posted
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend by stereotyping Jews as rich. But, as you mentioned, there are specific individuals who are well-off. I'm assuming that in past Jewish migrations, there were times when the wealthier members of the community helped with the expenses of the poorer. (That was the case during the Mormon migrations in the 1800s, back when the Mormon Church was not at all wealthy.) If that's a false assumption, I'd be very surprised.
Frankly, my thinking was more focused on the idea that Jews and Mormons would be the religious groups most likely to be persecuted by Protestants and have nowhere to go but off-world. That's the commonality that I saw and wanted to work with.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, I didn't mean to offend by stereotyping Jews as rich.
I am not offended.
quote: I'm assuming that in past Jewish migrations, there were times when the wealthier members of the community helped with the expenses of the poorer. (That was the case during the Mormon migrations in the 1800s, back when the Mormon Church was not at all wealthy.) If that's a false assumption, I'd be very surprised.
Prepare to be shocked. Generally, when Jews were expelled from a country, they were not allowed to take along much in the way of personal property, let alone wealth. Some managed to sneak out a little (coat linings, etc.), but "migrations" almost always meant starting over.
And unfortunately, even if there was already an established Jewish community in the new country, there was not necessarily much in the way of assistance for the new immigrants available. Sometimes because the community didn't have much themselves; sometimes because of prejudice in the established Jewish community against the newcomers. (See Our Crowd and The New Crowd by Stephen Birmingham.)
You are making assumptions about parallels between Jews and Mormons that simply don't exist.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parallels do apply, however, to freed slave communities in the north helping free slaves in the south pre-civil-war. They raised money to buy slaves, to pay Underground Railroad costs, to get escaped slaves who were in hiding to Canada, and to give slaves who made it north a new start.
Not that that's really relevant.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was shocked. I can understand the situations you described, but found it very hard to believe that the concept of the wealthier members helping the poorer members to migrate was something that never happened with Jews.
So I did a little research, and I found some examples. The United Hebrew Immigrant Aid Service assisted Russian Jews in coming to the United States from the Soviet Union. (There was, in fact, a bit of a fracas with Israel over that.)
The Jewish Agency for Israel is a current non-profit organization that, among other things, provides grants to help new immigrants pay for air travel to Israel.
And while Operation Moses and Operation Solomon were Israeli government efforts rather than privately funded, the Ethiopian Jews were not funding the airlifts themselves, so I think that counts to some extent as wealthier Jews helping poorer to migrate.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean to imply that it never happened! Sorry if that was what it seemed I was saying.
There are certainly many organizations that help with making aliyah (moving to Israel). Nefesh b'Nefesh is the one I support. However, you have to understand that making aliyah is different in an extremely important way from any other migration.
You also have to understand that the type of fundraising you are talking about is a very gradual process, and takes years -- often decades. There does not exist some fund that could simply be tapped.
Jews have ALWAYS helped other Jews! But not in the sort of official, communal, financial way you are describing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but I'll take a shot.
Torah Law was relayed by Moshe from God at Sinai. At that point, it became binding for all generations and for all time upon the Jewish people. (There is a midrash which explains how it could be binding on those not yet born. Every soul that would ever be born to a Jewish mother or would convert was at Sinai along with all those who were actually alive at the time. Whether this is literal or metaphorical can be debated, but it is an important notion ether way. The Jewish matchmaking site Saw You At Sinai gets its name from it.)
Before Sinai, the laws were not binding (with a couple of exceptions, like circumcision). Moreover, before Sinai, there did not exist a Jewish nation. Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov and Rochel and Leah were our forefathers. But it takes more than a single family to be a nation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but I'll take a shot.
Torah Law was relayed by Moshe from God at Sinai. At that point, it became binding for all generations and for all time upon the Jewish people. (There is a midrash which explains how it could be binding on those not yet born. Every soul that would ever be born to a Jewish mother or would convert was at Sinai along with all those who were actually alive at the time. Whether this is literal or metaphorical can be debated, but it is an important notion ether way. The Jewish matchmaking site Saw You At Sinai gets its name from it.)
