Rocky –

Did his name start with an “R” and end with a “y”?

Avira – what has changed is that no one is relying on the Chazarah to be Yotzei. We continue it because it is the Tzurah of Tefilah as determined by Chazal, but since no one needs it to be Yotzei it is not the main SH”E of the Sha”tz.
IsraeliYid – this is for a different reason. One must Daven anything said out loud in the Nusach of the Tzibbur. Therefore, if one is not conversant, he must “practice” in the Shtiller SH”E. If one is, say, equally conversant in both Ashkenaz and Sefard, then he may Daven Ashkenaz in his Shtiller SH”E even though he is Davening for the Amud in a Shteibel that is Makpid on Nusach Sefard for the Chazarah (example taken from my own life, based on another Shailah I asked!).

Shkoyach! Thank you for sharing, and for writing this vort up so nicely.

This is longtime pet peeve of mine. Not a big deal in the Scheme of Things, but – I agree.

Who are you talking to about each other already? Presumably, due to Tznius parameters, parents and mentors. With your parents, use his / her name. With mentors, say, “The Bachur / girl I’m going out with”.

Anyone who blows regularly knows that there is a gradual buildup of saliva and other detritus that block easy and clear blowing, and also affect the sound.

R’ Menachem,

IMHO, this is the point. The only Heter to hate a Yid is if he is no longer Achicha b’Mitzvos (subject to othe factors in addition). Anything else – personality conflicts, rivalries, etc. – constitutes Ahavas Chinam – for no reason. The default is Ahavas Yisrael. If Ahavah and Sinah can both be Chinam, then the implication is that the deafult state is neutrality. But this is not true. This is what I meant in my comment earlier by Ahavas Yisrael being stronger than Ahavas Chinam.
Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, the term Ahavas Chinam was coined by R’ Kook ZT”L. I did not know that it was used by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. These were great people to be sure! What I have written is based upon my Kabbalah from my Rebbeim.
It does not seem to me that we are in any great disagreement; ultimately, we are espousing the same approach.

First of all, every case is different. Menasheh was also a big Talmid Chaccham. The Gemara says he “went off” due to Taivos. Sounds like a fine comparison to many these days to me. I do not recall saying or implying that we should not show any children anything other tham love and compassion.
Secondly, I was making only one point, based on the OP – it is not a new ide that great Talmidei Chachamim have children who are “not like them”.
Thirdly, Ahavas Yisrael is much more powerful than Ahavas Chinam.

I certainly agree with the general point of the article, which is, after all, a Gemara! However – I have not seen a correlation at all. Of course, my perception is greatly limited. If the Gemara says that this is a cause, then it is a factor.

IIRC, reading other people’s mail was certainly Asur. R”G gave it the Chomer of a Cherem due to that which he saw that in his Dor it was an issue.
I also recall that he set it for 1000 years, at which point it would automatically renew itself unless a set number of Chachamim would stop it from doing so. This occurred (or rather, didn’t occur) some 30-40 years ago.

Based on where I grew up, I used to think that if you were REALLY Frum, you Davened Nusach Ashkenaz.

Yes. Some did, and some didn’t.

As posted on a different thread as well, some relevant thoughts from R’ Mordechai Kuber, well-respected Rav in Telzstone:

In Defense of the Undefended
Follow-up

On Erev Shabbos Parshas Vaeira, I posted an article about the Chaim Walder tragedy. Since then, I had the opportunity to engage in a number of discussions, including with a well respected Posek. Although I still stand by the basic principles of my original piece, it is important to clarify some points and further elaborate, based on that which I have learned since then:
• I am not, and no Rav that I know is or ever has been, in favor of ignoring allegations of abuse. We all recognize the horrible, lifelong consequences of abuse and the need to act swiftly and resoundingly to protect victims from predators.
• Despite these shared concerns and goals, we all must be aware that the Torah’s laws guide our every action. We may do, say, and believe that which the Torah permits, and we must refrain from that which the Torah prohibits. No end, as important and critical as it may be, justifies prohibited means.
• Some of the technical issues that could stand in the way of the acceptance of an allegation of sexual abuse are the absence of the accused and the lack of witnesses.
• Despite these issues, any allegation in a Beis Din of abuse will lead to Beis Din’s immediate demand that the accused maintain complete distance from the victim, which affords full protection for the future. If the accused violates this injunction, Beis Din will enforce it as necessary. Any implication from that which I originally posted to the contrary was unintentional.
• If there are multiple allegations to the point that Beis Din suspects that the accused is guilty, even in the absence of witnesses, Beis Din will warn him to cease and desist from anything resembling inappropriate contact immediately. If he ignores this warning, Beis Din will banish him from the community with full force.
• Today, in Eretz Yisrael, there are Batei Din that specialize in this field, which are fully proficient in the laws governing when the requirements for the presence of the accused and male and/or adult witnesses could be waived.
• In general, one is not allowed to believe or pass along any negative information about another, even if it is in the newspaper.
• In general, people expose themselves to needless amounts of unnecessary information about goings on through their ownership of certain devices and their subscription to various services. Blissful ignorance of the world around is infinitely preferable to a self-inflicted information barrage. I was very pleased to learn that most people without these devices and subscriptions were almost completely unaware of the CW tragedy, and very sad to learn that those who indulge were well informed of an astounding amount of harmful, sordid details.
• Even when one is allowed to pass along negative information, it has to be for a constructive purpose. The most common constructive purpose is the protection of the one who will be hearing it, but there are other possibilities. There are many other conditions that have to be met regarding content and tone, and tests of altruism that must be passed. This is true even in cases of allegations of sexual abuse.
• In a case of multiple reports of distinct sinning, the case has moved from the category of an alleged crime to that of one who has developed a reputation of sinning. Multiple reports are not equivalent to staggering evidence in support of the allegations. Nevertheless, developing such a reputation is a transgression in its own right, which allows Beis Din to punish the accused for it, and allows others to relate this information to the extent that it is purposeful.
• In the CW case, the reports of sinning had reached this stage, allowing others to pass along these reports to the extent that it is purposeful to do so and that it is one’s intent. But it is not license for random slander. As always, one has to be very careful of his intentions. There is great harm to all concerned in relaying damaging information, even when permissible and even when necessary. Sometimes there is no choice, but it should be passed along with a heavy heart.
• With CW’s passing, there is no longer any purpose in spreading these reports, even if there had been before. It has been explained to me by those with intimate knowledge of the Gedolim’s opinion that they desire that continued discussion of this topic should be brought to a halt immediately, because it is harmful to all concerned, especially to the young.
• It is undeniable that CW left this world by taking his own life. Suicide is absolutely forbidden and it is equivalent to murder. Regardless of whatever he was going through, there is no justification for such a terrible act. This is a terrible, final legacy for him to have left his many present and potential future followers. Therefore, I was advised by a prominent Rav, in contradiction to my previous opinion, that there is no choice but to purge his books from the stores, from the libraries, and from our homes. It is certainly sad to have to give up one of the few truly valuable and appropriate series of contemporary books, but to hold on to them would only condone in some way this terrible crime. We cannot allow our children to think that suicide is ever acceptable, and that it is anything but murder. In addition, since the reports of other sinning had created their own reality of transgression, there is the risk of condoning that as well.
• This tragedy should reinforce in us all the importance of avoiding situations of prohibited yichud. No one is immune, and it is asking for trouble.
• It should also reinforce for us the dangers of inappropriate devices and social media. It exposes us to an overload of harmful images and information and enables widespread damage with a few thoughtless clicks. Yes, I mentioned this above but it is worth additional mention. Kosher phones are the best, by far. They prevent much grief and keep at a distance the sadness and unsavory details of the world at large.
• Let us all pray for b’soros tovos.

I think that the original poster is a golem- er, troll .

The cited rental prices are very high for much of Yeurshalayim, too. Perhaps accurate for the center of town. In outlying Chareidi areas 2 bedrooms go for more like 4 to 5 thousand.

Refuse to consider Shidduchim for those who do not dress the part. Both families / Bachurim and Shadchanim.
Obviously, there are some communities where these regulaer breaches of Halachah are “acceptable”. I’m talking about those who are making inroads where it is not yet the norm.

HaKatan – I researched and found the numbers, and did the math. Did you do either of these things?

Covid affects fertility! One out of every 50 people who contract it die. And dead people can’t have children.

And the Gemara in Kidushin is not an Asmachta – that doesn’t fit into the Gemara in any way.

No time to look up details now, but the Rambam Paskens that it is a Chiyuv. And the Gemara at the beginning of the second Perek of Kidushin applies the aforementioned Pasuk of ve’Ahavta l’Re’acha Kamocha to one’s wife, and there is an argument to be made that it is the Ikar Kiyum of the Pasuk.

I’m with Participant
Participant

He was a brilliant and moral man. A Ba’al Teshuvah of great conviction. A deep philosopher. S good Yid.

He didn’t really learn in Yeshivos. Or have a Mehalech ha’Limud. He was not a Posek. Nor did he have a Rebbi similar to that which you seem to be seeking.

And this was probably the Shoresh of the Machlokes.

Yserbius – Yes, I have. Have you seen pictures of grass-skirt-wearing African tribesmen? It is a fairly accurate representation. I have as much respect for them as any other Goy – that of a Tzelem Elokim. Why is it insulting to represent them as they are?
huju: Here is an unbiased definition of stereotype (from a dictionary that has not been following this conversation): “A conventional or formulaic conception or image”. Note that “negatve” is nowhere to be found. For example, here is a good use of the word – “Jews stereotypically learn Talmud, pray three times a day, and eat herring”.

Here’s another typical statement: A stereotypical BJJ girl would make a perfect Shidduch for a stereotypical Brisker Bochur. Anyone insulted?

Dr. Suess was a German-American. In his youth, through college, he did exhibit racism and antisemitism in his writings. By the time WWII arrived, he was writing political cartoons, and they expressed strong condemnation of racism and antisemitism. On the other hand, they were virulently anti-Asian. This was the prevailing sentiment at the time, given that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. A decade later, he expressed remorse for this, and wrote “Horton Hears a Who” – not only dedicated to a Japanese friend after a trip to Japan, but with content that delivered a message of inclusiveness of all people – to make amends for his earlier views.
Not so incidentally, the “Mulberry Street” book is being banned due to a line that refers to a “Chinaman eating a bowl of rice with sticks”. The accompanying illustration depicts said Chinaman eating said bowl with chopsticks and – horrors! – slanted lines for eyes. This is clearly hurtful to all people of Chinese descent who, true, have epicanthic folds and eat rice with stucks, but this is due to no fault of their own.
Anyway, the original version referred to a “Yellow-faced Chinaman” – with a picture of a yellow-faced Chinaman – which is clearly not a compliment. A few years later the yellow face was edited out of both text and color. But we are now wiser and realize that Dr. Suess was still an insensitive soul.