only reason for
>: this is the fear of being treated like a pariah because of who they
>: are. Fear of losing friends or family because people like those
>: behind JONAH foment a lack of understanding.
>
>: Better these kids should die than be gay, right?
>
>You presuppose your conclusion, that JONAH couldn't make them well adjusted
>non-gays. I do not know about the subject to argue that possibility one way
>or the other. But you do not make your point.
The idea of so-called "reparative therapy" being able to change sexual
orientation has no professional basis to it whatsoever. It's purely
the pipedream of people who think that homosexuality is just too icky
and must be changed. Even NARTH claims a very low success rate, and
notes that even most of their "successes" are never really happy about
it. Since there are far more people in the world who are at least a
little bit bisexual than there are people who are completely
heterosexual or completely homosexual, the few "successes" in this
area were almost certainly just bisexuals who had been attracted
*mostly* to members of the same sex and who managed to find a way to
focus only on members of the opposite sex. I rather imagine that this
success is rarely long term either.
Have you seen the movie "One Nation Under God"? Fascinating film.
It's a documentary about Exodus International. It's the Christian
version of JONAH. It's the Christian Ex-Gay Movement. They had a
major setback when the two men who founded the group finally realized
that they were in love and left. The movie is a rather painful look
at the organization and the lies it told to give the impression that
gays could become straight.
JONAH is no different.
>If JONAH's program works, they aren't fomenting a lack of understanding,
>but rather providing hope for happiness in a lifestyle that doesn't come
>with an albatross.
The albatross is only there because of the people who created JONAH.
The solution to prejudice isn't getting rid of the victims of
prejudice. You don't placate the KKK by bleaching all the blacks
until they're white. You educate people not to hate. Unfortunately,
JONAH wants to do the opposite.
Lisa
Susan Cohen
toichen wrote:
> Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message news:<3B24E0F9...@hers.com>...
> > Oh, this is bad. This stuff just doesn't work.
> > Even tho' the only people I know who've been involved with
> > stuff like this are (okay, were) Xtians, the idea is the same.
> > The best thing to do is to help people deal with who they are
> > and accept the rules under which they must live.
> > Yes, homosexual males wants more than heterosexual males
> > to do the sexual acts forbidden men in Judaism. This is a shame.
> > But all it means is that the community must give them more help
> > & support - not ridiculous crap that only makes *us* feel
> > better!!
> >
> > Susan
>
> There are many who say therapy does work,
Most of them involved in signing people up for it.
> and I don't think the
> evidence is conclusive one way or the other.
> Being that homosexuality is a sin,
No, it is not. Anal intercourse between men is a sin,
be they heterosexual or homosexual.
> I don't see what is wrong in taking
> a risk, if any actually exists, and trying to change the homosexual
> orientation.
Imagine waking up in a world where heterosexuality is a sin, &
imagine someone trying to change you into a homosexual.
What do you think this would do to you?
We have to support these people, & accept them, & help them
not to sin. We can't do this by telling them they are fundamentally
evil inside - especially since it isn't true.
Are there entire oprganizations based at brainwashing people
into no longer liking pork? Didn't think so.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Micha Berger wrote:
> 1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
So what do I have to do since I may never be able to have any more children?
Susan
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
According to Jewish law, the requirement of *p'ru u'Rvu* [having children]
is on the husband and not the wife [see: Aruch haShulchan EVEN HA'EZER
1 # 2; and according to the Aruch haShulchan EH 1 #4, she isn't even
obligated in *shevet* [populating the earth].
Josh
>Susan
Susan Cohen
BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
So this means that my husband must either divorce me,
or knock up some unsuspecting broad?
I don't think either of these is going to happen.
Susan
Micha Berger
:>:>What about the mitzvah of peru urevu?
:>: What about it? I'm gay. My daughter is wonderful. I know tons of
:>: gays and lesbians with children.
:>This is irrelevent for a number of reasons:
:>1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
: You have to start with one.
:>2- It's not obligatory on women.
: So your question was kind of lame, wasn't it....
The person (mot me) who asked the question was referring to gays in
general. You didn't make it about women until your reply to that email.
My point was just to launch into a tangent about the laws of piryah
virivyah, and why your statement doesn't jibe. I was intentionally
not rehashing material we discussed previously.
: However, there are poskim who exempt gay men from that mitzvah, or
: state that there are other ways of fulfilling it than getting married
: and having kids.
THAT would have been a meaningful response. Don't see the reasoning
(sevarah) for such a pesak, but that's a different story.
: The idea of so-called "reparative therapy" being able to change sexual
: orientation has no professional basis to it whatsoever....
That;s debatable. Since homosexuality was removed from the DSM under
severe political pressure, we many never know the truth. The ability
to do unprejudiced studies has been comprimised.
Micha Berger
:> 1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
: So what do I have to do since I may never be able to have any more children?
Nothing. Just like what people did for techeiles (the blue thread)
on their tzitzis for centuries. If you can't, you can't.
Aside from that, the obligation is only imperative on men.
As I mentioned before, R' JB Soloveitchik suggests that an aspect of
peru urvu can be fulfilled through adoption. And there are plenty of
children desprate for homes...
The subject of this thread brings to mind a humerous anecdote...
I listed a former boss as a reference on an application for foster
parenting. (He was an emergency placement home, so I thought he would be
a good choice for recommendation.) So, he asked what my family size had
gotten to since we last spoke. "Eight kids and a dog," I told him. His
response, "Mitch, G-d said be fruitful and multiply, not exponentiate!"
That foster child is now our ninth.
(Yes, I go by "Mitch" at work. The gutteral in "Micha" doesn't cut it
in the American workplace.)
Harry Weiss
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
Remember what Micha said, about youcan do what you can do.
> Susan
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Eliyahu
>
>
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
>
> >
> > >Micha Berger wrote:
> > >
> > >> 1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
> > >
> > >So what do I have to do since I may never be able to have any more
children?
> > >
> >
> > According to Jewish law, the requirement of *p'ru u'Rvu* [having
children]
> > is on the husband and not the wife [see: Aruch haShulchan EVEN HA'EZER
> > 1 # 2; and according to the Aruch haShulchan EH 1 #4, she isn't even
> > obligated in *shevet* [populating the earth].
>
> So this means that my husband must either divorce me,
> or knock up some unsuspecting broad?
> I don't think either of these is going to happen.
>
I was wondering the same thing, though... Since my wife can't have children
and I have just a daughter, does that make it okay for me to look for a
volunteer to finish things?
Susan Cohen
Eliyahu wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:3B282B9C...@hers.com...
> >
> >
> > BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >Micha Berger wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
> > > >
> > > >So what do I have to do since I may never be able to have any more
> children?
> > > >
> > >
> > > According to Jewish law, the requirement of *p'ru u'Rvu* [having
> children]
> > > is on the husband and not the wife [see: Aruch haShulchan EVEN HA'EZER
> > > 1 # 2; and according to the Aruch haShulchan EH 1 #4, she isn't even
> > > obligated in *shevet* [populating the earth].
> >
> > So this means that my husband must either divorce me,
> > or knock up some unsuspecting broad?
> > I don't think either of these is going to happen.
> >
> Can't believe you actually said "broad" like that... :-)
It was my obnoxious voice.
> I was wondering the same thing, though... Since my wife can't have children
> and I have just a daughter, does that make it okay for me to look for a
> volunteer to finish things?
Thats' not something *I* would like to answer on the 'net!
But that's only because I couldn't divorce myself (as it were)
from my personal feelings toward you.
Susan
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
>Subject:Re: 'Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality- JONAH'
>Date: 14 Jun 2001 03:48:09 GMT
>Message-ID:<3B282B9C...@hers.com>
>
>
>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
>
>> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:38969
>>
>> >From: Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
>> >Subject:Re: 'Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality- JONAH'
>> >Date: 13 Jun 2001 23:30:10 GMT
>> >Message-ID:<3B27F296...@hers.com>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Micha Berger wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
>> >
>> >So what do I have to do since I may never be able to have any more children?
>> >
>>
>> According to Jewish law, the requirement of *p'ru u'Rvu* [having children]
>> is on the husband and not the wife [see: Aruch haShulchan EVEN HA'EZER
>> 1 # 2; and according to the Aruch haShulchan EH 1 #4, she isn't even
>> obligated in *shevet* [populating the earth].
>
>So this means that my husband must either divorce me,
>or knock up some unsuspecting broad?
Susan, I see you can't parse a simple English sentence.
You asked what your responsibility was in halacha vis a vis having
children. I responded (above) that the wife HAS NO obligation [the obligation
is on the husband]. What may be confusing you is the dictum that if a wife
cannot bear children within 10 years of marriage, the husband has the
right to request a divorce (GET) [Even Ha'Ezer 1:3 in Rema; EH 154:1].
Josh
>I don't think either of these is going to happen.
>
>Susan
Yisroel Markov
> On 13 Jun 2001 21:45:05 GMT, Lisa <star...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
> : The idea of so-called "reparative therapy" being able to change sexual
> : orientation has no professional basis to it whatsoever....
>
> That;s debatable. Since homosexuality was removed from the DSM under
> severe political pressure, we many never know the truth. The ability
> to do unprejudiced studies has been comprimised.
Speaking of DSM, here's what Robert L. Spitzer, a professor of
psychiatry at Columbia University, wrote in the WSJ on 5/23/01:
"In 1973, I opposed the prevailing orthodoxy in my profession by
leading the effort to remove homosexuality from the official list of
psychiatric disorders. For this, liberals and the gay community
respected me, even as it angered many psychiatric colleagues. I said
then -- as I say now -- that homosexuals can live happy, fulfilled
lives. If they claim to be comfortable as they are, they should not be
accused of lying or of being in denial.
"Now, in 2001, I find myself challenging a new orthodoxy. This
challenge has caused me to be perceived as an enemy of the gay
community, and of many in the psychiatric and academic communities.
"The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for
change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure
and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal. This new
orthodoxy claims that it is impossible for an individual who was
predominantly homosexual for many years to change his sexual
orientation -- not only in his sexual behavior, but also in his
attraction and fantasies -- and to enjoy heterosexuality. Many
professionals go so far as to hold that it is unethical for a
mental-health professional, if requested, to attempt such
psychotherapy.
"This controversy erupted recently, when I reported the results of a
study that asked an important scientific question: Is it really true
that no one who was predominantly homosexual for many years could
strongly diminish his homosexual feelings and substantially develop
heterosexual potential?
