Yishai

If you don't see that as at least a 51% possibility you haven't been paying attention to this type of corporate politics as practiced on the coasts of the United States.

If we, the community, want to preserve the community, thinking long term about how to leave stack exchange and go elsewhere (the terms of the license say you can take the content with you, with attribution) needs to be on the table. Today they kicked out a moderator. Tomorrow they may start deleting offensive questions or demanding that the moderators do so as part of their job, etc.

@DonielF At least one site was left without any moderator at all. Perhaps this issue alone isn't worth abandoning Stack Exchange at risk to the community and starting over elsewhere, but at some point that will happen. It is the inevitable end of these types of policies.

@HodofHod Hey! Yeah, been busy. Still am ;-)

The posuk is what the Talmud Sanhedrin uses (49a). The Rambam didn't have to try to find anything. Perhaps you mean to ask that we can't learn a new halacha from Navi, so what is the Torah source?

@Yitzchak, I am asking if those opposed to "We Want Moshiach Now" are equally opposed Tikkun Chatzos for the same reason (if they hold one is a problem, they should hold equally of both). I'm skeptical that is the case, at which point I'm skeptical this is the answer. It is possible they find some distinction. But I don't know, because although I had heard of opposition, I never heard a reason.

@Yitzchak, so the answer is that those who opposed "We Want Moshiach Now" equally opposed Tikkun Rachel and Tikkun Leah for the same reason?

What about עד מתי, especially as used in Tikkun Chatzos?

@DonielF, one who rejects their authority is and that is what this question is about. He doesn't just not keep the second day, he rejects the requirement. See also the Rambam's definition on the next page and the pirush on the side on that page.

@DonielF hebrewbooks.org/…

@Eliyahu, if that is what you meant to ask, sure. My only point was that one of the definitions of Apikores is one who rejects Rabbinic Authority, so a heretic (Kofer) he may not be, but an Apikores he may be. I realize that the terms are interchangeable in modern usage.

A better technical term is probably Apikores.

@T.H., well WHERE EXISTS isn't suitable for my use case because the purpose of the joins is to get the ID's of the relevant records, not to limit the result set. I could possibly try subqueries, but those would make the situation of code maintainability (beyond the scope of this question) worse. So I went for breaking up the query (an insert and then some updates). However, the core thing that SQL seems to choke on is lines like ' INNER JOIN InvestorDimension InvestorNullD ON InvestorNullD.InvestorId = 0 AND InvestorNullD.ClientId = GL.ClientId' That hard coded zero gives SQL server fits.

@T.H., yes I could check for a zero row condition and branch the code. I'm not sure about that "only" though. It happened with data, but while I worked around it, I'm concerned about the universe of production data involved a zero row condition isn't the only case left. Updating statistics didn't help. A split up or avoiding this staging to staging technique may be the only option, but that's ... just special.

First, thanks for the time you are spending on this. Second, I did that (I basically ran up to this query in SSMS and then ran this query, so the previous setup remains (the insert into the previous temp table and all the dimension tables leading up to this). It runs forever and the Live Query Statistics simply shows "Waiting for query plan."

Thanks for that info. The query does show up under Active Expensive Queries. I get "Failed to retrieve Execution Plan data" when I try to get it that way.

I didn't get that result with the live query plan. It showed me the last completed query, actually the next to last, as it didn't show me the insert into #GLT either, not what it was actually working on. I'm not discounting that the compilation is the problem, but I would like somewhere to look beyond "rewrite it" since it will clearly pop up in different scenarios depending on the data. And rewriting can have negative performance impacts. It took quite a while to develop this solution which is at least close to reasonable. More straight forward options were way too slow.

Live Query Plans tells me what happened, but at the end of the day it is behind where it is actually holding. sp_whoisactive tells me that. Your post is a 2000 join query. I'm trying to do just over 1% of that. It did have a link there which describes looking at the wait stats. I'm trying that.

@Fred, right, but my point was that he couldn't say the Peshat at all if it was part of what makes Christian belief Ossur. Which means that the answer's Diyuk (which is apparently his own, but I might be wrong, I asked above) doesn't really hold.

@fred, I believe you misremember.

@BruceJames, the Ramban diyuk is your own? If not, can you site the page he talks about it? That is what I asked about.

@BruceJames, for better or worse, I'm also familiar with Christian beliefs in this area, and I'm also familiar with what Chabad Meschichists claim.

@BruceJames, All I saw in chapter 6 he specifically rejects a belief in Moshiach being someone who is resurrected as Kefirah - that is what the question is about. He gets into other beliefs, one related (the Rebbe is actually Moshiach now) and one not (the Rebbe is an incarnation, ר"ל). He does, however question it as not the Halacha and thus speculates about it being a problem since it isn't, believing otherwise is to contradict the Halacha. But I don't see him saying what you say.

@jake, I should have said "could." The point being he wouldn't have contemplated it if it was obvious Kefira because it is Christian. But the Abarbanel also says that Techiyas HaMeisim is before Moshiach, IIRC.

To clarify my previous comment, I'm trying to find out if R. Student specifically claims this, or if this is your extrapolation.

"Using this analysis, all authorities are agreed that it is heresy for a Jew to accept Jesus as the Moshiach." Including the Abarbanel who believed that Moshiach would come from the dead? Seems way too facile for me. If anything, the Ramban's failure to mention it explicitly means that it isn't, although really you can't draw any conclusions from what he left out because he was using what was effective to the audience. Christians claim Moshiach came and did what he was supposed to do.

