quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Salami, onions and cinnamon? Gag me.
I don't know. Cinnamon is often used in savory dishes in Indian and Mexican cuisine and can be quite good. I'd have to try that combination to see, but I couldn't automatically guess if it would work or not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once, my ex made a cholent using a recipe that included a cut up chicken, frozen french fries, and cinnamon. Oddly enough, it wasn't bad. But I doubt I'd try it again.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I make pasta pretty often, and I put cinnamon in several kinds of sauces. A little goes a long way, though.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a couple of curious questions, if someone doesn't mind answering.
Recently, I was sitting in our student union while a Rosh Hashonah service was going on in a room nearby (I could hear the singing, and it was awesome). When the service was over, I noticed a lot of the men were carrying what looked like blue velvet pillows with something stitched into the side in gold. Any idea what those were?
The other question has to do with Jewish mourning. I know for thirty days after the burial, it's custom for the men to refrain from shaving. Would this be lifted for a man in the military, or other profession where shaving is expected?
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Recently, I was sitting in our student union while a Rosh Hashonah service was going on in a room nearby (I could hear the singing, and it was awesome). When the service was over, I noticed a lot of the men were carrying what looked like blue velvet pillows with something stitched into the side in gold. Any idea what those were?
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Would this be lifted for a man in the military, or other profession where shaving is expected?
Sure. There are actually a two mourning periods in the Jewish calendar both lasting around 3 weeks. One is allowed to shave for work if people would not understand and it would cause you to lose your livelihood.
My father would shave during those periods. But when there is a death in the family, people can be pretty understanding - my father grew his beard out for the 30 days after his father died, and his work gave him no trouble.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Recently, I was sitting in our student union while a Rosh Hashonah service was going on in a room nearby (I could hear the singing, and it was awesome). When the service was over, I noticed a lot of the men were carrying what looked like blue velvet pillows with something stitched into the side in gold. Any idea what those were?
posted
I've been wondering about the prohibition on Jews either charging or paying interest to other Jews. How does this work in the modern world? All the major banks are owned by stock holders that almost certainly include some Jews and things like mortgages are packaged and sold as part of Equities Funds.
It seems that strictly obeying this rule would require observant Jews to avoid doing business with all public banks, retirement funds, or even holding government bonds. Is this the case or are these types of transactions considered sufficiently different from a personal loan that the rule does not apply?
I can imagine that a close knit community might have its own fund that would provide interest free mortgages and loans to other members of the community. My bigger question is about how it works in the other direction. What measure is an observant Jew expected to take to make sure the interest they are collecting on their 401K wasn't paid by other Jews?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a really interesting question that I don't know the answer to. I've thought about it in the past, and spoke about it with my father - it isn't clear that corporations are viewed the same as individuals. I know that there are books, in English out there on this subject, if you're interested. But I shall discuss with knowledgeable friends and rabbis. Unless someone here already knows the answer.
And yea, in my community you can get small interest-free loans from a whole lot of people.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In classical Jewish law, the only two entities were individuals and partnerships. Corporations didn't exist, you see. So when they were created, the rabbis needed to figure out whether they were one or the other or something new. What they decided was to follow the secular idea of a corporation as an individual, and say that it is Jewish or not depending on whether a majority of the company is owned by Jews.
This has a great deal of significance every year on Passover, because a liquor company that is more than half owned by Jews is considered Jewish. Which means that any beer or whiskey (and whatever other drinks are chametz) that the company owns during Passover are non-kosher forever for Jews. The only way around it is if either the corporation sells the drinks to a non-Jew for the duration of Passover, or if enough Jewish shareholders divest themselves over the course of Passover that the corporation is no longer considered "Jewish".
With a partnership, even a single Jewish partner makes the partnership Jewish. But corporations are deemed to be different.
posted
Thanks for the answer--I never would have thought they were bags, but I saw some pictures that looked identical to what a couple of the men were carrying.
I did find it interesting that of the thirty or so men (and by men I mean males who look to be high school age or older), only two or three of them had those bags, and a few weren't wearing kippot (I think that's the plural). There was one who appeared to be around my age (I'm 22 now) who had apparently either forgotten his or was trying to joke about it who was wearing a large coffee filter attached to his hair by bobby pins. I don't even know if there's a synagogue in this town--every holiday service I've ever known of was held through the Jewish student organization on campus, and was help either in the student union or in the house the organization owns.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Also, in cases where the bank is owned primarily by Jews, one uses a heter iskah. Works for loans from individuals as well.
