If you don’t mind your child reading in detail how much Harry enjoyed kissing Ginny, and exactly what it felt like, then sure, it’s fine.

common saychel – Her mother kept her home in Mommy camp, that is why she was never sat down and given a proper talk about safety. That’s why she was wandering in the woods, and she thought the cabin was a clever activity her Mommy read about in the Binah.

AviraDeArah –
Put aside the famous Rav Hutner about Gedolim stories, and let’s say we’re fine with them per se. Let the kids be inspired with our amazing Gedolim. Let them aspire to be like them. Let’s assume we can riase them to be healthy, and we find the right balance, and it will not lead to yiush, instead, when they (almost) inevitably realize how much they do not measure up.
But to the exclusion of other stories? So, all the kids hear about are Gedolim? What’s wrong with stories about regular people, and regular life situations, and regular challenges, and regular triumphs, and (gasp!) regular failures?
And what’s wrong with a kid being a kid and just being entertained? I’m not discussing secular literature here, but you jump immediately to “Gedolim stories”?
I love Gedolim stories. I read them to my kids. But this? Not a healthy attitude.

BTW – On the sbject of fairy tales, someone write to R’ Wolbe, asking him about stories for children that have elements of fantasy, and he says he’s not sure about it.

There is more here than speculation, but I cannot say more, so I will leave it at that.

I don’t know why the fact that not everyone is on board makes you so uneasy. Must everything be black and white? I know other Roshei Yeshiva who also did not feel the ban was warranted. And yes, certain signatories advocated for others to sign (as happens, quite logically, with every public proclamation. We do not need every authorative individual to investigate every issue.) But they also made clear the issues they have. So who cares that others have read it (sorry, ALL of it), and are ok with it? Some feel its a big deal, others less so, and others are fine. So what?

Forget about understanding subtle distinctions – at the very least, let’s be clear what the issues are, and avoid the straw man.

There are many claims mentioned in the letters, such as misquoting and attributing extra details, that are not benig addressed here at all.
But to stick to what IS being discussed –
No one has a problem with learning different Peshatim than Rashi, whether “pshat” or otherwise.
We learn Chumash Rashi. NO ONE ever learns Chumash/other pirush, disregarding Rashi. You might have learned Rashi in oast, and are now learning Ramban etc, but not to say, I’m learning Cumash/Rashbam, it’s the mehalech I use to understanbd Chumash. No one has done that. Therefore, to have a pirush that is being used as a basic explanation of the test disregard Rashi is a serious change.
Additionally, this pirush is being used by many to supplant Rashi. Many people are learning Chumash/pshuto shel mikra. That is a fact in many circles. This alone is a problem – Artscroll does not imagine that someone will use their pirush as “the” way they understand Chumash, as the main way to learn it, at the expense of leanring Rashi (unless they are incapable of reading the Rashi text, which is a different story). The placement on the page is not the problem per se, but illustrative of this issue. It also makes the earlier issue a bigger problem – if this is becoming “THE” pshat used, it cannot just offer any pshat they choose, especially disregarding Rashi.

Let’s remember that things that are overtly ‘treif’ are not nearly so dangerous to us, and often do not even require a harsh response, if any at all. It is precisely those things whose problems are more subtle that carry the danger of going undetected and creating negative change, and those require a strong response from those whom we trust and look to for guidance.

“Hashem commanded us to judge others lkaf zchus.”

1) And that is predicated on the assumption that you’re judging. When you do that, do it favorably.
2) And judging one’s behaviors will then have implications for that person’s Halachic status, and thus you’re judging the person.
3) And the Halachic status of a person – Tzadik, Rosho, or Beinoni – determines your halachic obligation to judge them favorably or not. Thus assuming a previous judgment on person.

As a child, I thought all the adults knew what they were doing in shul. I didn’t have the confidence to ask whenever I wasn’t sure what was the proper procedure.
Then I grew up, and realized that many adults around me lack confidence, and act exactly like my younger self.

AviraDeArah –

In the Yeshiva shidduch scene, the background of a girl is a MUCH larger factor than a boy’s background. Not a completely fair comparison.

So, schar v’onesh is now considered ‘primitive’.
A pity G-d didn’t realize in advance that His Torah would become outdated in the modern, civilized era.

Why does everyone always talk about how easy it is to uninstall K9, or access sites? That’s basically irrelevant.

It is designed for someone other than the “filteree” to keep tabs. So if your kids uninstall or access the wrong thing, you’ll know. Will they davka try to go somewhere inappropriate knowing that you’ll know about it very soon?
And if it’s for yourself: if its so nothing should pop up, no problem. If its to stop a nisayon, then someone else obviously controls the password/email, and should check your record occasionally.

For most users, it works fine.

“I have often wondered what the source of bitochon is”

R’ Meir Simcha argues it is the mitzva of Dveikus…fascinating piece…

The Maharal says several times that if you don’t believe in Teva – that Hashem created predetermined rules for how the world runs – you are a מחרף ומגדף… (This is how he interprets the problem of האומר הלל הגדול בכל יום).
In no way does this contradict the basic idea R’ Dessler and others are conveying…

I just want to add that there no need to classify his words as “the complete and unadulterated truth” in order not to argue. It is of course possible for there to be other, valid, differing opinions, and he can also (like every human) make a mistake. He is simply an established authority of great stature, and so one’s own view, when it differs from his, may not have valid Halachic standing, and it is logical to be cautious before ‘arguing’.

Charlie – see my earlier post – a very real safek in the Poskim.

