I'm thinking about it, and it really is difficult to define.

"I can't define it but I know it when I see it." -Justice Stewart.






(sorry, someone had to)

They mock it, but that definition is not as stupid as it sounds.

Would Mesorah Publications quote it?


It's utterly stupid, unless there can be 300 million legal definitions of obscenity.

As a legal standard it is utterly stupid, but the fact remains that there are certain things that evade precise definitions.


So Meor Einayim is OK but Tanya is not?

In its original context it's utterly stupid. As a fancy way of saying there's no precise definition? Fine, not as stupid as it sounds.


Fine by me.

Fine by you, but does it make sense?

I actually think it's a pretty decent (although not legally practical) definition.

I'd say the same applies to Jewish sources. I can look at a source and decide but I can't define my criteria.

A Jewish source would be anything written by a Jew, no?
You're obviously asking about a frum source, right?
A frum source would be one that at the end of the day acknowledges the validity/authority of the Torah and the Shulchan Aruch and the existence of Hashem.

I'm not sure I'm frum, then.

Oh dear. What will you write in your profile under level of observance?

9

"Hebrew Scholar"

Frum yes, a frum source, maybe.

Still says "no information"

9

Josephus is in
Jastrow is out...

Its ironic you ask that today because
"On Thursday February 7, 2008 from 3 to 4 pm eastern standard time, The Book of Life will host a live call-in show using the Talkshoe service. The show is entitled "Funny, That Book Doesn't Look Jewish." Our special guest will be Pamela Ehrenberg, author of the middle grade novel Ethan, Suspended, and our discussion topic will be what makes a book Jewish." http://www.jewishbooks.blogspot.com/
Very simmilar question.

By what criteria?

I don't know exactly, but I ascertained this "fact" by empirical observation...