Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Excerpts from “How Graphology Fools People” by Barry L. Beyerstein, Ph.D.
“My task in summarizing the extensive scientific research on graphology has been made quite easy by the superb efforts of Geoffrey Dean [8] [8].”
“Dean [8] unearthed more than 200 studies that had unambiguous criteria of this sort and were acceptable with respect to sample sizes, experimental controls, statistical analyses, etc. After subjecting these studies to a meta-analysis, Dean showed that graphologists have failed unequivocally to demonstrate the validity or reliability of their art for predicting work performance, aptitudes, or personality. Graphology thus fails according to the standards a genuine psychological test must pass before it can ethically be released for use on an unsuspecting public.”
“without question.”
You wouldn’t invest any physical effort in pursuing employment?
benignuman:
I left out two points in my last post:
1)Reish Lakish is just as shver according to your explanation.
2)The Ben Yehoyada advances a similar explanation to yours, also based on the Arizal. However he prefaces it by saying ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????. In other words he (and the Chasam Sofer that I mentioned earlier) is saying that your pshat is not the pashtus. And the reasons for saying it are not hechrechim from the sugya, inasmuch as kabbalistic stuff.
I don’t hold of Eilu Va’Eilu.
“Daven, have emunah and bitachon, do chesed and mitzvos, have yiras shomayim.. and leave the rest up to HaKodosh Baruch Hu.Daven, have emunah and bitachon, do chesed and mitzvos, have yiras shomayim.. and leave the rest up to HaKodosh Baruch Hu.”
Would you say the same thing if you were looking for a job?
“PAA: That thread predates my membership by more than half a year.”
The great writings making up the corpus of Shas and Poskim predate me by many years. That’s no excuse.
“Which is better than I, who still hasn’t noticed it.”
I said “the chazzan will fall prey…” prey/pray. I hope I explained it well.
“And there you go again, mixing up proof and being right.”
I wasn’t mixing nothing up. It seemed that you were trying to prove (perhaps somewhat in jest) that a chazzan needs to have a nice voice. I responded that you used an invalid prove. You are correct that you can be right even if it is an invalid proof, but then for the same price you could have just said that a chazzan needs to have a good voice because you are right.
“Also, I didn’t realize you were explaining popa’s reason, I thought you were agreeing.”
I was explaining Popa’s reasoning. (I know his reasoning because I was present when he forcibly removed the chazzan in the middle of kedusha. He unfortunately hadn’t realized that the chazzan was [one of] his father
in law. Let’s just say that it didn’t end well which is why Popa is looking for a different shul.)I personally happen to like when the chazzan sings (as long as I know the song). I don’t like it when the chazzan chazzanishly drags out the entire davening (but a little bit is ok).
Benignuman:
I don’t see why Tosafos should ask his question in reverse. The answer about davening is a bigger ukimta than the answer about zivug sheini. There are two ways to learn the stirah in sotah. 1)Rav Yehuda Amar Shmuel’ statement is in stirah to Reish Lakish’s statement 2)Rav Yehuda Amar Shmuel’s statement is in stirah to Rabba Amar R’ Yochanan’s statement. (Rashi explains it the first way, but see the Maharsha who points out that in Sanhedrin the Gemara explicitly asks it the second way.) Now using the answer of davening would mean that Reish Lakish or Rabba Amar R’ Yochanan’s statement is only applicable in a case where a person changed his mazal through tefillah (which incidentally we would have no way of ever knowing if this happened). Whereas the answer of zivug sheini is just that they were discussing second marriages. It’s only according to your pshat that the answer of davening would be advantageous to use in Sotah. The only advantage that I see in your pshat is that you can answer the Maharatz Chayes’s question. But I would allege that the Maharatz Chayes was forced into his question because he read the lashon like me i.e. that Shmuel’s din only applies by a second marriage.
As for your point about Reish Lakish, I hear it somewhat, however according to the Maharsha’s understanding the ukimta would only be in Rabba Amar R’ Yochanan’s statement* but not in Reish Lakish’s statement. According to Rashi’s understanding the ukimta is in fact in Reish Lakish’s statement, in which case Reish Lakish was saying that only second marriages are lefi ma’asav. But I don’t think that means that you can only have a sotah from a second marriage. It’s just as possible if not more so to have a bad wife in your first marriage (as I explained in my last post). The only thing is that you’ll ask what Reish Lakish’s statement has to do with the parsha of Sotah. Good point. But I could suggest that perhaps Reish Lakish was pointing out that in a second marriage you would only have a sotah if the man was bad. I admit it’s not the best answer.
*Perhaps you can argue that the Maharsha agrees that the way Rashi explains the Gemara’s question is in fact a valid question for the Gemara to ask and his only point is that there was no need for Rashi to explain the question that way when he could have just explained it the way it is clearly meant in Sanhedrin.