Before Sinai, the laws were not binding (with a couple of exceptions, like circumcision). Moreover, before Sinai, there did not exist a Jewish nation. Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov and Rochel and Leah were our forefathers. But it takes more than a single family to be a nation.
Right. Being Jewish wasn't hereditary before Sinai. You had to choose it.
I posted this link over on the other thread, but if you're looking for an explanation of the Law itself, you might want to check out the Torah 101 thread.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know a good web site that a teacher could use to teach non-Jewish children about Chanukah? My wife gets to do this next week and is asking for my help. I am probably over thinking it, but I want to avoid any connections to Christmas. Lots of pictures are good, as she will be using one of those smart boards that are replacing chalk boards nation wide.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Torah Tots has some fun stuff. So does Akhlah. I used them in my Hebrew School K-1 class a couple of years ago.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok... if this is somewhere in this thread already, please feel free to link me back to the appropriate spot.
Aren't there some regulations on Orthodox Clothing? I vaguely remembered something about this and wondered if it was fact or fiction. I don't mean in the "covering up of the body" sense, I mean like I don't think you are supposed to mix certain kinds of fibers together, like linen and wool or something.
Was wondering about it because of my spinning habit. If I use a spindle that has touched one kind of fiber, and then another is it a problem as far as "kosher" fabric goes?
posted
You are correct in that it's forbidden to wear an article of clothing containing both linen and wool, even to the extent of having one linen thread in a wool garment. (This prohibition is known as shatnez.)
With that said, the sewing equipment doesn't have to be exclusive. As long as you remove all of one thread before switching to the other, you should be fine.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(read link) I'm surprised this particular prohibition has stayed so simple, while the food has gotten so much more complicated. Maybe it's because there weren't as many textile blends when they wrote the commentary on the Torah?
posted
AJ, it looks to me like if lanolin was on the spindle and you spun linen, as long as it was washed or cleaned to make sure there was no wool fiber remaining on it, you would be okay. Of course, I don't know anything about it but that's what I got from the link, since it said that if linen was found in the lining of the collar of a wool coat, you could just remove the linen, making sure that every thread was gone.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: (read link) I'm surprised this particular prohibition has stayed so simple, while the food has gotten so much more complicated.
Food has always been complicated -- it's not a single prohibition, but several. Also, there are stronger prohibitions about what we eat, both because of a "you are what you eat" concept, and because of the social nature of food.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: rivka, Tante etc. In real life what do you do when shopping for clothes to deal with this particular commandment?
If not buying something that is primarily wool or linen, nothing. And I never buy linen (neither the budget nor the interest). When buying wool, I check the label first. Then I consult with my cousin (who checks shatnez) as to whether it needs checking. For most women's garments (with the exception of certain brands of suits and winter coats) the answer is no. If it is yes, I bring it to him and he checks it.
Men's suits are far more often a problem than women's -- especially since most of my clothes aren't wool to begin with. If I lived in a cold climate, it would be much more of an issue for me.
Hooray for synthetics!
Lanolin would not be a problem. Only actual fibers.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:rivka, Tante etc. In real life what do you do when shopping for clothes to deal with this particular commandment?
What Rivka said. Modern synthetics has presumably made this much easier. Most clothes I buy are cotton and/or polyester, which are non-problematic, and there are trained professionals who inspect suits.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pardon my extreme rudeness, but neither kashrus nor Shabbos, but shatnez you worry about? Or was that more a hypothetical comment? *puzzled*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hypothetical. Though the statement stands anyway; I haven't bought anything in the past few years that would require checking.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, there are labs that do shatnetz testing. And I check the labels to make sure that the clothing is kosher. It almost always is. The linen/wool mix is not particularly popular.
True story: Back before I got religion, I had a linen blouse that I decided to wear one day under a shetland wool sweater. It was very itchy. I never wore that combination again, because of the itchiness.
Another shatnetz-related prohibition is against yoking two different kinds of animals together on your plow. I've never even been tempted on this one.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fascinating... thanks... It's one of those, if I did ever sell my handspun wool yarn I would want to make sure that it was accessible to Jews and non-jews alike.
