#abridged to remove in-text citations

[gliklofhameln]

Four seforim from the press of Gershom Soncino

Sefer he-arukh (Talmudic dictionary), Rabbi Nathan ben Jehiel, Pesaro, 1517

Rabbi Nathan ben Jehiel (1035-ca. 1110), cohead (together with his two brothers) of the yeshiva in Rome, was a widely-respected Italian halakhic authority and an accomplished linguist. In the present work, completed in 1101, he explicates, in alphabetical order, the many difficult terms in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, as well as in targumic and midrashic literature, often providing the pertinent etymology from Latin, Greek, Arabic, or Persian; in about six hundred cases, he glosses the term with its Judeo-Italian equivalent. R. Nathan’s detailed explanations contain material of historical and bibliographical value, including descriptions of rare Jewish customs and citations of otherwise-unknown passages from important works.

Sefer kol bo (Halakhic compendium), Rimini, [ca.1520]

Written at the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century, Sefer kol bo contains one hundred forty-eight chapters dealing with blessings, prayer, the synagogue, Sabbaths, festivals, marriage, monetary matters, forbidden foods, and mourning; it also includes one of the earliest commentaries on the text of the Passover Haggadah. The identity of the author remains unknown, though scholars have long discerned a close relationship between this work and the Sefer orhot hayyim of Rabbi Aaron ben Jacob ha-Kohen of Lunel. Identical language in the two books caused Rabbi Joseph Caro (1488-1575) to suggest that Sefer kol bo is an abridged version of the latter tract. Some, however, have proposed the opposite: that Sefer kol bo is really an earlier draft of the more expansive and more fully-developed Sefer orhot hayyim.

Sefer ikkarim (Book of Principles), Rabbi Joseph Albo, Rimini, 1522

Rabbi Joseph Albo flourished in Spain between 1413, when he participated in the Disputation of Tortosa, and 1433. The authorial colophon of his Sefer ha-ikkarim, a fundamental treatise of Jewish theology and philosophy, records its completion at Soria in 1425. The work is divided into four parts: an introduction to the author’s dogmatic system, followed by his exposition of each of three ikkarim (fundamental principles of Jewish faith) – the existence of God, divine revelation, and reward and punishment – as well as their shorashim (derivative principles) and anafim (obligatory dogmas). A long section of part three of the book was taken to be anti-Christian, and the papal censors removed the offending leaves from a large proportion of the surviving exemplars. This is specifically alluded to in the Book of Expurgation compiled by Domenico Irosolomitano, of which several manuscript copies are known. Domenico wrote of the twenty-fifth chapter of part three that it was proper to censor the entire chapter “or, better still, to tear it out of the book.”

Sefer agur (Ashkenazic halakhic compendium, Rabbi Jacob Landau, [Rimini], [1525-1526]

Sefer agur is a concise halakhic compendium by Rabbi Jacob Landau, scion of a prominent German rabbinic family who resettled in Naples in 1487. There he worked for a time as a proofreader at the press of Joseph Gunzenhauser, whose son Azriel printed the first edition of Landau’s Sefer agur circa 1490. The work relies primarily on the Sefer arba‘ah turim of Rabbi Jacob ben Asher and follows the arrangement of that work. Prominent mention is made, however, of rulings by later Ashkenazic authorities, among them Rabbis Israel Isserlein, Jacob Weil, Joseph Colon, and the author’s father, Judah Landau.

[gothhabiba]

This is Winthrop’s most famous thesis, written on board the Arbella, 1630. We love to imagine the occasion when he personally spoke this oration to some large portion of the Winthrop fleet passengers during or just before their passage.

In an age not long past, when the Puritan founders were still respected by the educational establishment, this was required reading in many courses of American history and literature. However, it was often abridged to just the first and last few paragraphs. This left the overture of the piece sounding unkind and fatalistic, and the finale rather sternly zealous. A common misrepresentation of the Puritan character.

Winthrop’s genius was logical reasoning combined with a sympathetic nature. To remove this work’s central arguments about love and relationships is to completely lose the sense of the whole. Therefore we present it here in its well-balanced entirety. The biblical quotations are as Winthrop wrote them, and remain sometimes at slight variance from the King James version. This editor has corrected the chapter and verse citations to correspond to the King James text, assuming that the modern reader will wish to conveniently refer to that most popular English version of the Bible, as the Governor lays out his argument for charity and decent human behavior in the community.

Winthrop’s intent was to prepare the people for planting a new society in a perilous environment, but his practical wisdom is timeless.

the folks over at the John Winthrop society are fucking wild, like habibi……………….. these are literal colonisers

[dostoyevsky-official]

The use of the internet to obtain information is an increasingly common part of hiring processes. This often takes the form of ‘cybervetting’, which Berger and Zickar (2016) describe as ‘performing supplemental background checks in prescreening and selection by ‘Googling’ job applicants and reviewing their profiles on Social Network Sites like Facebook’ (p. 43). Survey results from the Society for Human Resource Management (2016) show that 43% of organizations in the US engage in some form of cybervetting, though other surveys suggest that the figure may be as high as 70% (CareerBuilder, 2018). According to SHRM (2016), 36% of organizations claim to have disqualified an applicant because of the information they found online. There are few laws to restrict cybervetting [...]

First, many employers use cybervetting as a form of risk management, a way of ‘reducing uncertainty’ about job candidates. For instance, they look for evidence of problematic behaviors and report eliminating job candidates based on online content revealing provocative behavior, substance abuse and expletive language. Second, employers use online content to infer the extent to which candidates fit well with organizational goals and ‘culture’. They look for evidence of ‘professionalism’ online in the form of broad interests, creativity, good communication skills and high status network connections. Content deemed ‘unprofessional’ negatively affects applicant ratings, as well as hiring and salary recommendations.

Cybervetting practitioners—usually HR personnel or other hiring agents—often take its purported organizational benefits at face value and interpret online content as accurately reflecting mental ability and personality. In actuality, correlations between online content and personality scoring are modest and personality assessments of online content offer little predictive value for subsequent job performance and turnover.

[...] About 70% of the [interviewed] HR professionals were engaged in some form of online screening. They looked at a variety of online sources, including resumes on job boards, social media profiles on sites like Instagram and Facebook, Twitter feeds and even Craigslist posts.  

[...] Risk management is pursued through the search for two types of signals: ‘red flags’, which indicate a potentially risky employee, and ‘professionalism’, an indicator of positive qualities and low risk. Red flags include signs of immaturity, lewdness, criminality or dishonesty; they generate uncertainty about a candidate’s character or judgment. [...] Another ‘red flag’ was online blog and status posts where candidates ‘bad-mouthed’ their employers. 

[...] These assessments are highly subjective and emotionally charged, as Alicia, an accounting firm recruiter, recounted:

Alicia: Honestly, the thing that scares me away more than anything is just somebody who looks mean. If you have a mean photo, because I'm kind of a softie, I don't like that. It doesn't make me feel good. I won't not send [the job candidate] on to the hiring manager because of that, but it will linger with me.

Steve McDonald, Amanda K Damarin, Hannah McQueen, Scott T Grether, "The hunt for red flags: cybervetting as morally performative practice"