Isn't that basically make a loan with interest and just calling it something else to prevent it for violating the rule?
Not trying to be rude, I promise, just interested in why what you call something matters more than what the actual outcome is, particularly since that link specifically said these are allowed even when the only reason one is used is to find a kosher way of doing an otherwise prohibited action.
(see, I really did read it )
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Isn't that basically make a loan with interest and just calling it something else to prevent it for violating the rule?
Not just calling it something else; actually changing the nature of the transaction. (There are certain practical implications of this change that are alluded to in both the contract and the article.) But, yes.
Shall we talk about tax loopholes in US law next? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was showing the Jew Faq site to a friend who was asking about Jewish weddings. At the bottom it talks about kohein marriages being stricter then most (I understand why), does it mean that children of a woman who is kohein and a non-Jew are mamzerim? It talks about a man marrying a woman on the site, so I was curious. If that is the case am I correct that the mamzerim off-spring would be forbidden from marrying a Jew?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Isn't that basically make a loan with interest and just calling it something else to prevent it for violating the rule?
Not just calling it something else; actually changing the nature of the transaction. (There are certain practical implications of this change that are alluded to in both the contract and the article.) But, yes.
Shall we talk about tax loopholes in US law next?
I don't think of those the same way. One has to obey the letter of the US tax laws in order to avoid civil consequences - jail, fines and so forth. One looks for loopholes in order to "get around" an imperfectly written law that one doesn't want to obey. If I were choosing to obey a law I believed was good, I would not be trying to find loopholes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: At the bottom it talks about kohein marriages being stricter then most (I understand why), does it mean that children of a woman who is kohein and a non-Jew are mamzerim? It talks about a man marrying a woman on the site, so I was curious.
No. The offspring of a kohein and a non-Jew would simply be non-Jews, just like the offspring of any Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman. Women cannot BE kohanim.
And the offspring of a kohein and a Jewish woman forbidden to him (such as a divorcee) is also not a mamzer. ONLY the results of incest and adultery are mamzerim.
(As for whether a mamzer can marry a Jew, that is a very complicated question. But the short version is not generally.)
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think of those the same way.
How nice for you. I think you are wrong on how both US tax law AND Jewish law work.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying anything in particular about Jewish law to be wrong about. Just responding to the idea of "loopholes". Maybe we are using the word differently? Is it not a way to "get around" laws?
Does one not have consequences when one breaks US tax law? I am trying to figure out what you think I am wrong about.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka et al should be free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that prohibitions such as the one against lending to other Jews (note: I am simplifying) are evaluated on very specific terms. If the specific prohibitions are systematically dealt with so that they are not violated, then it isn't a "loophole" that is letting one do something forbidden by fancy footwork, it is removing the aspects of the thing that were forbidden to create a new thing, similar as it may seem, that is not forbidden at all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we talk about loopholes, we're talking about ways of evading what may appear to be the intent of the law by means which do not violate any laws in the process.
We aren't allowed to own leavened products in our possession on Passover. By selling all of our leavened products to a non-Jew prior to the onset of Passover, we're complying, even if the stuff is still in our homes, because we don't own it. But it's a loophole, because the apparent meaning of the law is that we should get rid of it, and what we do is buy it back as soon as Passover is over.
The thing is, since God is omniscient and not bound by time, any loophole in the system is in there by intent. By definition. It's impossible to find a loophole that God didn't think of.
To use the US tax law analogy, which is only of limited use, if I donate my car and the tax exempt charity gives me a paper that says the value of the car was X when in my opinion it wasn't even worth half of X, what would you say about me taking X off on my taxes? I can do so and be in full complience of the law. It may be that the charity could get in trouble at some time in the future, but then again, maybe they won't. Or maybe my opinion of the car's value is the thing that's in error and it really was worth X.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rivka et al should be free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that prohibitions such as the one against lending to other Jews (note: I am simplifying) are evaluated on very specific terms. If the specific prohibitions are systematically dealt with so that they are not violated, then it isn't a "loophole" that is letting one do something forbidden by fancy footwork, it is removing the aspects of the thing that were forbidden to create a new thing, similar as it may seem, that is not forbidden at all.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rivka et al should be free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that prohibitions such as the one against lending to other Jews (note: I am simplifying) are evaluated on very specific terms. If the specific prohibitions are systematically dealt with so that they are not violated, then it isn't a "loophole" that is letting one do something forbidden by fancy footwork, it is removing the aspects of the thing that were forbidden to create a new thing, similar as it may seem, that is not forbidden at all.
quote:The thing is, since God is omniscient and not bound by time, any loophole in the system is in there by intent.