"What I found was that, in the unique sample I studied, many made
substantial changes in sexual arousal and fantasy -- and not merely
behavior. Even subjects who made a less substantial change believed it
to be extremely beneficial. Complete change was uncommon.
[...]
"Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior,
but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity;
and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four.
Change in all four is probably less frequent than claimed by
therapists who do this kind of work; in fact, I suspect the vast
majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly
established homosexual orientation. [...] However, I continue to hold
that desire for change cannot always be reduced to succumbing to
society's pressure."
[...]
"The mental health professions should stop moving in the direction of
banning such therapy. Many patients, informed of the possibility that
they may be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a
rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential
and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions. In fact, such a
choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and
self-determination.
"Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding
questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political
agenda. Gay rights are a completely separate issue, and defensible for
ethical reasons. At the end of the day, the full inclusion of gays in
society does not, I submit, require a commitment to the false notion
that sexual orientation is invariably fixed for all people."
And someone else made a pertinent comment:
"Virtually all human characteristics are believed to be distributed on
a bell-shaped curve, with the most common traits at the center and the
less common at the extremes. But sexuality is viewed from a
heterosexist perspective that supposes that most people are strictly
heterosexual and few are homosexual. Suppose that sexuality, however,
was also portrayed with a bell-shaped curve with bisexuality being the
most common trait and both strict hetero- and homosexuality at the
extremes. Historical information supports this hypothesis, especially
if one looks at how common homosexual behavior was during the 14th and
15th century in Florence when half the male population was prosecuted
at one time or another for sodomy, or one looks with an unbiased eye
at Greece during the Archaic period. [...] I think most people cope
well with their occasional attractions and fantasies about the same
sex, but there are others that have difficulty. If we follow the
precept of doing no harm, then we would help these people find ways to
cope with society's prejudices and accept the totality of their
sexuality. -- Richard Harrold, Mt. Pleasant, Mich."
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are two ways to approach life: to believe everything, and to
doubt everything. Both save us from thinking." -- Alfred Korzybsky
Susan Cohen
BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:39001
>
> >From: Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
> >Subject:Re: 'Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality- JONAH'
> >Date: 14 Jun 2001 03:48:09 GMT
> >Message-ID:<3B282B9C...@hers.com>
>
> >
> >
> >BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
> >
> >> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:38969
> >>
> >> >From: Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
> >> >Subject:Re: 'Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality- JONAH'
> >> >Date: 13 Jun 2001 23:30:10 GMT
> >> >Message-ID:<3B27F296...@hers.com>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Micha Berger wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
> >> >
> >> >So what do I have to do since I may never be able to have any more children?
> >> >
> >>
> >> According to Jewish law, the requirement of *p'ru u'Rvu* [having children]
> >> is on the husband and not the wife [see: Aruch haShulchan EVEN HA'EZER
> >> 1 # 2; and according to the Aruch haShulchan EH 1 #4, she isn't even
> >> obligated in *shevet* [populating the earth].
> >
> >So this means that my husband must either divorce me,
> >or knock up some unsuspecting broad?
>
> Susan, I see you can't parse a simple English sentence.
And you can't read the times on a header.
Susan
Lisa
Being that ducks are made out of cast iron, I can't understand how
it's possible to eat them.
Being that trees don't exist, I'm puzzled as to where paper comes
from.
Being that the world is flat, my guess is that people claiming to have
flown around the world are delusional.
You see, if you start with a false premise, your conclusions are bound
to be wonky.
Lisa
toichen
There are many specific prohibitions against many other things. I take
homosexuality to mean an entire spectrum, from feeling to being
attracted to the same sex, and acting upon those feelings. Being
attracted to members of the same sex, if it is involuntary is not a
sin.
> The biggest risk I see, BTW, in trying to change someone's orientation is
> that it not only reinforces the idea that what he or she currently feels is
> inherently "bad",
Unquestionably homosexual feeling are 'bad', just as feelings to live
with mothers or daughters are 'bad'.
> but also leaves the vast majority who cannot change with a
> feeling that they are a worthless failure for not being able to do so.
So would you feel the same way about a Lashon Hora course, would you
ban the course so that the vast majority of others who cannot change
should not feel a worthless failure?
toichen
Yoxar
>His creatures. Jonah wanted God to say, "Uck. Yich. Not them.
>They're excluded." And all the suffering Jonah went through in the
>book was God teaching him, the hard way, that Jonah's gut feelings of
>"uck, yich" were not shared by God
G-d as G-d wants. G-d has prohibited homosexality and homosexuals can do
teshuva too. Jonah didn't think the people of Nineveh were good enough to
return to serving G-d.
N.R.
> (Yes, I go by "Mitch" at work. The gutteral in "Micha" doesn't cut it
> in the American workplace.)
What about Micah, the anglicized version? It's pretty close and yet
not really a goyish name, at least not as goyish as 'Mitch'.
The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
(Also, it is written in a sefer (can't recall offhand which one) that
Yiddish, Farsi and any language that Jews spoke among themselves
to avoid assimilating, have a 'kedusha meiein losh kodesh'- a holiness that
is a semblance of The Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew). Our ancestors went
to great lengths to speak only Yiddish.
At Rav Avigdor Miller's (blessed is his holy memory) funeral, his grandson
said that while R' Miller spoke in English for the benefit of his congregation
who
did not understand Yiddish, he insisted that his own family speak only Yiddish
at home.
Lisa
>On 13 Jun 2001 17:31:47 GMT, Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: While I hate to see another long back-and-forth thread starting on this
>: topic, didn't we agree the last time this topic arose that the only halachic
>: prohibition is against one specific act (anal intercourse), and that there
>: is no specific prohibition against anything else?
>
>I remember our conclusion as agreeing to disagree over what other
>activities are prohibited. Moshe brought some solid sources for a much
>broader prohibition than what Lisa indicated.
Moshe did nothing of the sort. Moshe invented a category of arayot
that included sex between two women (a violation of bal tosif on his
part). He did not bring a single solid halakhic source. He just made
claims loudly and repeatedly.
>: The biggest risk I see, BTW, in trying to change someone's orientation is
>: that it not only reinforces the idea that what he or she currently feels is
>: inherently "bad"...
>
>But if it's a desire to do something that is a sin, then that desire IS
>bad. (Not to say homosexuality is entirely in the domain of the erotic,
>and has nothing to do with other aspects of a relationship. I don't know
>enough to assert that.)
And yet, you just asserted it, by implication.
>The evil is in the hands of those who make the issue of sexual orientation
>a matter of self-definition rather than a feature. Think of the difference
>between skin color and eye color. People self-define by one and not the
>other. Ever hear of someone feeling inferior because their eyes are blue,
>rather than the brown eyes most of the world's leaders and American
>presidents have had?
I'm not inferior because I'm gay, Micha. Superior possibly, but I'll
settle for equal.
Lisa
N.R.
"Yoxar" <yo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010614011327...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
Lisa wrote:
>>Jonah wanted God to say, "Uck. Yich. Not them.
> >They're excluded." And all the suffering Jonah went through in the
> >book was God teaching him, the hard way, that Jonah's gut feelings of
> >"uck, yich" were not shared by God
>Jonah didn't think the people of Nineveh were good enough to
> return to serving G-d.
Actually, the reason Yonah tried to avoid exhorting the people of Ninveh to
teshuva
was out of ahavas yisroel. Whenever goyim are good, G-d has claims against the
Jews
for not being better: "If the goyim can [do a noble or righteous thing], then
certainly you,
my chosen people, can be better!"
Micha Berger
:> (Yes, I go by "Mitch" at work. The gutteral in "Micha" doesn't cut it
:> in the American workplace.)
: What about Micah, the anglicized version? It's pretty close and yet
: not really a goyish name, at least not as goyish as 'Mitch'.
Ask my parents -- that's what's on my birth certificate.
Mitchel is the name of the angel Micha'el, via French. As opposed to
Michael, the same name via German. I have no idea why you'd call it
any more goyish than the English transliteration of Micha.
: The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
: their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
: slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
Which is why I don't use my English name except when at work.
As for not changing their mode of dress... Where do you buy your haluq?
: (Also, it is written in a sefer (can't recall offhand which one) that
: Yiddish, Farsi and any language that Jews spoke among themselves
: to avoid assimilating, have a 'kedusha meiein losh kodesh'...
Yiddish is the effect of the Crusades relocating German Jews into Eastern
Europe. To them, it was a tie to the past. But it means that their ancestors
-- the contemporaries of R' Gershom, Rashi, the Tosafists, etc... -- were
speaking German.
: is a semblance of The Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew). Our ancestors went
: to great lengths to speak only Yiddish.
Aside from the fact that you assume that none of us are Sepharadim or
from the Edot haMizrach, which itself is going to irritate them. (Much
the way I get irritated by people who assume everyone is a righty; or
when a politician assumes all Americans are Christian by saying something
about what "we believe...")
You forgot Hungarians. They tend to speak Hungarian, not Yiddish.
Similarly Yekkes speak proper German; the whole "tie to the past"
motivation I spoke of above didn't apply to them.
Morrocan Jews speak French and Arabic.
Etc...
Not changing your language, clothing, and names [btw, do you know where
that is that from?] is preserving the Jewish jargon, wearing a head
covering and tzitzis, and using your Jewish name.
Yiddish preserved the jargon. But it's not the only necessary vehicle.
Even worse -- use of Yiddish compartmentalizes our new communities into
subgroups based on where we came from. For example, keeping Flatbush's
Arabic speaking Syrian Jews separate from the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazim.
IMHO, it has nothing to do with looking back nostalgically to the old
country.
Yisroel Markov
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> news:9g9e2f$ckm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > (Yes, I go by "Mitch" at work. The gutteral in "Micha" doesn't cut it
> > in the American workplace.)
I go by Izzy, Yisroel being nearly impossible for my co-workers to get
their mouths around. (Purists might insist that Izzy is short for
Yitzhak, but whatever.)
> What about Micah, the anglicized version? It's pretty close and yet
> not really a goyish name, at least not as goyish as 'Mitch'.
>
> The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
> their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
> slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
So how do you dress?
> (Also, it is written in a sefer (can't recall offhand which one) that
> Yiddish, Farsi and any language that Jews spoke among themselves
> to avoid assimilating, have a 'kedusha meiein losh kodesh'- a holiness that
> is a semblance of The Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew). Our ancestors went
> to great lengths to speak only Yiddish.