P.S. You are welcome. It brightened up my day too.
“Well, if we don’t value a pleasant voice, why is there an “as if”? Or do you also think the rest of his list of qualifications aren’t maalos for a baal tefillah?”
I didn’t say we don’t value it. My point is that if the chazzan says it then it means he doesn’t have a pleasant voice and if he doesn’t say it, you can’t bring a raya from it (unless he skips just those words).
“Also, the O”T is against being haughty about a nice voice, not against having one.”
Popa is assuming that if the chazzan has a nice voice he will be haughty about it (and incidentally he will also be lying).
“The M”B is against using niggun in a way which ruins the davening, not against its proper use.”
Again, Popa is assuming that it’s guaranteed that a chazzan who songs will fall prey to the Mishna Berurah’s concerns. Which is actually not such a far-fetched assumption.
“As the Briskers say, it doesn’t say in Shulchan Aruch that a baal tefillah has to have a nice voice, because if he doesn’t, then he’s not a baal tefillah.”
And as the anti-briskers say: That is an invalid argument because you can make up any halacha and then say that the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t say it because it’s pashut. E.g. the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t say that a baal tefillah has to where techeiles, because if he doesn’t then he is not a baal tefillah.
Disclaimer: I didn’t notice my pun until after I wrote it.
:????? ??? ??? ???? ?:??
???? ????? ??? ???”? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???”? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???
“PAA, see the ?????, specifically ???? ????”
I assume you mean ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????.
1)That’s in the part that the Chazzan skips (or pretends to say quietly).
2)The prayer is clearly saying to accept his prayer AS IF he had a pleasant voice which means that he doesn’t.
3)Even disregarding points one and two, it still doesn’t address the problem mentioned by the Orchos Tzadikim or the problem mentioned by the Mishnah Berura. So perhaps in theory there should be singing (assuming you don’t accept points one and two), but in practice my original post still stands.
“PAA, I’m obviously not about to search the CR before every time I post anything.”
No but you should have read that thread and remembered it.
Beninguman:
Yes Tosafos is quoting the lashon of the Gemara in Sotah – in the Gemara in Sotah it means that of the two seemingly contradictory statements, one was specifically referring to cases of a zivug rishon while the other one was specifically referring to cases of a zivug sheini. When transposed into Moed Katan the equivalent would be that Rav Yehuda Amar Shmuel’s statement was specifically referring to cases of zivug rishon while Shmuel’s statement was specifically referring to cases of a zivug sheini. Now you, can allege that I am reading too much into the words. But I think you have to grant that the words definitely don’t support your reading MORE than mine; at best it is inconclusive, which although I personally disagree with, I am willing to grant it.
As to your fourth paragraph, in fact according to your interpretation, the two answers are the same thing. Both are saying that there is a way to beat your mazal. So Tosafos’s question would not be particularly compelling. According to me, the two answers have nothing to do with each other.
Your final point, I don’t understand. All Reish Lakish said was that a person’s spouse is lefi ma’asav. According to me, the Gemara’s answer is that this is only true by your second spouse – your first spouse is predetermined and is not necessarily lefi ma’asav. I don’t see how it follows from that that you can’t have a sotah from a first marriage. If anything it makes it more possible to have a sotah from a first marriage because she can be bad regardless of whether her husband is good or bad.
“No singing? Why not?”
Orchos Tzadikim Sha’ar Hachanifus:
?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????
Mishnah Berura 281:4:
???????: ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?”? ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???
beninguman:
Fakert, Tosafos’s question is much better according to me. Look at the lashon Tosafos uses. He says that the gemara should have answered that Shmuel’s statement in Moed Katan was referring to zivug sheini. Not that since there is always a possibility of a zivug sheini, everyone can get married on Chol Hamoed. Tosafos in Moed Katan is even clearer. There he says that the Gemara should have answered ?? ???? ????? ??
???? ??? i.e. the statement that everyone has a predestined match is talking specifically about a zivug rishon whereas Shmuel’s statement about Chol Hamoed is talking specifically about a zivug sheini. According to you, one wouldn’t know if it’s his zivug sheini so therefore Tosafos’s suggestion wouldn’t answer the Gemara’s question.
Whereas according to me, Tosafos is asking why the Gemara didn’t just answer that for your second marriage you can get married on chol hamoed but for your first marriage you can’t because that one is predestined. Aaaiii, you’ll ask “Tosafos’s question is very weak. The mashmaos of Shmuel’s statement in Moed Katan, and the halacha, is in no way limited to someone’s second marriage. It is therefore not surprising that the Gemara did not want to use this answer.” And you are mechavein to the Maharatz Chayes’s question on Tosafos. Which shows that the Maharatz Chayes was learning like me.
