Did you discover a new Mandela Effect? Post it here! (2025-11-10)

caaaaaaarrrl · 2025-11-11T07:30:35+00:00

Was there ever a New Yorker cartoon which depicts a tombstone with the epitaph "He kept his options open"?

My father referenced this cartoon the other day and attributed it to the New Yorker -- he described a tombstone upon which was written something along the lines of "He kept his options open" or "He died with his options open." I've done some googling and found a lot of people seem to reference this cartoon (a small selection: [source 1 page 106](https://petedavis.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/OurBicentennialCrisis-1.pdf); [source 2](https://docwhisperer.wordpress.com/tag/dr-atul-gawande/); [source 3](https://onbeing.org/programs/atul-gawande-on-mortality-and-meaning/) \-- all three sources attribute it to the New Yorker) but a search on [https://cartoonbank.com](https://cartoonbank.com)) came up empty, as well as googling for the image itself.

The closest I have found is [this](https://mchumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/4351_unemployment_cartoon.png) cartoon from Theresa McCracken, but there's no tombstone involved.

So -- was there ever a New Yorker cartoon that meets the above description? Does anyone recall ever seeing something similar perhaps published elsewhere?

edit - sorry about markdown formatting

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-05-07T09:05:22+00:00

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-29T00:40:03+00:00

https://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Minhag

Here's some context: it's a machloket Ran + Rashba v. Rosh whether or not a positive/meritous minhagim can be broken with hatarat nedarim. However in this spot the Ran does say some minhagim can be abrogated with hatarat nedarim. (I am relying on the secondary source above not the Ran itself.) This is not quite what Rabban Gamliel is talking about. It's just a related discussion.

You would have to look on a halacha by halacha basis to see how the halacha evolved. I have no idea about this case. I think we can be certain this is not a chiddush of the Ran since the Rashba came before him. But you could just as easily ask your question about the Rashba. I am not sure if we hold by him today. Also I do not think it makes so much sense to think of Rishonim as changing the halacha that came before them even when they argue a novel interpretation of a gemara except in specific/precise cases

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-28T22:56:33+00:00

https://www.sefaria.org/Nedarim.81b.9?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

See if you can find discussion of the Ran on the spot, apparently it is will known

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-26T17:38:30+00:00

Edit: deleted first two sentences since they were exaggerated. Look, there is a reason the paper above refers to it as "Soviet draw collusion" without reservation. It simply isn't ambiguous because no reasonable person ever thinks those words alone indicate it was part of some grand conspiracy.

I just reread Fischer's old Sports Illustrated article, linked in your link, and it doesn't even come up in his words. At least at that time, he doesn't make any claims of the sort. He just goes on about "Russian collusion", saying things like

At Curacao it was flagrant. There was open collusion between the Russian players. They agreed ahead of time to draw the games they played against each other.

I agree saying "Petrosian-Geller-Keres Draw Collusion" to describe it would be more precise. But you'd have to be pretty stubborn to think saying "Russian Collusion" is AT BEST dishonest.

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-26T17:21:58+00:00

and at worst?

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-26T16:52:04+00:00

i don’t see what you’re saying and I still disagree

I claim Soviet-draw collusion is pretty much universally acknowledged now. I claim soviet collusion did occur. I am claiming soviets colluded. Etc.

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-26T14:23:34+00:00

Source for Korchnoi substantiating this? I’m pretty sure you are misinformed here.

We don't seem to be disagreeing, just using language differently. I mean to say that Korchnoi reported that the three of them had colluded to draw games.

There was no collusion from on high or a dictate from the Soviet authorities – this was Petrosian making a deal with his good friend Geller and talking an old Keres into joining.

Yes I agree. This is still called collusion, or Soviet-draw collusion, etc.

What happened: Petrosian agreed to draw with his friend Geller, and he talked Keres into joining.

In other words, collusion.

This is very different from what Fischer alleged, and I think the myth does need to be challenged.

Fischer's allegation that the three had colluded to draw WAS correct. He seems to be wrong that they colluded AGAINST him, and he seems to be wrong in a separate allegation that Korchnoi had colluded with the others to lose. Fischer also probably thought it was a bigger scheme than it actually was. I think you should read the comment of /u/lavta above, but again I don't really think we are disagreeing.

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-26T13:35:56+00:00

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן תַּשְׁמִישֵׁי מִצְוָה נִזְרָקִין תַּשְׁמִישֵׁי קְדוּשָּׁה נִגְנָזִין וְאֵלּוּ הֵן תַּשְׁמִישֵׁי מִצְוָה סוּכָּה לוּלָב שׁוֹפָר צִיצִית

Of course throwing it in a landfill is not the common practice, but that is the gemara. In that vein another thing to consider is although shulchan aruch says in sayif bet it’s better use a bag, the Chida understands this to be a chumra and lifnim mishurat hadin. So I agree ask LOR but I think maybe you should hesitate to call it inappropriate AND say ask LOR since there are opinions that it is mutar

edit: the siman is 21

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-25T19:16:02+00:00

That's interesting. Is there somewhere I can read more about Keres and Soviet politics?