I am kind of surprised that cotton doesn't come under the "linen" commandment, as both are plant based, while wool is animal based. But it looks like it's only sheep's wool at that, not even other kinds of animal fibers.
Is the reason why it wasn't generalized, because of the "you are what you eat" thing? I mean obviously proper dress is very important to the Orthodox Jew. So why didn't they broaden the commandment with time?
posted
You seem to think there is a general tendency to "broaden commandments with time." That is inaccurate. "Fences" are placed around commandments when it is deemed necessary. Cotton and linen fibers are unlikely to be confused. Nor is wool likely to be confused with other animal fibers. So there was no need for additional "fences."
Also, proper dress involves a number of things which are more important than the specific fibers.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
broaden commandments with time was poor wording on my part.
My understanding (and please straighten me out where I'm wrong) is that the fences are created in order to reiterate the "idea" or "concept" behind the rule as well (this still isn't phrased right but the words aren't coalescing well for me)
The rabbis seem to draw moral reasons and examples from most of the laws, and I'm surprised there isn't more in this case. The example I was comparing it to was the dietary requirement of not mixing meat and dairy. The original statement of the law is (if I recall correctly)something about not boiling a calf in it's mother's milk. Maybe it is reiterated more elsewhere throughout the Torah, but to me this simple statement (and i'm not arguing with the rabbis, this is my non-jewish perspective so tell me where I'm wrong)led to the separation of meat and dairy in much wider areas of daily life.
I understand if it just wasn't as important, but I'm surprised that the linen/wool commandment hasn't been taken to the same vigilance as a kosher kitchen. I guess I see the same (and again this is just me) sort of equivalency between calf/mother's milk to meat/dairy in cooking sense as wool/linen is to animal/ plant as far as fiber origin.
Again this is just how my brain works... and I'm trying to understand the nuances.
posted
First of all, the "calf in its mother's milk" is not said once, but three separate times. Some of the laws derive from that repetition alone.
Also, there are several other separate biblical laws having to do with kashrus. From ones having to do with not eating insects to meat from non-kosher animals to kosher animals that were killed improperly. My off-the-cuff guess is that there are about a dozen biblical laws having to do with kashrus.
There is a single one (or possibly two?) having to do with mixing wool and linen.
While we certainly do learn moral reasons from the laws, those are not the reason for "fences." Those are as practical stay-away-from-the-edge measures, to ensure that we not accidentally sin. So, chicken gets counted as "meat," because it can easily (especially if cut small or ground) be confused with beef or veal. Fish, which is more distinct, does not get so classified.
I don't think anyone would be likely to confuse linen and cotton.
OTOH, people are very careful about not mixing linen and wool. Shatnez checkers do brisk business, especially right before a holiday (when lots of men buy new suits). Just because there are not as many restrictions does not mean they are not taken as seriously.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: The original statement of the law is (if I recall correctly)something about not boiling a calf in it's mother's milk. Maybe it is reiterated more elsewhere throughout the Torah, but to me this simple statement (and i'm not arguing with the rabbis, this is my non-jewish perspective so tell me where I'm wrong)led to the separation of meat and dairy in much wider areas of daily life.
AJ, the source of Jewish law is in the Oral Torah. The verses are, in part, mnemonic devices to make the law easier to remember.
In this case, the fact that "don't boil a kid in its mothers milk" appears three times in the Torah is a reminder of the three Torah laws regarding the subject of meat and dairy:
It is forbidden to cook kosher beheima meat with kosher beheima milk
It is forbidden to eat a cooked combination of those two
It is forbidden to derive benefit from a cooked combination of the two (you can't sell it, you can't feed it to your pet schnauser, you can't use it as a doorstop)
Beheima is one of two kinds of land animals, and includes cows, sheep, goats, buffalo (and probably some others. Aurochs, I bet). Deer aren't in that category, so they weren't originally included in the prohibition. Neither are fowl. But the rabbis made a fence by including both deer (and other animals in that category) and fowl. But they only included them in the second category. The one about not eating them. There's no prohibition of cooking or deriving benefit if the meat or the dairy is from a non-beheima or if it's not kosher. Ham and cheese is only forbidden because of the ham -- not because it's meat and milk mixed. The rabbis also added an extension that the mixture itself can't be eaten, even if it's not cooked.
