On the livelihood of the wicked

There was no prohibition against this today. Already in the time of the Sages, there was Rabbi Yishmael (although Rabbi Eybishitz explains that his father probably believed that he had repented as a method. I doubt it). Sanctions such as not mentioning the Name should be examined in light of their effect in reality. Today, it is not right to use them. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Further to this question, in Tractate Yoma 38: It is written: “Where and how will the name of the wicked rot? Rabbi Elazar said: Rottenness will ascend in their names, not to be buried in His heaven.” In general, are laws such as those mentioned in the Gemara null and void to the extent that they are not practiced? And if so, what is the logic that the law would be nullified in the face of custom? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: This is about calling one's son by the name of a wicked person, not about not mentioning his name (see Rashi there). To this day, this is commonly practiced, although it is not halakha but proper conduct (not cited in most poskim). And what is cited in Tos there does not necessarily prove that it is halakha and not a good custom. Whether it is a custom or good conduct and not halakha, depends on the place and time, whether it is beneficial or harmful.

As a general rule, in principle, a law is sometimes nullified in the face of custom. There are two mechanisms that explain this: 1. If it is a regulation or decree, then when there is a custom to the contrary, it is a sign that it was not accepted and is therefore null. 2. When it comes to a law from the Torah, then some see the acceptance of the matter as an indication that the interpretation is correct or incorrect. If the law is weak in your hand, follow the custom. "If they are not prophets, they are sons of prophets"…
In general, we note that custom overrides halakha. See discussion here .