This is a truly beautiful rationalization.
So is using evolution as an excuse not to believe in God.
Welcome to rationalist religion. It's a whole different animal than "leaps of faith" and Ouija boards.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, none of this matters to me. It's not like I'm going to lie awake at night wondering whether you're feeling guilty about working around the mandates of the God you believe in.
Like I said, it's a truly beautiful rationalization. It is, in fact, something that helps you sleep at night, and I'm kind of impressed by it. (I wouldn't describe it as "rationalist," though, myself, although I can understand why you feel you need to.)
(Let me also note: I have never attempted to use evolution to not believe in God. The best reason not to believe in God is the complete absence of evidence for a God.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
No. I wrote (and meant to imply) that it was considered good. Reading the responses of others it seems that we are using "loophole" differently. If it is intended than it isn't a loophole and one is not "getting around" anything. A loophole, to me is a way to subvert what the law intends.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa's example regarding tax law is a good example. So are the various benefits that US tax law gives business owners, including those filing a Schedule C (sole proprietorship, which includes consultants and the like).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We already went over this issue in detail and there was a very drawn out argument over the ways which you considered your religion not to be "faith based". You were not able to muster a credible defense of the notion that judaism was not faith based, so just saying it is again isn't a very credible advancement. Wou?d you care to be linked to the relevant posts where your ideas were soundly challenged?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: We already went over this issue in detail and there was a very drawn out argument over the ways which you considered your religion not to be "faith based". You were not able to muster a credible defense of the notion that judaism was not faith based, so just saying it is again isn't a very credible advancement. Wou?d you care to be linked to the relevant posts where your ideas were soundly challenged?
posted
Is pointing out that a religion is obviously faith based, and that this has been demonstrated clearly before during forum discussions, an 'attack' on beliefs?
I can see why you would prefer it be exported to another thread, but..
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is pointing out that a religion is obviously faith based, and that this has been demonstrated clearly before during forum discussions, an 'attack' on beliefs?
Once? I think not. Persistently and belligerently?
posted
I'm just saying, it's odd you can't discuss whether or not Judaism is faith-based on the "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belligerence? Interesting. The persistence is on both sides. Judaism is a faith based religion; there are leaps of faith. Particular to Armoth, with whom this discussion has already been had and essentially wrapped up, there's a leap of faith where it must somehow be impossible that the mass revelation is not what it is claimed to be by Judaism. To want to point out that a leap of faith is a leap of faith in response to an already existent assertion otherwise is hardly inherently belligerent.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Belligerence? Interesting. The persistence is on both sides. Judaism is a faith based religion; there are leaps of faith. Particular to Armoth, with whom this discussion has already been had and essentially wrapped up, there's a leap of faith where it must somehow be impossible that the mass revelation is not what it is claimed to be by Judaism. To want to point out that a leap of faith is a leap of faith in response to an already existent assertion otherwise is hardly inherently belligerent.
Is it a leap of faith to believe that man walked on the moon?
Here's the trap many fall into. We can't absolutely prove anything. You can't prove that I exist, or that you are speaking to me, or that you are not in the Matrix. But that doesn't matter. We don't make decisions on what we can prove, we make decisions based on probabilities and overwhelming probabilities.
As such, the mass revelation is just as credible as the knowledge that man walked the moon, if not more so, and although the possibility exists that it did not happen, and that it was conspiracy, that possibility is just as large as the probability that we are all in the Matrix.
I'd even go so far as to say that one who does not realize that this is how they make most of their decisions, consciously or otherwise, and demands a higher level of "proof" when it comes to religion, when one does not demand that level of proof for their day to day decisions, is lying to themselves.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you believe that the evidence for the mass revelation is as credible as the evidence for the moon landing?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