There was a rav who called Yiddish "lashon Amalek". Can't recall
offhand which one.
[snip]
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is the bad news: The universe is going to do whatever it is
going
to do no matter how you feel about it." -- David Gerrold
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>(Also, it is written in a sefer (can't recall offhand which one) that
>Yiddish, Farsi and any language that Jews spoke among themselves
>to avoid assimilating, have a 'kedusha meiein losh kodesh'- a holiness that
>is a semblance of The Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew). Our ancestors went
>to great lengths to speak only Yiddish.
>
>At Rav Avigdor Miller's (blessed is his holy memory) funeral, his grandson
>said that while R' Miller spoke in English for the benefit of his congregation
>who
>did not understand Yiddish, he insisted that his own family speak only Yiddish
>at home.
Having attempted, futilely, to learn Hebrew by every method from
college courses to Ulpan to the adult education program at my shul to
study-by-yourself, for more than ten years now, I am not yet ready to
give up, but I do have to ask: does anyone have suggestions for how to
ensure that one raises a child bilingually with a language that
neither parent actually knows how to speak? I can try to make sure
that we hire an Israeli babysitter but I don't know of a school,
especially a preschool, which uses predominantly or exclusively Hebrew
in the Boston area -- Yiddish, yes, and some Hebrew during study of
certain topics, but I don't want my children to learn Yiddish; it's
not a language I consider truly ours. Does anyone either know of such
a school -- not one who *teaches* Hebrew, but one who, for the two and
three year olds, just matter of factly functions in it, all day every
day -- or have any further suggestions for how to make sure that I can
expose said (currently still hypothetical) kid to the language well
enough to leave them fluent before they reach the cutoff age for the
language window?
-Naomi
Ann Putnam. Betty Parris. Sarah Churchill.
Mary Walcott. Elizabeth Booth. Susannah Sheldon.
Abigail Williams. Mercy Lewis. Mary Warren.
And will the next be you? Or me?
N.R.
"N.R." <s...@reply-to.field> wrote in message
> Actually, the reason Yonah tried to avoid exhorting the people of Ninveh to
> teshuva
> was out of ahavas yisroel. Whenever goyim are good, G-d has claims against the
> Jews
> for not being better: "If the goyim can [do a noble or righteous thing], then
> certainly you,
> my chosen people, can be better!"
...and that creates a danger to Jews for it calls them into judgement.
The matter is not simple, however, because obviously there are also
many problems caused when goyim are evil and immoral.
Abe Kohen
"N.R." <s...@reply-to.field> wrote in message
>
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> news:9g9e2f$ckm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > (Yes, I go by "Mitch" at work. The gutteral in "Micha" doesn't cut it
> > in the American workplace.)
He really is Mitch Berger of the Minnesota Vikings.
;-)
> At Rav Avigdor Miller's (blessed is his holy memory) funeral, his
grandson
> said that while R' Miller spoke in English for the benefit of his
congregation
> who
> did not understand Yiddish, he insisted that his own family speak only
Yiddish
> at home.
Just like Moshe Rabbeinu. And clothes like Moshe Rabbeinu, not like some
Polish peasants of 200-300 years ago.
Maalin b'kodesh.
Abe
June 14, 2001 3:50 pm EDT
Sheldon Glickler
"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
news:3b28fe03...@news.cris.com...
Contact the local Israeli embassy and explain your wishes. That is probably
your best bet short of moving to Israel. I have a friend whose daughter
married an Israeli. They are friends with quite a few Israeli families who
all sent their children to this one particular day care center. It is
somewhere on the Boston to Newton corridor. I'll try to find out.
Shelly
Micha Berger
:> The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
:> their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
:> slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
: So how do you dress?
In a chaluq and garbaim (loose knickers), obviously, just as the gemara
describes Moshe's attire. <grin>
Me, I wear a button-down shirt and pants, large (size 8) black knitted
yarmulka, and tzitzis (white and blue) out. Now that Wall Street is
dress down the whole week.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>Subject:Re: Retaining Jewish Names, Mode of Dress and Language ( was Re: Being fruitful and multiplying
>Date: 14 Jun 2001 18:44:23 GMT
>Message-ID:<9gb0ni$75a$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>On 14 Jun 2001 17:41:49 GMT, N.R. <s...@reply-to.field> wrote:
>:> (Yes, I go by "Mitch" at work. The gutteral in "Micha" doesn't cut it
>:> in the American workplace.)
>
>: What about Micah, the anglicized version? It's pretty close and yet
>: not really a goyish name, at least not as goyish as 'Mitch'.
>
>Ask my parents -- that's what's on my birth certificate.
>
>Mitchel is the name of the angel Micha'el, via French. As opposed to
>Michael, the same name via German. I have no idea why you'd call it
>any more goyish than the English transliteration of Micha.
>
The halacha is that if the secular name is a transliteration of the
Hebrew name, then it is permitted [I saw this in a sefer just last week].
Otherwise, one is not permitted to have a totally *secular* first name.
>: The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
>: their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
>: slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
>
>Which is why I don't use my English name except when at work.
>
>As for not changing their mode of dress... Where do you buy your haluq?
>
See: Bet Yosef in TUR Yoreh Deah 178; and YD 178:1 in Rema. Only clothes
worn by those practicing *avoda zara* [idol worship] and *pritzut*
[sexually vulgar] is prohibited.
>: (Also, it is written in a sefer (can't recall offhand which one) that
>: Yiddish, Farsi and any language that Jews spoke among themselves
>: to avoid assimilating, have a 'kedusha meiein losh kodesh'...
>
>Yiddish is the effect of the Crusades relocating German Jews into Eastern
>Europe. To them, it was a tie to the past. But it means that their ancestors
>-- the contemporaries of R' Gershom, Rashi, the Tosafists, etc... -- were
>speaking German.
>
>: is a semblance of The Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew). Our ancestors went
>: to great lengths to speak only Yiddish.
>
>Aside from the fact that you assume that none of us are Sepharadim or
>from the Edot haMizrach, which itself is going to irritate them. (Much
>the way I get irritated by people who assume everyone is a righty; or
>when a politician assumes all Americans are Christian by saying something
>about what "we believe...")
>
>You forgot Hungarians. They tend to speak Hungarian, not Yiddish.
>Similarly Yekkes speak proper German; the whole "tie to the past"
>motivation I spoke of above didn't apply to them.
>
>Morrocan Jews speak French and Arabic.
>
>Etc...
>
>
>Not changing your language, clothing, and names [btw, do you know where
>that is that from?] is preserving the Jewish jargon, wearing a head
>covering and tzitzis, and using your Jewish name.
>
>Yiddish preserved the jargon. But it's not the only necessary vehicle.
>Even worse -- use of Yiddish compartmentalizes our new communities into
>subgroups based on where we came from. For example, keeping Flatbush's
>Arabic speaking Syrian Jews separate from the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazim.
>
>IMHO, it has nothing to do with looking back nostalgically to the old
>country.
>
>-mi
And "vats wrong vit de old country" ? :-)
Josh [a.k.a. Yehoshua]
Zev Steinhardt
When I was born, my parents were not frum. They put "Wayne" on my
birth certificate and that was the name I grew up with.
When we became frum later, I started using the name "Zev" for all my
social interactions. However, all my "business" interactions (work,
banking, etc.) all say "Wayne" since I never changed my name legally.
Therefore, at work (and among some non-frum relatives) I'm "Wayne"
while with friends, my immediate family and other frum relatives, I'm
"Zev."
(Aside, at my first job, I used the name "Zev" as it was a Jewish
company. However, after a while my boss pulled me over and said "Is
your name Wayne?" When I told him that it was, he explained that he
got a letter from the IRS wondering who "Zev Steinhardt" was with
Wayne Steinhardt's social security number.)
Zev Steinhardt
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>Subject:Re: Retaining Jewish Names, Mode of Dress and Language ( was Re: Being fruitful and multiplying
>Date: 14 Jun 2001 21:21:03 GMT
>Message-ID:<9gb9tb$bji$5...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>On 14 Jun 2001 20:49:14 GMT, Yisroel Markov <y...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:> The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
>:> their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
>:> slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
>
>: So how do you dress?
>
>In a chaluq and garbaim (loose knickers), obviously, just as the gemara
>describes Moshe's attire. <grin>
>
>Me, I wear a button-down shirt and pants, large (size 8) black knitted
>yarmulka, and tzitzis (white and blue) out. Now that Wall Street is
>dress down the whole week.
Old Chinese proverb :-)
Dress British, think Yiddish
Joshj
>
>-mi
Lisa
>On 13 Jun 2001 21:45:05 GMT, Lisa <star...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>:>What about the mitzvah of peru urevu?
>
>:>: What about it? I'm gay. My daughter is wonderful. I know tons of
>:>: gays and lesbians with children.
>
>:>This is irrelevent for a number of reasons:
>
>:>1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
>
>: You have to start with one.
>
>:>2- It's not obligatory on women.
>
>: So your question was kind of lame, wasn't it....
>
>The person (mot me) who asked the question was referring to gays in
>general. You didn't make it about women until your reply to that email.
Untrue. I didn't make it about women. I made it *also* about women.
He had referred, as you say, to gays in general, which includes women
(regardless of what toichen may have to say about it). As such, he
was doing what so many people do, focusing on the men, ignoring the
women, and all because there's a more serious issue with men, and they
know it's easier to argue against "homosexuality" if they ignore the
fact that at least half of the homosexual people in the world are
women.
>My point was just to launch into a tangent about the laws of piryah
>virivyah, and why your statement doesn't jibe. I was intentionally
>not rehashing material we discussed previously.
Launching into a tangent is best done by changing the subject header,
wouldn't you say?
>: However, there are poskim who exempt gay men from that mitzvah, or
>: state that there are other ways of fulfilling it than getting married
>: and having kids.
>
>THAT would have been a meaningful response. Don't see the reasoning
>(sevarah) for such a pesak, but that's a different story.
"Would have been"?
Anyway, R' Aharon Feldman is just one of the people who has said this.
As wrong-headed as most of his article is, you might want to have a
look at
http://www.jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/March24,1998/homow.htm
>: The idea of so-called "reparative therapy" being able to change sexual
>: orientation has no professional basis to it whatsoever....