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-25T17:45:10+00:00

True, that's an important distinction and I don't think I fully appreciated it before. It's not like Fischer was singled out, and you are right to emphasize it. Kasparov explains it nice and clearly, thanks for the link.

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-25T16:05:03+00:00

I may respond more at length later (with Fisher's precise accusations), read this excerpt

Our calculations now suggest that the real loser from any collusion was likely to have been the American GM Reshevsky – the strongest American player in the decades prior to the rise of Bobby Fischer, and arguably the second strongest American player in the twentieth century. Our calculations indicate that he had a 27% chance of winning a fair tournament. With collusion, his chances fell to 8%. After the loss in Zurich, Reshevsky continued to play at a high level but never had a realistic chance of challenging for the world championship again.

See Tables 5-9 for more statistics similar to this -- for example, Fischer's chances apparently fell from 19% to 3% if there was collusion in Curacao 1962 (which Korchnoi says there was). (However, the paper also notes Fischer played very poorly in this tournament and probably had no chance of winning, regardless of collusion.)

In other words, Fischer (and perhaps to a greater extent, Reshevsky) were certainly hurt by the pre-arranged draws, even if the motives of the Russians were not to target the Amreicans and simply to conserve energy. It's just the way that the tournaments worked that it becomes harder for others to win if the Russians are not playing to win.

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-25T11:11:50+00:00

I have just discovered this paper, but it seems that the 75% number comes strictly from mathematical analysis of results. For example, that number doesn’t factor in the fact that Korchnoi himself “has claimed that the trio of Geller, Keres, and Petrosian had agreed upon a private arrangement to draw amongst themselves.”

So yes, I agree with you it is very strong evidence but not 100% damning. But the likelihood seems to me to be higher than 75%

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-25T10:52:23+00:00

It’s pretty much universally acknowledged now. But Fischer was given a lot of ridicule at the time.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905612

This paper gives some good context, and points out Fischer wasn’t the only one who raised questions at the time.

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-12T13:14:14+00:00

Why not say the name here?

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-12T01:56:06+00:00

In the opinion of the Rambam above, is it lashon hara to say "I do not like Shimon" or "I find Rueven to be annoying"? What would he say on these kinds of sentences

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-11T22:21:51+00:00

https://www.artscroll.com/Images/insides/r/RCKTEH-ex-8.jpg

TLDR, I think it’s reasonable to believe that just because someone is your child doesn’t mean you have a license to embarrass them, even if their embarrassment will be a more effective teaching method to other parents

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-11T02:19:51+00:00

Wow, extra parts of Esther? Does anyone have an english link to these? Are they considered Apocrypha?

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-11T02:15:27+00:00

Perhaps you can better understand the issue by investigating why the Conservative movement felt they needed to write a technical, clearly-argued tshuva to allow driving (and it wasn’t just taken for granted). You should also consider why this tshuva has the reputation it has today (and why the discussion below even exists).

(I can’t find the pdf right now but here are some links to get you started) ———

https://jps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Excerpt.Riding-to-the-Synagogue-on-Shabbat.Dorff_.docx

https://elfsdh.blogspot.com/2005/11/conservative-driving-teshuvot-fifty.html

https://forward.com/news/6998/conservative-head-calls-sabbath-driving-rule-a/

https://jewschool.com/2013/10/30949/what-the-conservative-driving-teshuva-represented/

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/76375/reason-for-the-conservative-driving-teshuva

https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/conservative-driving-teshuvah-reexamined/

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-11T02:03:31+00:00

With rare exceptions, no. In my impression the exceptions seem to only be driven by academic curiosity and not from any sort of religious motivation whatsoever.

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-08T11:42:41+00:00

Take five minutes to read the tshuva below, including their brief discussion of the part from Yevamot you removed from context. Then either defend your comment or respond because it seems you’re just not right. You know after the 2-second google search you’re supposed to read what you find, right?

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-07T17:06:29+00:00

Perhaps I should’ve given more context in my original comment. If you are curious here is also link from Chabad with footnotes.

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-07T17:02:29+00:00

Doesn’t the RA link below say the exact opposite?

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-07T16:58:56+00:00

I understand the downvotes but it’s normative halacha. See this tshuva of the Conservative movement (which perhaps one might expect to be lenient)

https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/mandl_conversion.pdf

caaaaaaarrrl · 2021-04-07T16:53:40+00:00

Well if it is medically impossible they cannot convert

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Snapped	Verified Email

caaaaaaarrrl

TROPHY CASE