You can see why these extensions were logical if the goal was to make a fence, right? If you can eat it not cooked, can you eat it warmed? At what point is is considered cooked? Better not to eat it together at all. And venison and poultry are pretty easy to confuse with beef or veal or lamb, at least by sight.
Wool and linen are kind of hard to confuse, I think.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
When uncircumcised adult males convert to Judaism (Which I understand is rarely) do they have to be ritually circumcised?
Also, in Genesis 34 when Dinah is raped and then the men who raped her are circumcised and then slaughtered, was that ritual circumcision, or just normal circumcision?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if the man were to already be circumsised, a symbolic drop of blood is required, so the ritual is required.
The question I guess then is if someone is uncircumsised can they do it medically, and then just have the symbolic drop of blood.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Also, in Genesis 34 when Dinah is raped and then the men who raped her are circumcised and then slaughtered, was that ritual circumcision, or just normal circumcision?
What's the difference between the two?
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On further reflection, and taking a wild guess at what you might be driving at...
(a) The rules pre-Sinai were substantially different than post-Sinai; laws regarding circumcision, conversion, and Jewish identity that exist in this latter period do not map cleanly onto the former.
(b) Nothing in Genesis 34 is an example of how things are supposed to be done. This is a cautionary tale about zeal gone horribly wrong. Note Genesis 49:5-7, in which Simeon and Levi are cursed due to their actions here, in lieu of the blessings that they otherwise might have received.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: On further reflection, and taking a wild guess at what you might be driving at...
(a) The rules pre-Sinai were substantially different than post-Sinai; laws regarding circumcision, conversion, and Jewish identity that exist in this latter period do not map cleanly onto the former.
(b) Nothing in Genesis 34 is an example of how things are supposed to be done. This is a cautionary tale about zeal gone horribly wrong. Note Genesis 49:5-7, in which Simeon and Levi are cursed due to their actions here, in lieu of the blessings that they otherwise might have received.
Hmm... maybe. Remember, Jacob has no response to the reasoning of the brothers ("Should our sister be made a harlot?"). He explicitly says that it's their anger that he's cursing. He doesn't say that taking revenge on a rapist and the society that protected him was wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Remember, Jacob has no response to the reasoning of the brothers
Or perhaps the writers decided to end that account on that statement. Or perhaps thats where the record of the dialog ends.
Still you MIGHT be right, but why would Jacob condemn their anger? I doubt Jacob would rather have Levi and Simeon go around killing all those people who were not all culpable with a feeling of pure neutrality.
There are plenty of justified anger incidents documented in the scriptures. Samuel hewing Agag to pieces, 1 Sam. 15: 33. Moses coming down from the mountain and encountering the Israelites reveling in idolatry and riotousness.
God himself declares his anger/displeasure/indignation many times. Why would He condemn a man purely for being angry?
Or were you saying that Jacob cursed them and God had respect for the cursing?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Also, in Genesis 34 when Dinah is raped and then the men who raped her are circumcised and then slaughtered, was that ritual circumcision, or just normal circumcision?
What's the difference between the two?
My Jewish studies prof said there was a difference.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Remember, Jacob has no response to the reasoning of the brothers
Or perhaps the writers decided to end that account on that statement. Or perhaps thats where the record of the dialog ends.
We believe that God wrote it. And if He left it off there, it was for a reason. What the reason is... it could be that Jacob didn't think the comment was worth a response, but that's not how Jewish tradition has viewed it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Still you MIGHT be right, but why would Jacob condemn their anger?
<shrug> Anger makes you do things that aren't well thought through. Jewish tradition says that after the events in this case, the surrounding nations decided that Jacob and his sons were bad news, and attacked them. And that they had to fight, which Jacob would rather not have done.
Shortly before he dies, Jacob deeds the city of Shechem to Joseph, which he says he took from the Amorite with his sword and bow (Genesis 48:22).
And he specifically says (Genesis 49:7) "Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, because it was cruel.