>
>That;s debatable. Since homosexuality was removed from the DSM under
>severe political pressure, we many never know the truth. The ability
>to do unprejudiced studies has been comprimised.
You're mistaken. It was in the DSM for no scientific reasons
whatsoever. The fight over removing it was due to religious/political
pressure to keep it in, which was up against claims that there was no
scientific reason to keep it in.
Phrasing it the way you did helps to distort what actually happened.
Unprejudiced studies have been done. Certain types of people just
don't want to accept that.
Lisa
Harry Weiss
> Quoth Micha Berger:
> :
> : Me, I wear a button-down shirt and pants, large (size 8) black knitted
> : yarmulka, and tzitzis (white and blue) out.
> Taking a cue from Pirkei Avot, which teaches that the timid canot learn, I'd
> like to ask a terribly personal question of all arba kanfot/tallit katan
> wearers:
It goes down and up out of the pants and out again. The shirt in that
1/2 inch is only tucked in a bit.
> How do you tuck in your shirt and keep the tzitzit out?
> I ask not from prurient or sociological interest, but because my increasing
> observance-curve makes it likely that I'll be getting dressed one morning
> with a puzzled look on my face. ;-)
> (Also, Micha -- how does one size a yarmulka? Inches across, or what?)
> Neal Ross Attinson - Have Siddur, Will Travel
> (The Proto-Rabbi Project - http://www.sonic.net/scoop)
N.R.
> On 14 Jun 2001 17:41:49 GMT, N.R. <s...@reply-to.field> wrote:
> :> (Yes, I go by "Mitch" at work. The gutteral in "Micha" doesn't cut it
> :> in the American workplace.)
>
> : What about Micah, the anglicized version? It's pretty close and yet
> : not really a goyish name, at least not as goyish as 'Mitch'.
>
> Ask my parents -- that's what's on my birth certificate.
I don't have to ask anyone; I take your word for it.
> Mitchel is the name of the angel Micha'el, via French. As opposed to
> Michael, the same name via German.
Very interesting, hadn't known that.
> I have no idea why you'd call it
> any more goyish than the English transliteration of Micha.
Well, most obviously because as per above: I didn't know, however
most people in the U.S. who have any Biblical familiarity at all, know that
'Michael' and 'Micah' are Biblical names. I don't know if the same could be said
for 'Mitchell' and 'Mitch'. Perhaps in France but I don't think in the U.S.
> : The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
> : their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
> : slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
>
> As for not changing their mode of dress... Where do you buy your haluq?
R' Moshe Feinstein, z'l, has a teshuva in which he discusses whether a Jew
must wear a 'longe rekel' (long suit-jacket or kaftan/kapote). I believe he
concludes
that one who'se _father_ does not is not obligated to but one who'se father does
may not be allowed to break from the custom.
It is known that the Chassidic garb has non-Jewish origins, however now that
it is no longer worn by non-Jews, it has the effect of keeping the Jews
who wear it distinct and separate from the goyim and therefore has
a certain kedusha. (This also applies to 'Yeshivish' dress: black fedora hats
and dark suits)
> : (Also, it is written in a sefer (can't recall offhand which one) that
> : Yiddish, Farsi and any language that Jews spoke among themselves
> : to avoid assimilating, have a 'kedusha meiein losh kodesh'...
>Yiddish is the effect of the Crusades relocating German Jews into Eastern
>Europe. To them, it was a tie to the past. But it means that their ancestors
>-- the contemporaries of R' Gershom, Rashi, the Tosafists, etc... -- were
>speaking German.
Not relevant to my point. Nothing you have said negates anything I have.
> : is a semblance of The Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew). Our ancestors went
> : to great lengths to speak only Yiddish.
>
> Aside from the fact that you assume that none of us are Sepharadim or
> from the Edot haMizrach,
I said, "Yiddish, _FARSI_ (spoken by Sefardim) and any language that Jews spoke
among themselves to avoid assimilating..." Isn't there a language called
something
like Ladino or Ladaino that was also spoken among Sefardic Jews?
> You forgot Hungarians. They tend to speak Hungarian, not Yiddish.
There were many Hungarians that spoke Yiddish, at least at home. I never
claimed
that everyone spoke any of these languages at all times and again, none of this
contradicts or negates anything I said.
> Not changing your language, clothing, and names [btw, do you know where
> that is that from?] I said the Medrash. Was I wrong?
> Yiddish preserved the jargon. But it's not the only necessary vehicle.
I never said it was. I was quoting from a sefer written by a great sage.
Unfortunately, I can't recall which one.
A heard it from a rebbe I had in high school, who ironically I saw last night
for the first time in years. If only I would have asked him!
> Even worse -- use of Yiddish compartmentalizes our new communities into
> subgroups based on where we came from. For example, keeping Flatbush's
> Arabic speaking Syrian Jews separate from the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazim.
>
> IMHO, it has nothing to do with looking back nostalgically to the old
> country.
I never said it that and whether it does or doesn't is not relevant to the point
_I_ was
making, that "any language that Jews spoke among themselves
to avoid assimilating [has] a kedusha..."
N.R.
"Scoop" <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:VZbW6.2807$to1....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> How do you tuck in your shirt and keep the tzitzit out?
Difficult to describe but if you practice you should get the hang of it (good
pun too- HANG of
it!)
> I ask not from prurient or sociological interest, but because my increasing
> observance-curve
Glad to hear it. May Hashem help all Jews to always be on the curve
of increasing observance.
>makes it likely that I'll be getting dressed one morning
> with a puzzled look on my face. ;-)
>
> (Also, Micha -- how does one size a yarmulka? Inches across, or what?)
I believe R' Moshe Feinstein ruled that should cover most of the top of the
head.
N.R.
"Yisroel Markov" <y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82c1eadf.01061...@posting.google.com...
> So how do you dress?
Generally: dark suit or blazer 'n' slacks during the week, black fedora hat.
Bekishe (long satin
garment) on Shabbos.
However, when it is cold I have often wore a Polartec touring cap during the
week because it is warmer.
(I do feel kind of funny during peak hours though in 'Charedei' neighborhoods
because
while not unprecedented, such caps are not common)
Also, if I walk
for excercise during 'off-peak' hours (very late at night or early in the
morning when there
are few, if any, people on the streets) I may wear sweatpants and a parka.
In the winter I like to wear wide-wale corduroys and turtlenecks (white),
however (tying this into another post
on this thread), it is more difficult to wear tzitzis under a turtleneck. I have
even worn a turtleneck under
my bekishe on Shabbos when it has been really cold. Although I can't recall ever
seeing anyone else do that,
I personally don't think it looks bad as long as the turtleneck is clean, in
good condition and, of course, white.
> > (Also, it is written in a sefer (can't recall offhand which one) that
> > Yiddish, Farsi and any language that Jews spoke among themselves
> > to avoid assimilating, have a 'kedusha meiein losh kodesh'- a holiness that
> > is a semblance of The Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew). Our ancestors went
> > to great lengths to speak only Yiddish.
>
> There was a rav who called Yiddish "lashon Amalek". Can't recall
> offhand which one.
Considering that _all_ of the European Torah leaders, Chassidic as well as
non-Chassidic, spoke Yiddish and believed that that was the proper thing to do,
whoever this person is pathetically outgunned and outnumbered.
Susan Cohen
Yoxar wrote:
> >the whole lesson of the book of Jonah is that God cares about all
> >His creatures. Jonah wanted God to say, "Uck. Yich. Not them.
> >They're excluded." And all the suffering Jonah went through in the
> >book was God teaching him, the hard way, that Jonah's gut feelings of
> >"uck, yich" were not shared by God
> The lesson of the book of Jonah is that all mankind may do teshuva and serve
> G-d as G-d wants. G-d has prohibited homosexality
Please tell us how you know this.
Susan
Abe Kohen
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message news:9gbcn5$bgt$1...@condor.nj.org...
> The halacha is that if the secular name is a transliteration of the
> Hebrew name, then it is permitted [I saw this in a sefer just last week].
> Otherwise, one is not permitted to have a totally *secular* first name.
Custom must not have followed the alleged Halacha, as is evident from
studying Shu"t on Gittin, and on how the names should be written in a get. I
also know from my parents' generation that such custom was not followed in
Hungary.
Abe
June 14, 2001 7:07 pm EDT
Abe Kohen
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message news:9gbdjd$bpn$1...@condor.nj.org...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:39249
>
> >From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> >Subject:Re: Retaining Jewish Names, Mode of Dress and Language ( was Re:
Being fruitful and multiplying
> >Date: 14 Jun 2001 21:21:03 GMT
> >Message-ID:<9gb9tb$bji$5...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>
> >On 14 Jun 2001 20:49:14 GMT, Yisroel Markov <y...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >:> The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
> >:> their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
> >:> slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
> >
> >: So how do you dress?
> >
> >In a chaluq and garbaim (loose knickers), obviously, just as the gemara
> >describes Moshe's attire. <grin>
> >
> >Me, I wear a button-down shirt and pants, large (size 8) black knitted
> >yarmulka, and tzitzis (white and blue) out. Now that Wall Street is
> >dress down the whole week.
Funny, when we both worked at the hedge fund, where most of us dressed very
casual, like T's, shorts & sandals, I recall you dressing a lot more
formally.
Now that I mainly telecommute, it's mostly Calvins during the day.
Abe
June 14, 2001 7:10 pm EDT
Harry Weiss
> Quoth Harry Weiss:
> : It goes down and up out of the pants and out again. The shirt in that 1/2
> : inch is only tucked in a bit.
> Most of my shirts sre pretty long-tailed. Should I be shopping for a
> particular length of tzitzit, then? If so, what? Or is the arba kanfot
> specifically tailored with that in mind?
> (BTW, thanks for answering this. I say that explicitly because I'm aware of
> the question's inherent goofiness.)
regular size. (I personally wear my Tzitzit in)
Susan Cohen
Scoop wrote:
> Quoth Harry Weiss:
> : It goes down and up out of the pants and out again. The shirt in that 1/2
> : inch is only tucked in a bit.
>
> Most of my shirts sre pretty long-tailed. Should I be shopping for a
> particular length of tzitzit, then? If so, what? Or is the arba kanfot
> specifically tailored with that in mind?
>
> (BTW, thanks for answering this. I say that explicitly because I'm aware of
> the question's inherent goofiness.)