By the way, thank you for helping me turn a shidduch thread into a Talmudic debate.
benignuman:
I am going to have to disagree with you. According to your interpretation, Tosafos’s question wouldn’t make sense. Furthermore, it seems clear from the Tosafos HaRosh’s/Tosafos Shantz’s explanation of Rabba Bar Bar Chana’s derasha that it is talking about a second marriage. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “they can earn a zivug sheini which is based on merit”. I don’t think that that is pashut pshat in “lefi ma’asav”.The closest I have seen to what you are saying is the Be’er Sheva and the Chasam Sofer’s pshat that he heard in the name of the Arizal, but he says that the pshat is referring to your first wife.
“Also, strong work PAA! Excellent!”
Why thank you Popa. A compliment from you on something of this nature means a lot. But alas, you probably think I was joking.
“nowadays its the sheitels that are too long and skirts that are too short.. we live in a crazy world ;)”
??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????
(Berachos 11a)
“.1157”
Was that addressed to me? If yes, what does it mean? (Well actually even if the answer is no, I still want to know what it means.)
“Well to make sure then, we’ll have them wear tzitzis (with techeiles) and tefillin.”
No can do. You see that would be “taking R’ Chaim out of the realm of hypothetical lomdus” which is “so outrageous”. And besides, only krumsters like Patur Aval Assur wear Techeiles so that would definitely cause people to not want to marry them.
benignuman:
What do you think it means?
I will take my cue from the aharonim who oftentimes when they wish to solve one problem, they bring in another problem and then solve both in one fell swoop:
Problem #1: Shidduch Crisis/Catastrophe/whatever you want (This post should not be taken as an indication that I agree that there actually is a problem; this is leshitaschem.)
Problem #2: High school age boys have no permissible way to channel their feelings, which can cause a problem of (to borrow a line from the gemara) ?? ???? ?????? ?????.
Solution: Every boy will get married sometime around the beginning of high school with both parties knowing that it is not intended to be their real marriage. So right off the bat problem #2 is solved. Now after high school, or when they are ready to really get married, they will get rid of their high school wives and then get married for real. But wait! The girls won’t agree to this because then they will all be gerushos. So the trick is that you give her the get and then you are mevatel it not in her presence and like magic the Rabbanan are retroactively mevatel the kiddushin and thus no one is a gerusha. (A side benefit of this is that although halachically they were never married, in actuality they did get married, thus in terms of the gemara in Sotah 2a all the real marriages will be considered second marriages thus eliminating the issue of finding your predestined match.) Now you may ask how this helps the shidduch crisis if there are still more boys than girls. The answer to that is as as DaasYochid pointed out in the other thread, that 10% of girls will be taught gemara. (Contrary to what DaasYochid said there, everyone will want to marry them.) Now these girls who learn gemara will know that Tosafos says that the trick of being mevatel the get doesn’t work if you are doing it specifically to be able to undo marriages which is sort of licentious. (Maybe one could argue that here the underlying kavana is for a mitzvah so maybe it would work, but we’ll reject that option.) Therefore these girls will refuse to get married. Which they anyway deserve as punishment for learning gemara. With 10% of the female population out of the picture, there will now be enough boys for all the remaining girls. Two problems solved so simply.
“And one is not permitted to give mussar to people who will not be influenced by it.”
I am not commenting on this specific topic, but the Orchos Tzadikim (Sha’ar Hachanifus) says: ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????
Granted he concludes by saying ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????
So there is a very fine line that needs to be traversed in any of these types of situations.
If only I had seen this earlier.
coffee addict:
Gittin 28a-b:
??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???????
Rashi:
??? ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??”? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?’ ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????
Granted, the Gemara continues:
??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ???
So l’maskana it’s a machlokes Tannaim.
I understood what you were saying. I was just pointing out that it shouldn’t be construed as having relevance to the discussion of whether the tribes will rreturn, because Rashi already addressed it.
Randomex:
Rashi on the Mishnah that I quoted brings up that Gemara and says that it’s not a stirah to the man d’amar that the shevatim won’t come back, because Jeremiah only brought back parts of the shevatim.
DaasYochid:
So it seems as if the only thing we are disagreeing about is whether or not a woman (or perhaps a man) has the right to cast a certain amount of blame on society for its role in causing her(or him) to feel [insert emotion here].
Actually I think we argue about one other point as well. You said “I don’t think that vacuum exists. I think the issue is that nothing is as valued as her role in marriage, not that other things aren’t considered accomplishments.” I agree that in theory they are considered accomplishments but they are rarely if ever spoken about or stressed in any significant way such that the general populace when seeing an older single would realize not to pity her.
Avos 3:15, as explained by the Rambam, Rabbeinu Yonah, the Orchos Tzadikim et al.