Jewish tradition also says that it was Simeon and Levi who took the lead in capturing Joseph and throwing him down the pit. That's one of the reasons why Simeon was the one Joseph imprisoned when he sent the other brothers back to get Benjamin.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I doubt Jacob would rather have Levi and Simeon go around killing all those people who were not all culpable with a feeling of pure neutrality.
Ah, but they were culpable. At least according to our tradition. Shechem didn't hide his rape of Dina. He was very open about it, and his people backed him up. One of the seven Noachide laws is the requirement to set up courts to enforce the others. The injustice that was accepted in their society made them culpable.
But they didn't go at the retribution straightforwardly. They were sneaky, and they made it seem like we couldn't be trusted. That was bad.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: God himself declares his anger/displeasure/indignation many times. Why would He condemn a man purely for being angry?
Or were you saying that Jacob cursed them and God had respect for the cursing?
I didn't say anything about God at all. It was Jacob who cursed their anger. God didn't say anything about it one way or the other.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he doesn't know what the difference is, then how does he know that there is one? What is his basis for declaring that they were different?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, he knew there was a difference, he didn't know if the men circumcised in Genesis were circumcised ritually or not. Since I wasn't aware that he was wrong that there was a difference until I read this thread, I didn't think to ask him for details on what the difference was.
Is this line of questioning offensive?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. I just think he's wrong. And I repeat Shmuel's question -- which is the one I think you should ask your prof.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between a bris and a non-Jewish baby being circumcised at the hospital, isn't there? Although the second would not have been an option in Genesis, so I don't really see what the professor was getting at.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I have finally mastered the plot (that's the last you'll hear of it) and want to start writing. However...
*If I want to say 'In his appartment, Joe Bloggs walks through his kitchen into his living room. He takes out a cigarette, looks for his lighter, finds it on the table and lights it. He then goes to the toilet. Afterwards, he goes upstairs and says "Hello, how are you" to his brother. His brother says "Go away". Joe then goes back downstairs.', how would I say that in script format?
*If I want a scene set to a certain piece of music (first piece on my mind - AC/DC 'Highway to Hell'), how would I write that in script form (let's imagine a character walks down a street in slow-mo to Highway to hell) - how would I write that in a script?
posted
This has always been my favorite Hatrack thread. I knew about the thread (and Rivka) before I even knew about Hatrack.
Thanks so much!
And, oh yeah, the kind of circumcision that they do in the hospital is different than the Jewish bris, and doesn't count as ritually circumcised. If you had a non-bris circumcision and then convert to Judaism, you have to have a bris anyway.
PS, I've seen hospital-type circumcisions and bris milah, and, from what I've seen, the hospital type is more barbaric and painful for the baby.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: This has always been my favorite Hatrack thread. I knew about the thread (and Rivka) before I even knew about Hatrack.
Thanks so much!
And, oh yeah, the kind of circumcision that they do in the hospital is different than the Jewish bris, and doesn't count as ritually circumcised. If you had a non-bris circumcision and then convert to Judaism, you have to have a bris anyway.
That's what he was talking about. He never tells us how to spell the Hebrew words he uses, so I can never write them down, so I never remember them.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: And, oh yeah, the kind of circumcision that they do in the hospital is different than the Jewish bris, and doesn't count as ritually circumcised. If you had a non-bris circumcision and then convert to Judaism, you have to have a bris anyway.
And before we scare anyone, when the circumcision has already been done (either because someone converts or because it was done in the hospital already (as Mandy Patinkin relates in a funny standup bit happened to him as an infant)), the bris involves a single drop of blood. No additional skin is removed.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: This has always been my favorite Hatrack thread. I knew about the thread (and Rivka) before I even knew about Hatrack.
Did you know rivka from elsewhere, and know about the thread through her? If not, how did you know about both the thread and rivka?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wool and linen are kind of hard to confuse, I think.
I guess I didn't make it clear enough. Linen and cotton are easy to confuse... they are both plant fibers.
So since the prohibition is against linen/wool, why not extend it to cotton/wool, because cotton and linen could easily be confused with each other.
Linen is now much more expensive but there is a time where it wasn't. Where do Mohair and Cashmere fall in the mix? They are from goats, not sheep... for example.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