Heck, I'm glad you asked because I never thought abou t it,
and now I'm curious myself!!!
Susan
Micha Berger
:>: However, there are poskim who exempt gay men from that mitzvah, or
:>: state that there are other ways of fulfilling it than getting married
:>: and having kids.
:>THAT would have been a meaningful response. Don't see the reasoning
:>(sevarah) for such a pesak, but that's a different story.
: "Would have been"?
You didn't say that the first time around.
: Anyway, R' Aharon Feldman is just one of the people who has said this.
: As wrong-headed as most of his article is, you might want to have a
: look at
: http://www.jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/March24,1998/homow.htm
A friend who is a Ner Israel alumnus did a web search for R' Feldman's
name when RAF was appointed the new Rosh Yeshiva a few weeks ago. He
was amused to find how large of a percentage of citations were from
gay sites.
Let me quote the relevent text I found at the URL you gave:
> Family and children are important in Jewish society but one who does
> not have these need not feel that he is not a full-fledged member of
> the community. The verse in Isaiah 58, which is read by Jews all over
> the world on every public fast-day, is addressed to the homosexual:
> Let not the saris (who is physically unable to have children) say
> 'I am a dried up tree.' For so saith G-d to the sarisim who keep
> my Sabbath, who choose what I desire, and who keep my covenant:
> I shall make them in My house and within My walls a monument, a
> shrine, superior to sons and daughters. I shall render their (lit.,
> his) name everlasting, one which will never be forgotten.
...
> A homosexual has an admitted defect, namely that he cannot have a family,
> but one which need not hamper his development into the human which G-d
> would want him to be. When the challenge of the shortcoming is met,
> the reward will be that much greater.
> I will add that I do not think that it is necessary for you to give
> up on the hope of someday having a family. The ways of Providence are
> manifold. For example, I was personally involved in a case of a woman
> who knowingly married a homosexual man in order to help him overcome
> his condition. They subsequently had a large family. It was only because
> they were both deeply religious Jews that they were successful....
I see nothing there about adoption as a valid fulfillment of the
commandment of being fruitful and multiply. R' JB Soloveitchik, who
recommended adoption to infertile couples as a fulfilment of one of the
concepts of the mitzvah doesn't claim it's the letter of the law.
:>That;s debatable. Since homosexuality was removed from the DSM under
:>severe political pressure, we many never know the truth. The ability
:>to do unprejudiced studies has been comprimised.
: You're mistaken. It was in the DSM for no scientific reasons
: whatsoever. The fight over removing it was due to religious/political
: pressure to keep it in, which was up against claims that there was no
: scientific reason to keep it in.
As I said, it was removed under political battle. There is no unbiased
sources saying whether the problem was its inclusion or its removal.
: Unprejudiced studies have been done. Certain types of people just
: don't want to accept that.
How do you prove a lack of prejudice?
Sheldon Glickler
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message news:9gbcn5$bgt$1...@condor.nj.org...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:39191
> The halacha is that if the secular name is a transliteration of the
> Hebrew name, then it is permitted [I saw this in a sefer just last week].
> Otherwise, one is not permitted to have a totally *secular* first name.
Wow, now in the "next life" I'll have to tell my deceased parents that they
violated another halacha! My Hebrew name is Yisrael.
Shelly
Henry Goodman
"Lisa" <star...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3b28c2ce...@news.earthlink.net...
> On 14 Jun 2001 04:11:00 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Jun 2001 21:45:05 GMT, Lisa <star...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >:>:>What about the mitzvah of peru urevu?
> >
> >:>: What about it? I'm gay. My daughter is wonderful. I know tons of
> >:>: gays and lesbians with children.
> >
> >:>This is irrelevant for a number of reasons:
> >
> >:>1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
> >
> >: You have to start with one.
> >
> >:>2- It's not obligatory on women.
> >
> >: So your question was kind of lame, wasn't it....
> >
> >The person (mot me) who asked the question was referring to gays in
> >general. You didn't make it about women until your reply to that email.
>
> Untrue. I didn't make it about women. I made it *also* about women.
> He had referred, as you say, to gays in general, which includes women
> (regardless of what toichen may have to say about it). As such, he
> was doing what so many people do, focusing on the men, ignoring the
> women, and all because there's a more serious issue with men, and they
> know it's easier to argue against "homosexuality" if they ignore the
> fact that at least half of the homosexual people in the world are
> women.
>
This thread seems to have got very twisted.
I was the original person who asked about peru urevu in response to the
following paragraph in a post of Lisa's which got snipped in later posts:
> From a Jewish perspective, JOSHUA is a much more appropriate group
> than JONAH, since there are far more halakhic pitfalls for a person
> engaging in the heterosexual lifestyle to worry about. One may not
> place himself (or herself) in the way of sin, and heterosexuality is
> rife with the potential for serious sins, many of which are punishable
> by the death penalty or "karet" (being cut off).
>
In the above Lisa is saying (possibly tongue in cheek) that a gay life style
is preferable to normal married life from a Halachic perspective since there
are fewer possibilities of averah. I was just pointing out that such a
person (OK, only if male) misses out on the mitzvah of peru urevu.
The serious point is that without disputing Lisa's view that some people are
unfortunately physically incapable of normal married life , there are also a
number of bisexual people who should be encouraged to make the right choice.
thai is what JONAH is for.
[snip]
Shabbat Shalom
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Micha Berger
: R' Moshe Feinstein, z'l, has a teshuva in which he discusses whether a Jew
: must wear a 'longe rekel' (long suit-jacket or kaftan/kapote). I believe he
: concludes that one who'se _father_ does not is not obligated to but one
: who'se father does may not be allowed to break from the custom.
This is actually proof that the issue is NOT preservation of garb as
per the medrash about redemption being meritted by not changing clothing.
Because then I would be obligated to wear a lange rekel too. Rather,
it's an expression of the more general idea of preserving minhag.
: It is known that the Chassidic garb has non-Jewish origins, however now that
: it is no longer worn by non-Jews, it has the effect of keeping the Jews
: who wear it distinct and separate from the goyim and therefore has
: a certain kedusha. (This also applies to 'Yeshivish' dress: black fedora hats
: and dark suits)
Just to state the obvious: only to those who do not affiliate with
a "Torah im Derech Eretz" philosophy or a derivative thereof. Those
streams teach that sanctity (kedushah) is obtained through participation
in the right way, not through withdrawal.
:> : (Also, it is written in a sefer (can't recall offhand which one) that
:> : Yiddish, Farsi and any language that Jews spoke among themselves
:> : to avoid assimilating, have a 'kedusha meiein losh kodesh'...
:>Yiddish is the effect of the Crusades relocating German Jews into Eastern
:>Europe. To them, it was a tie to the past. But it means that their ancestors
:>-- the contemporaries of R' Gershom, Rashi, the Tosafists, etc... -- were
:>speaking German.
: Not relevant to my point. Nothing you have said negates anything I have.
My point was that Yiddish is the PRODUCT of assimilation. I find it ironic
that it became a bullwark of anti-assimilation.
: I said, "Yiddish, _FARSI_ (spoken by Sefardim) and any language that Jews spoke
: among themselves to avoid assimilating..." Isn't there a language called
: something
: like Ladino or Ladaino that was also spoken among Sefardic Jews?
Farsi is spoken by Persion Jews (thus the name), most of whom aren't
Sepharadi. I find this error annoying, because it's the third time I'm
correcting you on it. Jews who have been in the middle east since the
days of the academies in Babylonia or even as far back as the Babylonian
exile aren't Sepharadim.
Ladino is to Spanish as Yeshivish English is to American English. It's
closer to Castillano than Mexican Spanish is.
: There were many Hungarians that spoke Yiddish, at least at home. I never
: claimed that everyone spoke any of these languages at all times...
But you DID claim that:
>: Our ancestors went
>: to great lengths to speak only Yiddish.
I was objecting to "our ancestors". Many of us are Sepharadi, from the
Edot haMizrach, Yekkish, Ungarish, or many of the other communities
whose ancestors did NOT go through great lengths to speak only
Yiddish.
:> Even worse -- use of Yiddish compartmentalizes our new communities into
:> subgroups based on where we came from. For example, keeping Flatbush's
:> Arabic speaking Syrian Jews separate from the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazim.
:> IMHO, it has nothing to do with looking back nostalgically to the old
:> country.
: I never said it that...
No, I did. That's what Yiddish is -- the product of East European Jewry
looking back to the old country of Germany, and now members of American
and Israeli Jewry looking back to Eastern Europe.
: ... whether it does or doesn't is not relevant to the
: point _I_ was making, that "any language that Jews spoke among themselves
: to avoid assimilating [has] a kedusha..."
But it does have to do with the rest of your claim, that this means
it's worth preserving as a living language.
BTW, R' JB Soloveitchik compares Hebrew to a Torah scroll, as the
language itself is part of Torah, and Aramaic or Yiddish to the cover
one uses for the Torah. Not quite Torah, but holy because it's dedicated
to holy purposes.
I was suggesting that the cost of keeping divisions within our new
communities could well outweigh the value of preseting these languages.
Micha Berger
: How do you tuck in your shirt and keep the tzitzit out?
Tuck in your shirt and tzitzis, but make sure that the ends of your tzitzis
emerge from your pants. When you're done, pull on those ends.
The result, inside your pants, is probably that the garment the tzitzis are
on makes a U turn and comes back up around the bottom of your shirt, and your
shirt is bunched up a little to fit inside that U. But I never noticed
any bulges.
: (Also, Micha -- how does one size a yarmulka? Inches across, or what?)
I look at the label and remember what number was on the last one I
liked. I have no idea what the size means. Measuring the one I am
currently wearing, it's 8" across. So, maybe this one is a size 8,
and they are in inches..
Micha Berger
: Most of my shirts sre pretty long-tailed. Should I be shopping for a
: particular length of tzitzit, then? If so, what?
It does add to the size garment you'll need, but more because you're
going to be pulling the corners more toward the sides than you probably
would otherwise. I can't be more specific, it depends on your
own dimensions.
Most likely the same garment will work, it'll just be a shade tighter.
: specifically tailored with that in mind?
Never needed one.
Micha Berger
:> (Also, Micha -- how does one size a yarmulka? Inches across, or what?)
: I believe R' Moshe Feinstein ruled that should cover most of the top of the
: head.
