[Yaakov ben Avraham]

So there's 26 references to people who can't spell the word "retarded" correctly. That is ridiculous. Meanwhile, a meme is defined as the following:

QUOTE: "A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2]" (Wikipedia).

I don't see the point.

[Particle Person]

So there's 26 references to people who can't spell the word "retarded" correctly. That is ridiculous. Meanwhile, a meme is defined as the following:

QUOTE: "A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2]" (Wikipedia).

I don't see the point.

your retarted

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I am going to sign off for a bit. I've been on this thing for a long time. I think I shall go read a book or something. I'll be back later, and respond to any further questions then. Ciao for now!

[Thork]

He's gone to count money.

[Rama Set]

Just because it is too painful to watch Yaakov stumble through this anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme

An Internet meme (/ˈmiːm/ MEEM) is an activity, concept, catchphrase or piece of media which spreads, often as mimicry, from person to person via the Internet.

[Vindictus]

He's gone to count money.

I wonder if he yells at Muslims IRL as well.

[Rama Set]

Do you let other men shake your wife's hand?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

That's the first time I've gotten that question. The answer is, yes. She is a non-Jew, and I don't force her to comport herself with Jewish manners. As long as she comports herself with the proper conservativism of a non-Jew, I can live with that. I myself do not shake other women's hands, unless I am forced into it in some way (ie, if it would appear grossly rude to refuse). Generally, I try to put myself in a physical stance such that I can hold my hands behind my back and when the hand comes out, and I can kindly explain that it is my custom not to shake hands with women outside the family. With Jewish women, this is not a problem, even if they are the liberal type. With non-Jewish women, this may or may not be possible. It depends on the situation.

[beardo]

Do you wear a Kippah?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Yes, I do.

[beardo]

I've been wondering how they are kept in place. They look like they could fall off at any moment.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I use hair clips. Some people use barrettes. A bald person can use double sided tape that is made for the skin.

[Rama Set]

That's the first time I've gotten that question. The answer is, yes. She is a non-Jew, and I don't force her to comport herself with Jewish manners. As long as she comports herself with the proper conservativism of a non-Jew, I can live with that. I myself do not shake other women's hands, unless I am forced into it in some way (ie, if it would appear grossly rude to refuse). Generally, I try to put myself in a physical stance such that I can hold my hands behind my back and when the hand comes out, and I can kindly explain that it is my custom not to shake hands with women outside the family. With Jewish women, this is not a problem, even if they are the liberal type. With non-Jewish women, this may or may not be possible. It depends on the situation.

Doesn't this strike you as immature?  Or do you feel you have no control over your sexual urges?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Its not a question of maturity at all. Its a question of what's appropriate or not. It is not appropriate to touch women that are outside one's family (ie, not one's wife, mother, sister, or other immediate family relative). Gentiles have similar rules, they just don't extend them as far as we do. For example, you would not want your wife to show affection to another man in certain ways. We simply take the thing a little further. Notice that when Jews lived among Jews we had fewer incidences of men and women cheating on their spouses (at least, reported incidences), and fewer divorces, and definitely lower ratings of alcoholism than the general population. Now that we live with non-Jews, our alcoholism rate is only slightly lower than the general population.

The rules are good for all concerned. They reduce the risk of misunderstanding between two people that can result in incredible pain and sorrow to three or even four people. It is unwise to change things without EXTREMELY good reason to do so.

[Rama Set]

Its not a question of maturity at all. Its a question of what's appropriate or not. It is not appropriate to touch women that are outside one's family (ie, not one's wife, mother, sister, or other immediate family relative). Gentiles have similar rules, they just don't extend them as far as we do. For example, you would not want your wife to show affection to another man in certain ways. We simply take the thing a little further. Notice that when Jews lived among Jews we had fewer incidences of men and women cheating on their spouses (at least, reported incidences), and fewer divorces, and definitely lower ratings of alcoholism than the general population. Now that we live with non-Jews, our alcoholism rate is only slightly lower than the general population.

Do you have a citation for your rates of divorce and alcoholism?  How are you causally linking divorce rates to hand-shaking?

The rules are good for all concerned. They reduce the risk of misunderstanding between two people that can result in incredible pain and sorrow to three or even four people. It is unwise to change things without EXTREMELY good reason to do so.

This is a general ethical choice and I think you would be hard pressed to show it as empirical fact.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I don't have any citations. That' something I've always heard older Jews state, particularly the ones that lived through the Holocaust, and previously lived in Shtetls. The casual link between hand-shaking and divorce is simply saying that a handshake CAN become (not necessarily WILL become) something more than that.

You are right. It is an ethical choice. Is there an empirical fact outcome? Perhaps none that I personally can prove, since I am not a statistician. I'm sure someone could look at the date and come up with proof one way or the other.

But ultimately, why don't we touch our neighbour's wife? Because the Torah has been interpreted as telling us not to. I can't recall if its in the text itself, or if one has to go to the Talmud to find it. But the Torah of God has been interpreted as requiring very strict rules about our consideration of the other sex. Since not touching one's wife during her menses is in Torah, I expect the rest of it is too. I would look the matter up now, but I am in a bit of a hurry.

