Participant: That was uncalled for. Please keep thing civil.

Refoel Zeev:

I have been wondering the exact same thing. You are right – about the lack of reporting, and that it should have been obvious, and that the confusion about it proves your original point!

Yes. There are many mainstrem Yeshivos that have done this. It is indeed a more recent phenomenon, but IMHO it is normal and good. It provides a safe, healthy outlet for the guys without them leaving Yeshiva. It promotes camradarie amongst the Chevra. And as a rule, it is locked during Seder. Much better then sending time on a phone, no?

Store where it won’t fall from a height. If dusty, rinse. When buildup accrues inside from blowing, twist pipe cleaners together, 2 or 3 thick, lengthening if necessary by attaching them at the ends. Pour water and a bit of dish soap into the Shofar, and insert pipe cleaners, twisting, puling, and pushing. Rinse thoroughly.

Menachem,

I know of no Mekor for the Chiluk you prsent. The term “Ahavas Yisrael” MEANS loving a Jew for no other reason other than he is a Jew. That which he is a Jew IS A REASON to love him. Ahavas Chinam, a term Chazal never used, to me implies that there is no reason to love him but you should anyway. I am not even sure what to do with that.

A good parallel for current OTD kids would be Chizkiyahu ha’Melech, who was one of our greatest Tzadikim to the point of having nearly been Mashiach. And his son was Menasheh, the greatest Chotei u’Machti Es Harabim ever, whose actions nearly singlehandedly led to the Churban, and who according to some lost his entire Chelek in Olam Haba.

Also, many to most Talmidei Chachamim have large families, and not all of their children necessarily follow the same path.

Why do Chasidim always say Shemoneh Esrei?

Nah – they’re what you can create on the beach in early morning using the wind, the right soap/water mixture, and an adjustable wand.

Here is a Shiur by R’ Shraga Feivel Zimmerman on this topic:

https://www.torahanytime. com/#/lectures?v=173791

Here are some relevant thoughts by R’ Mordechai Kuber, a 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.

First is infinitely better. The only question is if it is Mamash l’Chatchilah or somewhat b’Dieved.

Simple and quick answer is that for someone who you describe – i.e., gains little from Daf Yomi and will actually spend the time on learning something properly – then yes, Daf Yomi is not for him. For many, though, it is a Mechayev, and a way to connect with Klal Yisrael. The consistency and dedication are big plusses. And even if he doesn’t understand all of everything, he picks up Yedios in Shas that will help him in his future learning and Yiddishkeit.

In my observations, it is usually one or two people who find it difficult to move and read at the same time. All it takes is one person to stop the whole circle from moving.

Worldwide, the current best estimates have 219 million total cases of Covid. 4.55 million have died. Do your own math.

Nope. But maybe you weren’t careful enough with your Kavanos when you begged Hashem “כלה שעיר וחותנו”.

Avira, you misunderstood me. Obviously this Mitzvah applies to all Yidden. But husband and wife are, in essence, “Re’im ha’Ahuvim”. V’Hameivin Yavin.

Well, if the Gedolim say to take it – which they do – then perhaps saying otherwise IS Kefirah.

I am no expert. and I live in E”Y, but I know many people with various forms of autism. I further know many families with children on the spectrum. I have not seen or felt a bias against such conditions.

Reb huju,

IMHO, there is a big difference between “most uses of stereotyping are negative” and “ban a post because it states that a stereotype could possibly be unharmful”.

I differ – if Jews do not stereotypically study Talmud, then who does? And what do they do? Surely you have heard of “People of the Book”? If I had written “Torah”, would you have agreed?

Your typical BJJ girl and Brisker would be thrilled to be called strereotypical. They typically went to these institutions, difficult to get in to and considered to be the top of their “industries”, because they positively identify with the mission and goal. They are proud to bear the title and reputation of a student of their school. Hence my point.

And since we’re sharing, I happen to be conservative. But we have much in common, as I also love herring!

Yserbius: Yes, I have. Have you ever seen pictures of actual grass skirt wearing African tribe members? I respect them as much as I do any of Hashem’s creations, which is quite a bit. But how does that make depicting them as they are derogatory?
huju: Here is an official definition of stereotype: “A conventional or formulaic conception or image”. Note that “negative” is nowhere in the definition. The following statement is true: Jews stereotypically learn Talmud, pray three times a day, and eat herring. Is it insulting?

Ysernius,

Your comparison is off. Your example is a DEROGATORY, INNACURATE racial stereotype. These in question are NON-DEROGATORY, ACCURATE stereotypes.
A better comparison would be a popular children’s book from the 1930s talked about a visitor from Jerusalem showing a full-bearded, curly-sidelocked, fur-hatted, long-frocked man engaged in an old book.

I have written hundreds of pages over the years with the two languages mixed. Try 12 pt. Calibri and 14 pt. bold David.

Jude – once again, there is no Mesora. No Rav I have spoken to or heard of maintains that this is a Chiyuv. How could it be, if there are big Machloksim among the Rishonim (Rashi – Rambam, for example), and this can only be Kosher Techeiles according to one at the most?

Therefore, if one wears it b’Tzinah on one Beged, let’s say, while having in mind to be Yotazei Al ha’Tzad, then he has gained the possible fulfillment of this Mitzvah while losing nothing,

Yes, there could be.

As someone who has spent many many hours researching the issue and has given a few Shiurim on the topic, I will say that there are about as many convincing arguments that the Murex dye is NOT Techeiles as there are that it is indeed Techeiles. (As an aside, this topic is almost Trump-like – it is very difficult to have a dispassionate discussion with knowledgeable people on the subject. Either you’re a Kofer is you don’t believe it is Techeiles or you’re a Kofer if you do.)
Therefore – and I heard this directly from R’ Moshe Shternbuch Shlit”a – while it is true that one may wear colored Tztitzis threads, this is only if he is not Mechaven to be Mekayem a Mitzvah. If one wears the Murex threads believing them to be Techeiles and to fulfill the D’Oraisa and it turns out that they are not (and they absolutely CANNOT be according to ALL Rishonim), then he has transgressed Bal Tosif. (BTW, since there is no Mesora, there is def. no Bal Tigra here.)
R’ Shternbuch holds that even if one is aware of the issues, then he ought not to wear this Techeiles since he will be Machshil others in thinking that it is Vadai Techeiles, leading to a Cheshash Bal Tosif. He conceded the point that there is no reason not to wear them B’Tzin’ah as long as one does so only Al ha’Tzad.