R' JB Soloveitchik, back in the early 70s, came into shiur with what
we would call a "Pepsi cap yarmulka" -- pejoratively referring to the
size. Rabbi Soloveitchik, expecting more from this fellow, quipped with a
chuckle, "It's interesting how a yarmulka naturally grows to just large
enough to cover the brain." The then adjusted his ear-to-ear kippah,
and started his shiur.
(Story told to me by someone who was in the class at the time.)
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
Asdoption may fulfil the mitzvah of *shevet* [populating the earth] rather
than *p'ru u'rvu*.
I'll try to find the precise reference later.
Josh
>recommended adoption to infertile couples as a fulfilment of one of the
>concepts of the mitzvah doesn't claim it's the letter of the law.
>
>:>That;s debatable. Since homosexuality was removed from the DSM under
>:>severe political pressure, we many never know the truth. The ability
>:>to do unprejudiced studies has been comprimised.
>
>: You're mistaken. It was in the DSM for no scientific reasons
>: whatsoever. The fight over removing it was due to religious/political
>: pressure to keep it in, which was up against claims that there was no
>: scientific reason to keep it in.
>
>As I said, it was removed under political battle. There is no unbiased
>sources saying whether the problem was its inclusion or its removal.
>
>: Unprejudiced studies have been done. Certain types of people just
>: don't want to accept that.
>
>How do you prove a lack of prejudice?
>
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net>
>Subject:Re: Retaining Jewish Names, Mode of Dress and Language ( was Re: Being fruitful and multiplying
This isn't tongue-in-cheek: it's possible that "Jewish" first names like:
Irving, Murray, Sheldon, Herbie, etc. may be OK.
Josh
>
>Shelly
N.R.
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message news:9gd3cd$m0h$1...@condor.nj.org...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:39412
> This isn't tongue-in-cheek: it's possible that "Jewish" first names like:
> Irving, Murray, Sheldon, Herbie, etc. may be OK.
Doesn't one of the SCJ faq's have a list of distinctly non-Jewish
(mostly Christian) names such as Delores, Christopher, etc.
I knew someone named Paul who was 'Mod-O lite'. Paul!
Why would Jewish parents name their son Paul? I find
it repugnant.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon
"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> writes:
Shelly, do us a favor and don't rush off to tell them, OK? I'm sure
they can wait to find out. Your presence here is appreciated! :-)
-Shlomo-
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "N.R." <s...@reply-to.field>
>Subject:Re: Retaining Jewish Names, Mode of Dress and Language ( was Re: Being fruitful and multiplying
The Beit Shmuel in his commentary on Hilchot Gittin [divorce] in
Shulchan Aruch EVEN HA'EZER has a few pages listing male and female
Jewish first names, and place names [cities]. It makes fascinating
reading from a sociological standpoint, especially as the Beit Shmuel
wrote what he did about 310 years ago.
Trivia tidbit for Shlomo Argamon: the full name of the Beit Shmuel was
Rav Shmuel PHOEBUS !
Josh
R
Phoebus=Feivish I believe. Or more accurately, Feivish=Phoebus.
Sheldon Glickler
"Dr. Shlomo Argamon " <arg...@sunlightNOSPAM.cs.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:tigk82d...@sunlight.i-have-a-misconfigured-system-so-shoot-me...
ROTFL. This Sept. I will be only 60, and look and feel 50 and think of
myself as 40. (Thank you God for my good health so far, for my family and
my for life in general. Actually, I am quite satisfied that I am a man but
I won't thank you for not making me a woman). I intend to stick around as
long as possible, if only to needle those who don't appreciate it <g>.
Shelly
Lisa
>"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tif8t6e...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "toichen" <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:dd1c0ee8.01061...@posting.google.com...
>> > Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3B24E0F9...@hers.com>...
>> > > Oh, this is bad. This stuff just doesn't work.
>> > > Even tho' the only people I know who've been involved with
>> > > stuff like this are (okay, were) Xtians, the idea is the same.
>> > > The best thing to do is to help people deal with who they are
>> > > and accept the rules under which they must live.
>> > > Yes, homosexual males wants more than heterosexual males
>> > > to do the sexual acts forbidden men in Judaism. This is a shame.
>> > > But all it means is that the community must give them more help
>> > > & support - not ridiculous crap that only makes *us* feel
>> > > better!!
>> > >
>> > > Susan
>> >
>> > There are many who say therapy does work, and I don't think the
>> > evidence is conclusive one way or the other.
>> > Being that homosexuality is a sin, I don't see what is wrong in taking
>> > a risk, if any actually exists, and trying to change the homosexual
>> > orientation.
>>
>> While I hate to see another long back-and-forth thread starting on this
>> topic, didn't we agree the last time this topic arose that the only halachic
>> prohibition is against one specific act (anal intercourse), and that there
>> is no specific prohibition against anything else? The apparent gist of your
>> statement would indicate to most people that just being attracted to a
>> member of the same sex is in itself a sin.
>
>There are many specific prohibitions against many other things. I take
>homosexuality to mean an entire spectrum, from feeling to being
>attracted to the same sex, and acting upon those feelings. Being
>attracted to members of the same sex, if it is involuntary is not a
>sin.
>
>> The biggest risk I see, BTW, in trying to change someone's orientation is
>> that it not only reinforces the idea that what he or she currently feels is
>> inherently "bad",
>
>Unquestionably homosexual feeling are 'bad', just as feelings to live
>with mothers or daughters are 'bad'.
Oh, for pete's sake. Your mother and your daughters are specific
individuals. They are not a "type" of individual. A male's
attraction to a father or son is also bad. But that's not the issue.
The issue is that there is a large percentage of the human population
who are attracted to members of the same sex, rather than members of
the opposite sex. I am not attracted to Alyssa Milano; I am attracted
to women. I am not unattracted to Brad Pitt (well, yes I am); I am
unattracted to men in general.
>> but also leaves the vast majority who cannot change with a
>> feeling that they are a worthless failure for not being able to do so.
>
>So would you feel the same way about a Lashon Hora course, would you
>ban the course so that the vast majority of others who cannot change
>should not feel a worthless failure?
>toichen
As a matter of fact, a lashon hara course would be a wonderful thing
for people who keep saying that homosexuality is a sin.
But to answer your question:
1) Since LH is a sin and homosexuality is not, the question is
nonsensical and unanswerable.
2) Even if homosexuality were a sin, the fact that these courses cause
the kind of trauma they do, and are potentially a danger to life,
makes them a Bad Thing.
Lisa
Lisa
>On 15 Jun 2001 00:03:29 GMT, Lisa <star...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>: However, there are poskim who exempt gay men from that mitzvah, or
>:>: state that there are other ways of fulfilling it than getting married
>:>: and having kids.
>
>:>THAT would have been a meaningful response. Don't see the reasoning
>:>(sevarah) for such a pesak, but that's a different story.
>
>: "Would have been"?
>
>You didn't say that the first time around.
>
>: Anyway, R' Aharon Feldman is just one of the people who has said this.
>: As wrong-headed as most of his article is, you might want to have a
>: look at
>: http://www.jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/March24,1998/homow.htm
>
>A friend who is a Ner Israel alumnus did a web search for R' Feldman's
>name when RAF was appointed the new Rosh Yeshiva a few weeks ago. He
>was amused to find how large of a percentage of citations were from
>gay sites.
I know. I've had this discussion with numerous gays and lesbians,
many of whom are frum. I think it's utterly tragic that what he wrote
is considered positive. And yet, it's considered positive because
compared to the usual dreck (such as the "frum" shrink who advocates
"persecuting" gays and lesbians), it almost is. It's condescending,
and it repeats all the old nonsense about homosexuality being a sin,
but at least it doesn't try to read us out of the community entirely.
In a later issue of Jewish Action, they ran a letter from someone
castigating R' Feldman for suggesting that there's any place at all in
the frum community for <shudder> icky homos. He found R' Feldman's
suggestion that frum gays be educators to be utterly appalling.
Normally, Jewish Action wouldn't run something as vituperative against
a major rav such as R' Feldman, but I guess this was an exception.
So? In the case of women, it doesn't matter. And in the case of men,
what's the alternative? To marry when they have no attraction at all
to women? That's a typical suggestion that doesn't take women into
account at all.
>:>That;s debatable. Since homosexuality was removed from the DSM under
>:>severe political pressure, we many never know the truth. The ability
>:>to do unprejudiced studies has been comprimised.
>
>: You're mistaken. It was in the DSM for no scientific reasons
>: whatsoever. The fight over removing it was due to religious/political
>: pressure to keep it in, which was up against claims that there was no
>: scientific reason to keep it in.
>
>As I said, it was removed under political battle. There is no unbiased
>sources saying whether the problem was its inclusion or its removal.
Oh, please. Every clinical study has shown that homosexuality is not
a disorder. The *only* thing in favor of keeping it in (and you can
read the records of the debate to see this) was that "Of course it's
sick!"
>: Unprejudiced studies have been done. Certain types of people just
>: don't want to accept that.
>
>How do you prove a lack of prejudice?
By at least *doing* a study. As opposed to hollering about how
"everyone knows" that homosexuality is wrong and sick.
Lisa
Lisa
>>the whole lesson of the book of Jonah is that God cares about all
>>His creatures. Jonah wanted God to say, "Uck. Yich. Not them.
>>They're excluded." And all the suffering Jonah went through in the
>>book was God teaching him, the hard way, that Jonah's gut feelings of
>>"uck, yich" were not shared by God
>
> The lesson of the book of Jonah is that all mankind may do teshuva and serve
>G-d as G-d wants. G-d has prohibited homosexality
No, God hasn't done anything of the sort.
>and homosexuals can do teshuva too.
Everyone can do teshuva. Even those who violate the prohibitions of
lashon hara, ona'at devarim, rechilut, sin'at re'ah, and so many more
by making false and defamatory comments such as yours.
I'll be expecting a request for mechila from you in a few months.
Lisa
Steven Goldfarb
>This isn't tongue-in-cheek: it's possible that "Jewish" first names like:
>Irving, Murray, Sheldon, Herbie, etc. may be OK.
I read somewhere (<grin>) that those names were chosen by early immigrants
precisely because of how goyish they sounded. Those were the "society"
names from the turn of the century, I guess. But of course now they're
firmly associated with Jews.
BTW, what Micha said about Yiddish had never struck me before -- very
interesting observation!