@DoubleAA, based on what do you say the Rambam thought that geocentrism was the simplest and most straightforward way of viewing the universe?

@Aaron Your recipe says: "Remember, this is NOT a traditional preparation of Feta cheese. It is more similar to the preparation of the Indian cheese Paneer." So it is using goats milk to make a form of cheese and calling it Feta. That doesn't make it Feta. Paneer in that PDF I sent you uses zero Rennet.

@Aaron kashrut.org/forum/viewpost.asp?mid=52106&highlight=rennet "The key to use is that any cheese that normally was made with rennet and needs a form of artificial rennet or vegetable rennet to replace the animal rennet, this type cheese is what we are calling hard cheese, and that is where the restriction of Gevinat Akum is applicable. ... So if you're not sure, look into the history of the cheeses that you have in question."

@Aaron Should I quote you back what Rabbi Abadi says about the need to actually include rennet for it to be a problem?

Does it say enzyme on the label?

@Aaron The numbers are 4 or less for the soft cheeses and 85 and above for the Mozzarella and Feta. It is one thing to say the numbers can vary by 20%, it is another to say that they use so much more rennet when they could have made the same cheese without any rennet. You are turning imprecision into inaccuracy.

@DoubleAA @Aaron, maybe he uses some of the reasoning in Footnote 7 here: crcweb.org/kosher_articles/retinning.php#_ftn7 to just say it doesn't have an issur of taste and therefore no brining issue. Sfek Sfeika and all that.

Note the quantities of rennet used for Feta and Mozzarella compared to Chedar (which I think you agree requires Gevinas Yisroel) vs. Cream Cheese, Cottage Cheese, Farmer's Cheese and Ricotta Cheese, the standard list of soft cheeses that others point to. Are you still comfortable that Feta is a soft cheese?

@Aaron Please see page 5 of this pdf: kof-k.org/articles/…

@Aaron That isn't true. Yes, to make it not Genvas Akum the Rabbi has to be there for the insertion of the rennet (and perhaps insert the rennet, own the milk and/or own the rennet). However once he is done with that, that cheese has to have a siman and that siman has to be maintained. There is a lot more to Kosher than you realize.

@Aaron, The OU et. al. don't agree with kashrut.org regarding Mozzarella. e.g. oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/say-cheese "Rennet-set cheese (“hard cheese” ) generally refers to cheeses such as cheddar, mozzarella, provolone and hundreds of other types.

Although kashrut.org doesn't specify, your point would be stronger if he specifically says this about the hard slices of mozzarella you can buy in the store. He may be thinking of fresh mozzarella for all I know.

@Aaron, no, they make a different cheese and just call it Mozzarella. They make a hard cheese and then cook it in its own whey to soften it. There is his ruling and then there is the application to reality. His concept is fairly standard and uncontroversial, applying it to Mozzarella without qualification is not. If there was a Halachic distinction between raw milk and pasteurized milk, then indeed it would be different. Since there isn't, there isn't. If I make a hard block of cheddar, cut it up into little pieces and add whey and call it cottage cheese, that doesn't make it a soft cheese.

"The key to use is that any cheese that normally was made with Rennet and needs a form of artificial rennet or vegetable rennet to replace the animal rennet, this type cheese is what we are calling hard cheese." That is the case with Mozzarella, at least as you commonly know it. I could hear the point about fresh Mozzarella, but the slices or shredded pieces you commonly buy are not that. It doesn't matter that they have the same name. dailyprogress.com/entertainment/dining_events/…

Mozzarella is not an acid set cheese. food52.com/hotline/…

Kilise, since I have previously argued to not answer questions you vote to close, I don't feel comfortable doing that. I still don't agree with @IsaacMoses about the other question until it is modified to be explicit, but I don't see the point in continuing to argue. At this point I'll let the community decide.

Kilies, by the way your question only has two close votes so far, so it may remain open and you will get an answer on this question.

Kilies, I think @IsaacMoses isn't arguing with the rule in the abstract, rather he is interpreting the other question differently than I am. IssacMoses' opinion isn't controlling, though he has a large amount of influence as the founder of the site. What he wrote is more controlling because of the upvotes that it got, but what he wrote needs to be taken at face value, not how he subsequently interprets it (although obviously his interpretation carries an extra amount of weight in this case).

Be sure to specify in your question if the person is Jewish or non-Jewish and include your request for all opinions.

@Kilise, in terms of getting your question answered, first we have to explore why "Christians and Muslims" are one category. Why not hindus or budists, or whatever. Once you can express that category clearly, then ask if someone with that category is excluded from heaven because of their beliefs. It could be there is nothing particular that joins the two, at which point just ask two different questions, "Are practicing Christians excluded from Heaven" and "Are practicing Moslems excluded".

@Kilise, this is the relevant question in Meta. The rule is as clear as mud, I will grant. There is nothing wrong with posting a duplicate question. This question in Meta explores that.

@IsaacMoses, that question is about "unbelievers" in Judaism. Christians and Muslims obviously fall in to that category. If it means something specific, like unbelievers in G-d in any form, then it needs to specify that.

Kilise, by the duplicate rules in meta, this is a duplicate. Yes, you didn't find the existing answer sufficiently clear, but that doesn't count, unfortunately.