[Lord Dave]

Does this apply to gay Jews?
What about women?  Can they touch men who are not their family?

[Rama Set]

I don't have any citations. That' something I've always heard older Jews state, particularly the ones that lived through the Holocaust, and previously lived in Shtetls. The casual link between hand-shaking and divorce is simply saying that a handshake CAN become (not necessarily WILL become) something more than that.

You are right. It is an ethical choice. Is there an empirical fact outcome? Perhaps none that I personally can prove, since I am not a statistician. I'm sure someone could look at the date and come up with proof one way or the other.

But ultimately, why don't we touch our neighbour's wife? Because the Torah has been interpreted as telling us not to. I can't recall if its in the text itself, or if one has to go to the Talmud to find it. But the Torah of God has been interpreted as requiring very strict rules about our consideration of the other sex. Since not touching one's wife during her menses is in Torah, I expect the rest of it is too. I would look the matter up now, but I am in a bit of a hurry.

From what I saw, the prohibition on familar touching of those outside your family is in Leviticus.

This whole thing just smacks of the kind of irrationality that plagues the religious.  Once again, you have decided that one law in the Torah (no familiar touching of those outside your family) should still apply, but others should not (Execution for breaking the Sabbath), with no particularly good criteria.  They are all in the Torah, why dont you follow them all?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, to be blunt, if you violate the Sabbath in some parts of the world (say, KJ), the only reason they WON'T execute you is because they don't have the authority to do so. If they could, I expect they probably would.

Israel is governed largely by secular Jews who don't even worry about touching across gender lines, let alone other violations of the  Torah. So that's not relevant.

I would strongly advise you, if you are ever in KJ, or any place like it (there are several such communities in the USA, and quite a few in Israel), DON'T go and break the rules of Torah. You will be ridden out of town on a rail at the very least, and possibly worse. For example, show up to KJ some time, ladies, wearing daisey dukes and a halter-top and start wandering around. I can pretty much assure you that within about five or ten minutes, you WILL get stones thrown at you until you either one, leave, or two, are seriously injured or killed. And no, don't expect some "good Samaritan" to call the outside authorities to help you. Won't happen. The same is true for men who misbehave or get into mischief.

So, remember. Just because the Jews you SEE don't kill each other for violating Sabbath doesn't mean it couldn't happen. It just means that the Jews you see in the public eye are the liberal Jews or the non-religious Jews. The same Jews that touch each other outside the family are the ones who don't worry about violating the sabbath. The ones who won't touch each other are the same who would not violate the Sabbath, and so would do fine in some place like KJ.

And as men are to women, so women are to men. The restrictions are the same. Gay Jews are not contemplated in this scheme of things, obviously. When the text was written, no one really gave that much thought, I don't suppose. At the time, homosexuality was understood to be forbidden outright under penalty of death. As we've come to differently understand human sexualities, I am not sure what that may or may not do to the traditional standards. Probably nothing. Since the majority of men are straight, as are the majority of women, I expect that there won't be much change in the question of who may touch whom, especially since the Bible has spoken clearly on the matter. The Bible never spoke clearly on the matter of homosexuality. But on the matter of who can touch whom, it does.

[Rama Set]

Well, to be blunt, if you violate the Sabbath in some parts of the world (say, KJ), the only reason they WON'T execute you is because they don't have the authority to do so. If they could, I expect they probably would.

Israel is governed largely by secular Jews who don't even worry about touching across gender lines, let alone other violations of the  Torah. So that's not relevant.

I would strongly advise you, if you are ever in KJ, or any place like it (there are several such communities in the USA, and quite a few in Israel), DON'T go and break the rules of Torah. You will be ridden out of town on a rail at the very least, and possibly worse. For example, show up to KJ some time, ladies, wearing daisey dukes and a halter-top and start wandering around. I can pretty much assure you that within about five or ten minutes, you WILL get stones thrown at you until you either one, leave, or two, are seriously injured or killed. And no, don't expect some "good Samaritan" to call the outside authorities to help you. Won't happen. The same is true for men who misbehave or get into mischief.

So, remember. Just because the Jews you SEE don't kill each other for violating Sabbath doesn't mean it couldn't happen. It just means that the Jews you see in the public eye are the liberal Jews or the non-religious Jews. The same Jews that touch each other outside the family are the ones who don't worry about violating the sabbath. The ones who won't touch each other are the same who would not violate the Sabbath, and so would do fine in some place like KJ.

And as men are to women, so women are to men. The restrictions are to men. Gay Jews are not contemplated in this scheme of things, obviously. When the text was written, no one really gave that much thought, I don't suppose. At the time, homosexuality was understood to be forbidden outright under penalty of death. As we've come to differently understand human sexualities, I am not sure what that may or may not do to the traditional standards. Probably nothing. Since the majority of men are straight, as are the majority of women, I expect that there won't be much change in the question of who may touch whom, especially since the Bible has spoken clearly on the matter. The Bible never spoke clearly on the matter of homosexuality. But on the matter of who can touch whom, it does.

How is this not completely barbaric?