--sg
>Josh
>>
>>Shelly
--
---------------------------------------
Steve Goldfarb Eppur si muove
s...@stevegoldfarb.com (and still, it moves)
http://stevegoldfarb.com/ - Galileo
toichen
> Micha Berger wrote:
>
> > 1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
>
>
> Susan
Nothing!
toichen, who is not a posek and earnestly insists that people not rely on his opinion
toichen
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
>
> > X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:38969
> >
> > >From: Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com>
> > >Subject:Re: 'Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality- JONAH'
> > >Message-ID:<3B27F296...@hers.com>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >Micha Berger wrote:
> > >
> > >> 1- Peru urvu isn't fulfilled by having one daughter.
> > >
> > >So what do I have to do since I may never be able to have any more children?
> > >
> >
> > is on the husband and not the wife [see: Aruch haShulchan EVEN HA'EZER
> > 1 # 2; and according to the Aruch haShulchan EH 1 #4, she isn't even
> > obligated in *shevet* [populating the earth].
>
> So this means that my husband must either divorce me,
> or knock up some unsuspecting broad?
> I don't think either of these is going to happen.
>
> Susan
Have you considered emulating our matriach Sarah and bringing a woman
into the house to bear your husband's children.
toichen
(I suppose I must write that the above is a joke just in case somebody
thinks I am serious)
toichen
> toichen wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message news:<3B24E0F9...@hers.com>...
> > > Oh, this is bad. This stuff just doesn't work.
> > > Even tho' the only people I know who've been involved with
> > > stuff like this are (okay, were) Xtians, the idea is the same.
> > > The best thing to do is to help people deal with who they are
> > > and accept the rules under which they must live.
> > > Yes, homosexual males wants more than heterosexual males
> > > to do the sexual acts forbidden men in Judaism. This is a shame.
> > > But all it means is that the community must give them more help
> > > & support - not ridiculous crap that only makes *us* feel
> > > better!!
> > >
> > > Susan
> >
> > There are many who say therapy does work,
>
I don't know that, and I dare say neither do you.
> > and I don't think the
> > evidence is conclusive one way or the other.
> > Being that homosexuality is a sin,
>
> No, it is not. Anal intercourse between men is a sin,
> be they heterosexual or homosexual.
I define homosexual (in this context) as running the entire gamut of
attraction to the same sex to actually having anal sex. Of that entire
range what is voluntary is a sin, what is involuntary is not a sin.
The actual desire though is a 'bad' desire whether it is voluntary or
not, just as the desire to live with ones mother is 'bad' whether it
is voluntary or not.
> > I don't see what is wrong in taking
> > a risk, if any actually exists, and trying to change the homosexual
> > orientation.
>
> Imagine waking up in a world where heterosexuality is a sin, &
> imagine someone trying to change you into a homosexual.
> What do you think this would do to you?
If they would force me to change I obviously would have problems,
however if they would give me the option to change and for whatever
reason I decided it was imperative of me to change my orientation,
then I would jolly well be happy
that I had the opportunity to do the correct thing.
> We have to support these people, & accept them, & help them
> not to sin. We can't do this by telling them they are fundamentally
> evil inside - especially since it isn't true.
They are not fundamentally evil, however they do have fundamentally
perverted desires.
> Are there entire oprganizations based at brainwashing people
> into no longer liking pork? Didn't think so.
>
> Susan
There are organisations that help people manage without pork, and
there are organisations that help Jews get out of destructive habits
and relationships by working with their psyche. This is no different.
toichen
Micha Berger
:> Trivia tidbit for Shlomo Argamon: the full name of the Beit Shmuel was
:> Rav Shmuel PHOEBUS !
: Phoebus=Feivish I believe. Or more accurately, Feivish=Phoebus.
Along similar lines, Shprintze is Esperanza.
-mi
Micha Berger
:> >Me, I wear a button-down shirt and pants, large (size 8) black knitted
:> >yarmulka, and tzitzis (white and blue) out. Now that Wall Street is
:> >dress down the whole week.
: Funny, when we both worked at the hedge fund, where most of us dressed very
: casual, like T's, shorts & sandals, I recall you dressing a lot more
: formally.
You misremember. I wore the same suff then -- which IS more formal than
teeshirts and shorts.
To get things back on topic...
There were halachic issues working there. I never expected to find
a job in the financial industry where I was uncomfortable seeing
what some of my female co workers wore (or didn't).
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>Contact the local Israeli embassy and explain your wishes. That is probably
>your best bet short of moving to Israel. I have a friend whose daughter
>married an Israeli. They are friends with quite a few Israeli families who
>all sent their children to this one particular day care center. It is
>somewhere on the Boston to Newton corridor. I'll try to find out.
Thanks, Shelly. I really appreciate it.
>Shelly
-Naomi
Ann Putnam. Betty Parris. Sarah Churchill.
Mary Walcott. Elizabeth Booth. Susannah Sheldon.
Abigail Williams. Mercy Lewis. Mary Warren.
And will the next be you? Or me?
agorelik
there was that intern who occasionally came in in her swimsuit (I
wonder why? she didn't get a permanent job either). Really, we should
institute a dress policy.
alex
> > >Me, I wear a button-down shirt and pants, large (size 8) black knitted
> > >yarmulka, and tzitzis (white and blue) out. Now that Wall Street is
> > >dress down the whole week.
>
> Funny, when we both worked at the hedge fund, where most of us dressed very
> casual, like T's, shorts & sandals, I recall you dressing a lot more
> formally.
>
> Now that I mainly telecommute, it's mostly Calvins during the day.
>
> Abe
> June 14, 2001 7:10 pm EDT
>
> >
> >
> > Old Chinese proverb :-)
> >
> > Dress British, think Yiddish
> >
> >
> > Joshj
Brett Weiss
all, we would like this to be a classy place. What minimum
requirements should we have?
--
Brett
Harry Weiss
> Quoth Abe Kohen:
> :
> :
> : Now that I mainly telecommute, it's mostly Calvins during the day.
> Inside or outside? ;-)
> If we're going to compare clothing, I usually dress in North American casual
> for business (slacks or nice jeans, button-down shirt or black logo-less
> T-shirt) or shul (no jeans, no T-shirt). Knit yarmulka (6" - 7") either
> black or patterned. For Shabbat lounging, I just bought an absurdly
> comfortable, tastefully blue&white Hawaiian cotton shirt.
> Neal Ross Attinson - Have Siddur, Will Travel
> (The Proto-Rabbi Project - http://www.sonic.net/scoop)f
for me it is M-Thursday button down shirt, slacks, bolo tie, leather
kippah, tzitzis in. Friday Jeans/Polo shirt, Shabbat, Long sleeve shirt,
slacks, sports jacket in winter, no tie, no hat.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Eliyahu
"Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9gdo9e$qfq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> I think that we should begin discussion of the scjm dress code. After
> all, we would like this to be a classy place. What minimum
> requirements should we have?
>
If we go with tuxedos for the guys, I've got matching cummerbunds, bow ties
and kippot in several colors... Gotta add a festive note to formal
proceedings. Otherwise, we could just go with the ol' "no shoes, no shirt,
no service" idea...
What is the halachah about posting to a mixed group while sitting around in
your underwear at two in the morning, anyhow? :-)
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Steven Goldfarb
specifically. I seem to recall learning once that it had to do with the
clothes the Kohain Gadol wore -- i.e., he wore trousers, a shirt, a
jacket, etc. Is that the case? If so, when is one required to wear these
garments? Only while praying, or all the time?
How much is simply custom? I read a post earlier commenting on this --
wearing a particular style jacket, for instance, because that's the
custom.
I believe other elements of "traditional" dress include a desire to look
distinct from the Goyim, plus also to refrain from vanity and worldliness.
Is that in fact the case?
One of my recollections from Yeshiva days is my first Shabbos there -- I
was wearing a predominantly white shirt, but it had a thin pink stripe.
About 10 people came up to me and said "that's a very nice shirt" meaning
"look around, we're all wearing white shirts." I got the message. Why a
white shirt, though? And why a suit and tie -- for the reasons above, or
simply because that's considered formal, respectful dress in our culture
(American/local culture, that is) and therefore that's how one should
dress in shul? What do Jews wear in non-suit-wearing cultures?
--sg
Brett Weiss
around in
> your underwear at two in the morning, anyhow? :-)
O: Prohibited
C: It depends on your rabbi
R: What's halacha?
<g>
--
Brett
N.R.
"Scoop" <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:s9qW6.2903$to1....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Quoth Abe Kohen:
> :
> :
> : Now that I mainly telecommute, it's mostly Calvins during the day.
>
> Inside or outside? ;-)
As many know, Calvin Klein has run many Ads. in the mainstream
media and on billboards that were truly pornographic
in nature, including many featuring children. I don't think anyone should in
any
way support that company.
>For Shabbat lounging, I just bought an absurdly
> comfortable, tastefully blue&white Hawaiian cotton shirt.
I find Hawaiian shirts to be great works of art. Have you seen the Kahala ones?
(
While I don't believe that they are ideally suitable for Shabbos, nonetheless,
if you
enjoy wearing them and you are in circles where they are considered appropriate
shul-attire,
then if you include the intention to honor and enjoy Shabbos , I believe it can
be a positive thing
and the fulfillment of a mitzah.
Abe Kohen
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:9gdkh5$4e1$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> On 15 Jun 2001 04:45:30 GMT, Abe Kohen <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> >Me, I wear a button-down shirt and pants, large (size 8) black knitted
> :> >yarmulka, and tzitzis (white and blue) out. Now that Wall Street is
> :> >dress down the whole week.
>
> : Funny, when we both worked at the hedge fund, where most of us dressed
very
> : casual, like T's, shorts & sandals, I recall you dressing a lot more
> : formally.
>
> You misremember. I wore the same suff then -- which IS more formal than
> teeshirts and shorts.
>
> To get things back on topic...
>
> There were halachic issues working there. I never expected to find
> a job in the financial industry where I was uncomfortable seeing
> what some of my female co workers wore (or didn't).
Personally I was quite comfortable seeing. As it says: Eynayim l'hem v'lo
yirau? [ They have eyes, and they should not see? ] Think of the opportunity
you had to be mekayem V'ahavta l'reacha [Love your neighbor]. Think of the
opportunity you had to say the blessing upon seeing a beautiful person
helping you towards the daily count of 100 brachot.