The fact that this conversation is, as usual, focused mostly on our children and their susceptibility to this problem, shows how far we are from recognizing what is going on in our communities, and how foolishly confident we are in our ability to withstand nisyonos.

Of course, children may be more susceptible. And there is certainly a difference in adults’ vs. teens’ practical need for such devices.

Yet Rabbonim and therapists involved in this sugya are constantly reiterating how widespread the problems are, and how most people who ended up with problems in this area honestly thought themselves ‘above’, or relatively immune, to such nisyonos. The stories I know of, just from one friend who works in this field (no personal details, of course) are endless and horrifying. Yet so many people truly think the issue is limited to protecting our children.

End of my point. From here, rant:

Learn a little mussar. Turn our ability to criticize, so commonplace when it comes to others, inwards, and activate a little Yiras Shamayim. If we were truly afraid of aveiros, would we so easily convince ourselves with the type of justifications thrown about here ? Do what you want, but at least have the honesty to call a spade a spade.

Chesed does not come with expectations in return

When you do chesed you are actually owed the hakaras hatov of the recipient. This, in fact, is the only heter to give tzedaka openly, not secretly – because you are not obligated to be moichel the hakaras hatov.

Above is per R’ Hutner.

Similarly, R’ Chatzkel Levenstein, I believe, used to try to ask someone for whom he did a real chesed, for some small favor in return, thereby freeing him (emotionally, at least) from his feeling beholden to him – similar to what poster wrote above.

I think the real source of this ‘minhag’ is when there’s a monetary dispute, and the ‘pshara’ is for the money in question to be given to tzedaka – thereby allowing them both to feel like they gained. Which is of course not quite the same as the cases under discussion.

Seems like it mostly a question of context – i’d had times when I felt like the OP, and others like DY.

DY – hmn. I don’t think so.

My actions will affect me internally, yes. So if I’m lacking in my midah of respecting others in general, and I act the part, it will affect my midah and change me. Or perhaps if I acknowledge that someone should be respected but I have some personal feelings or bias that gets in the way, the same would apply. But if there is a particular person for whom I logically believe is not worthy of respect, simply acting with respect towards them will not change anything.

Gratitude equals respect?

Chayei Adam says that you must not only SHOW respect to your parents, but also personally view them as great people, even if they’re not… I can’t say I understand.

GAW – yes, perhaps partly.

But you said one shouldn’t pass up a good shidduch due to money, and implied that this was a new phenomena. I was just pointing out thsat for better or worse, money was always a big factor in shidduchim.

Barlev – you don’t know halacha, yet you know what affects neshamos – hmn…

The halacha is clearly not like you – using a young child in a permissible manner is preferable to a shabbos goy.

The majority of children will not be eligible. And many of those who are will have intolerably long rides, so many of those parents would end up driving as well. Although perhaps carpooling.

So is the R’ Dessler I quoted, written out by DY, also from the ‘certain chasidic Rabbis’ mentioned by R’ Feldman as the only ones who invoke ruach hakodesh when discussing “da’as Torah” ?

And he rejects the possibility that they all made “ta’us gamur”.

And even the most ‘acceptable’ idea he says – that they were great chachamim – is much more emphatic than most here would like. We cannot assume to fathom the depth of their thinking and decisions, and it is impossible that they made a “ta’us gamur”.

So – what would R’ Zelig say here ? This is already after the idea was ‘invented’ ? You can assume he would disagree – but lets be honest:

the clear distaste everyone here has for the idea has not as much to do with the sources, as much as with difficulty conceding the limitation to personal autonomy sanctioned by the torah.

Very interesting.

Your point has further implications: it is a question in the meforshim there if ‘forty years’ is meant as a precise figure. If it is, it ended after Moshe’s death. So we have a passuk recording events after Moshe’s death, similar to the last 8 pesukim in the Torah – and there its a machlokes if Moshe wrote it at all…

To take it a step further, I always understood the maiseh with shaul in a similar vein with what I wrote in this post. When a person doesn’t act according to the Torah, it is bad even if currently it is a “chumrah”, because once you’re out of the Torah’s morality, you’re on your own morality, and it is ??? ???? ??????.

Which is why the gemara says that he was told “al tehi tzadik harbeh” – and then contrasts that with when he killed Nov ir hakohanim, and was told “al tirsha harbeh”.

The point was an extremely limited point that the event doesnt prove a gemara wrong.

And people dying is not an indication that the psak to stay was wrong either.

Obviously I’m not addressing anyone who clearly said “it will be safe”. That’s probably best understood by gavra’s last comment. (the premise of which, GAW – by the way – is that you should ALWAYS listen no matter what, because if its misguided then that too will have been whats supposed to happen).

But there many others. R’ Elchonan knew the situation, for example, he said himself he was going back to his death (or something to that effect), and still advised (at least certain people) to stay.

Of course he would save a Jew. My point was simply to illustrate that if a psak has good reason, its not proven wrong just because it had the ‘wrong’ result.

If R’ Chaim knew the yid was in danger, he’d save him. But if he could rewind time he wouldn’t take back the pask – because al pi halacha he was not in danger (he would just happen to have the knowledge that his life happened to be in danger).

The assumption made earlier was that since the Jews were killed in Europe, it must have been a mistake not to advise them to leave. We can debate who was told what and why, but there’s no assumption to be made based on their deaths.

see R’ Dessler’s essay on this matter

Sorry Sam, somehow thought you were referencing Matan Torah.

I thought you were going to say that, so was going to look up the quote as I remembered it… but Haleivi did it for me (thanks).