But that chapter is over, so onward we go.
And to Alex Gorelik: shoes were optional. Most of our desk had the shoes in
the drawers. Some even had socks. We had a huge supply of T-shirts, as
brokers were always sending them over to us in large boxes. (Plus shirts,
jackets, blankets, you name it.)
Abe
June 15, 2001 ('twas triple witching day) 4:59 pm EDT
meirm...@erols.com
Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>On 15 Jun 2001 15:27:47 GMT, R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
>:> Trivia tidbit for Shlomo Argamon: the full name of the Beit Shmuel was
>:> Rav Shmuel PHOEBUS !
>
>: Phoebus=Feivish I believe. Or more accurately, Feivish=Phoebus.
Phoebe means the bright one in Greek. Ah but it's also the goddess
Artemis. That's not good. more details might help.
>
>Along similar lines, Shprintze is Esperanza.
>
Nothin' wrong with hope.
>-mi
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Abe Kohen
"N.R." <s...@reply-to.field> wrote in message
news:9gdsme$8g5$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Scoop" <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:s9qW6.2903$to1....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > Quoth Abe Kohen:
> > :
> > :
> > : Now that I mainly telecommute, it's mostly Calvins during the day.
> >
> > Inside or outside? ;-)
>
> As many know, Calvin Klein has run many Ads. in the mainstream
> media and on billboards that were truly pornographic
> in nature, including many featuring children. I don't think anyone should
in
> any
> way support that company.
My mind filters out most visual ads, whether on TV, web, or bus. So I don't
think I've ever seen the Calvin ads. (I have not been able to filter out
musical ads.)
Truth be told, I was on a trip in or near Boston, when I realized I ran out.
Went over to a department store and bought a bunch of Calvins on sale. I'll
be sure to buy Jockey's next time.
;-)
Abe
Sheila Tanenbaum
Sheila
N.R.
"Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tiktqph...@corp.supernews.com...
> > There were halachic issues working there. I never expected to find
> > a job in the financial industry where I was uncomfortable seeing
> > what some of my female co workers wore (or didn't).
>
> Personally I was quite comfortable seeing. As it says: Eynayim l'hem v'lo
> yirau? [ They have eyes, and they should not see? ] Think of the opportunity
> you had to be mekayem V'ahavta l'reacha [Love your neighbor]. Think of the
> opportunity you had to say the blessing upon seeing a beautiful person
> helping you towards the daily count of 100 brachot.
Would your wife agree?
Dr. Shlomo Argamon
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
Yeah, but I never hear of an avoda zara named Esperanza (although I
knew a Jewish woman named that...).
-Shlomo-
Henry Goodman
"N.R." <s...@reply-to.field> wrote in message
news:9gd3r1$3f7$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> <BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
news:9gd3cd$m0h$1...@condor.nj.org...
> > X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:39412
>
> > This isn't tongue-in-cheek: it's possible that "Jewish" first names
like:
> > Irving, Murray, Sheldon, Herbie, etc. may be OK.
>
> Doesn't one of the SCJ faq's have a list of distinctly non-Jewish
> (mostly Christian) names such as Delores, Christopher, etc.
>
> I knew someone named Paul who was 'Mod-O lite'. Paul!
> Why would Jewish parents name their son Paul? I find
> it repugnant.
Shavua Tov
Paul is very common in the UK, even among strictly O families.
So is Peter.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Why shouldn't she? I would be entirely comfortable if my husband were
to see attractive women in relatively skimpy outfits at work (he
probably does, judging from the miniskirt I saw at an after-work
social outing recently). It's not as if he's going to *do* anything
about it.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon
"Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> writes:
>
> > What is the halachah about posting to a mixed group while sitting
> around in
> > your underwear at two in the morning, anyhow? :-)
>
> O: Prohibited
Not if you sell your underwear to a goy.
> C: It depends on your rabbi
> R: What's halacha?
-Shlomo
meirm...@erols.com
Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
>"N.R." <s...@reply-to.field> wrote in message
>news:9gdsme$8g5$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> "Scoop" <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:s9qW6.2903$to1....@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> > Quoth Abe Kohen:
>> >
>> > : Now that I mainly telecommute, it's mostly Calvins during the day.
>> >
>> > Inside or outside? ;-)
>>
>> As many know, Calvin Klein has run many Ads. in the mainstream
>> media and on billboards that were truly pornographic
>> in nature, including many featuring children. I don't think anyone should
>in
>> any
>> way support that company.
>
>My mind filters out most visual ads, whether on TV, web, or bus. So I don't
I can certainly understand that.
>think I've ever seen the Calvin ads. (I have not been able to filter out
>musical ads.)
They're bad. They had one so bad in the US, I think they had to pull
it. If they only had one in a different sort of series, one could
imagine they weren't wierd examples of sex, but there are so many
there's no doubt. And I don't think they have ever denied it.
>
>Truth be told, I was on a trip in or near Boston, when I realized I ran out.
>Went over to a department store and bought a bunch of Calvins on sale. I'll
>be sure to buy Jockey's next time.
>
>;-)
>
>Abe
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
toichen
>
> > How do you tuck in your shirt and keep the tzitzit out?
>
> Difficult to describe but if you practice you should get the hang of it (good
> pun too- HANG of
> it!)
There are those who say that since the tzitzit go down into the
trouser and then come back up, the fold which is usually held by a
belt around the waist would make the bottom part of the tzitzit not
joined with the top half and therefore it would be incorrect to do so.
These people wear their tzitzit in their trousers and if you look hard
you can sometimes see their tzitzit coming out of the trouser leg on
the bottom
toichen
Lisa
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>"Lisa" <star...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3b28c2ce...@news.earthlink.net...
>
>> From a Jewish perspective, JOSHUA is a much more appropriate group
>> than JONAH, since there are far more halakhic pitfalls for a person
>> engaging in the heterosexual lifestyle to worry about. One may not
>> place himself (or herself) in the way of sin, and heterosexuality is
>> rife with the potential for serious sins, many of which are punishable
>> by the death penalty or "karet" (being cut off).
>
>In the above Lisa is saying (possibly tongue in cheek) that a gay life style
>is preferable to normal married life from a Halachic perspective since there
>are fewer possibilities of averah. I was just pointing out that such a
>person (OK, only if male) misses out on the mitzvah of peru urevu.
>The serious point is that without disputing Lisa's view that some people are
>unfortunately physically incapable of normal married life , there are also a
>number of bisexual people who should be encouraged to make the right choice.
>thai is what JONAH is for.
It is not. That may be the only valid thing you see in JONAH, but
it's not what they think it's for. Surely you realize that.
Lisa
meirm...@erols.com
Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>>
>>> > There were halachic issues working there. I never expected to find
>>> > a job in the financial industry where I was uncomfortable seeing
>>> > what some of my female co workers wore (or didn't).
One could take this two ways. You didn't expect to find one, but with
diligence you were able to. :)
>>> Personally I was quite comfortable seeing. As it says: Eynayim l'hem v'lo
>>> yirau? [ They have eyes, and they should not see? ] Think of the opportunity
>>> you had to be mekayem V'ahavta l'reacha [Love your neighbor]. Think of the
>>> opportunity you had to say the blessing upon seeing a beautiful person
>>> helping you towards the daily count of 100 brachot.
Does one get to make this brocha every day, or only once a month.
>>Would your wife agree?
>
>Why shouldn't she? I would be entirely comfortable if my husband were
>to see attractive women in relatively skimpy outfits at work (he
>probably does, judging from the miniskirt I saw at an after-work
>social outing recently). It's not as if he's going to *do* anything
>about it.
That's you, but there certainly are women, not just Jewish and not
just religious, who don't like it if their husbands are thinking about
another woman, even just her body, especially when he's home,
especially when the wife is close to him.
> -Naomi
N.R.
"toichen" <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:dd1c0ee8.01061...@posting.google.com...
> There are those who say that since the tzitzit go down into the
> trouser and then come back up, the fold which is usually held by a
> belt around the waist would make the bottom part of the tzitzit not
> joined with the top half and therefore it would be incorrect to do so.
> These people wear their tzitzit in their trousers and if you look hard
> you can sometimes see their tzitzit coming out of the trouser leg on
> the bottom
> toichen
Is that one of the reasons why most Chassidim wear the talis
koton _on top_ of their shirts?
Notes About Changed Header:
1. It was never a dumb question
2. 'Talis koton', literally 'small talis'- the small talis worn all-day that is
the topic
of this thread as opposed to the large talis (talis godol) worn for shacharis
(worn at mincha instead on Tisha B'Av).
Jeffrey Smith
>
>"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
>news:9g9e2f$ckm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>> (Yes, I go by "Mitch" at work. The gutteral in "Micha" doesn't cut it
>> in the American workplace.)
>
>What about Micah, the anglicized version? It's pretty close and yet
>not really a goyish name, at least not as goyish as 'Mitch'.
>
>The Medrash praises our forefathers very highly for not changing
>their names, mode of dress and speech when they were in
>slaves in Egypt. They remained distinctly Jewish.
>
I use my English names, Jeffrey Richard, in all communications with
the outside world, but with anyone in Israel I use my Hebrew names,
Ya'acov Re'uven. Crazy?
Jeffrey Smith.
Creedmoor Chronicles
Schneur Zalman has its roots in Spanish - Senor Salomon! And as for
surnames, there are "Ashkenazi" families called Abarbanel and derivatives
thereof and "Sephardi" families called Ashkenazi (under different
spellings)!
So much for the Khazar theory - how would Sephardic given names have morphed
into Eastern European Yiddish? How would Eastern European families bear
proud old Sephardic surnames (I myself am Peretz on my mother's side -
grandfather of very Sephardi appearance born in Bukovina, now Ukraine) Via
the Internet?
Ian
Eliyahu
"Creedmoor Chronicles" <icsrc...@matrix.ru> wrote in message
news:9gfmsp$1na$1...@news247.cnt.ru...
them choose new names as well?
N.R.
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:t2SW6.27527$9t5.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
>
> "N.R." <s...@reply-to.field> wrote in message
> news:9gd3r1$3f7$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > I knew someone named Paul who was 'Mod-O lite'. Paul!
> > Why would Jewish parents name their son Paul? I find
> > it repugnant.
>
> Shavua Tov
Shavua Tov v' Kayitz Tov!
> Paul is very common in the UK, even among strictly O families.
> So is Peter.
What do you think about that?