Feed aggregator

Dear Matzav Inbox,

I would like to raise an issue that is causing tremendous frustration for families with boys in mesivta, and one that could have been avoided with a little communication and coordination between the yeshivos.

I am referring to the off-Shabbos arrangements for Chanukah this year.

For quite some time, the understanding was that many mesivtos would be giving off the first Friday, Shabbos, and Sunday of Chanukah. This made perfect sense. Chanukah is a time when families get together, when grandparents host Chanukah parties, when cousins see one another, and when parents look forward to having their sons home from yeshiva. Having those three days off gives families an opportunity to spend some meaningful time together without interfering too much with the yeshiva schedule.

Naturally, families began making plans accordingly. Chanukah parties were scheduled, relatives were invited, and arrangements were made around the assumption that the boys would be home that first weekend.

But now, apparently, some mesivtos have decided to announce that they will instead be giving off the second Sunday (a day, by the way, that isn’t even Chanukah anymore).

I am not here to debate the merits of one schedule versus another, although I certainly find it difficult to understand the logic of giving boys off on a Sunday after Chanukah instead of during Chanukah itself. My bigger question is: Where is the coordination?

How is it possible that we have so many mesivtos serving the same families and communities, yet nobody seems to have made sure that they are all on the same page?

Does anyone realize what this does to a family with two or three boys in different yeshivos? One son is home the first weekend, another is in yeshiva, and a third might be coming home the following Sunday. When exactly is the family supposed to get together?

And what about the extended family? A grandmother plans her annual Chanukah party for the first Sunday because that is when she was told the boys would be home. She coordinates with her children and grandchildren, perhaps dozens of people coming from different places. Then, suddenly, a few mesivtos announce a different schedule, and half the teenage grandsons won’t be there.

Are the grandparents supposed to move the party? Many people already rented halls and venues. Are all the aunts, uncles, and cousins supposed to rearrange their plans? And if they do, what happens to the boys whose yeshivos are following the original schedule?

The whole thing becomes a logistical nightmare.

And the frustrating part is that none of this was necessary. We are talking about a handful of days on the calendar. Surely, the mesivtos could have communicated with one another before finalizing their schedules. Surely, there could have been some discussion among the menahelim to establish a common arrangement, or at least a general understanding that would allow families to plan.

There is tremendous value in a bochur sitting at his grandparents’ Chanukah party, seeing his cousins, singing together, and participating in the family atmosphere. These gatherings are part of what makes Chanukah so special. They create memories and strengthen family relationships. They should not become casualties of unnecessary scheduling confusion.

I also wonder whether the people making these decisions fully appreciate how complicated family schedules have become. Years ago, perhaps it was simpler. Today, families often have children in several different yeshivos and schools, each with its own calendar. Coordinating a family gathering is difficult enough when everyone knows the schedule months in advance. When the schedules don’t match, it becomes almost impossible.

And what makes this particularly aggravating is the timing. If the mesivtos had coordinated from the beginning and announced a uniform schedule, families would have adjusted. Instead, people are discovering that the arrangements they thought they could rely on are not necessarily going to work.

I understand that every yeshiva has its own considerations, and I am sure the decisions were made with good intentions. But good intentions do not eliminate the need to consider how those decisions affect the families who depend on these institutions.

At this point, much of the damage may already be done for this year. Families will have to scramble, adjust their plans, and accept that some of their sons or grandsons may miss gatherings that were arranged specifically so everyone could be together.

But I hope the hanhalos of our mesivtos will take this issue seriously and establish a system of communication for the future. A little coordination before the calendars are announced would spare thousands of families a great deal of unnecessary aggravation.

Chanukah comes only once a year. Families should be able to look forward to celebrating it together without having to navigate a different vacation schedule for every son in yeshiva.

Is that really too much to ask?

Sincerely,

A Frustrated Mesivta Parent

To submit a letter to appear on Matzav.com, email MatzavInbox@gmail.com

DON’T MISS OUT! Join the Matzav Status by CLICKING HERE. Join the Matzav WhatsApp Groups by CLICKING HERE.

The opinions expressed in letters on Matzav.com do not necessarily reflect the stance of the Matzav Media Network.

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Rav Mordechai Galei zt”l, one of Eretz Yisroel’s most distinguished authorities in shechitah and bedikah, whose expertise and exceptional yiras Shomayim earned him the trust of generations of Gedolei Yisroel. Rav Galei was niftar early Sunday morning at Mayanei Hayeshua Medical Center in Bnei Brak following a prolonged illness. He was 75 years old.

For decades, Rav Galei was regarded as one of the foremost experts in the intricate halachos of shechitah, serving in senior positions within the Badatz Shearis Yisroel kashrus organization and overseeing its shechitah operations. His reputation for meticulous adherence to halachah made him a particularly trusted figure among Gedolei Yisroel, many of whom specifically sought meat from his shechitah and bedikah.

He was a brother of the renowned posek and mashpiah Rav Shimon Galei.

Rav Galei was born in Haifa on 11 Kislev 5711 to his father, Rav Shalom Galei zt”l, who had been a talmid of the Chofetz Chaim, and his mother, Mrs. Esther Ita Galei a”h.

Growing up in a home steeped in Torah and yiras Shomayim, he developed a lifelong dedication to Torah learning and scrupulous observance of halachah.

In his younger years, Rav Galei learned at Yeshivas Beis Meir in Bnei Brak, where he studied under the rosh yeshiva, Rav Zalman Rotberg zt”l. During those formative years, he established the foundations of the deep Torah knowledge and exacting standards that would later distinguish his work in shechitah and kashrus.

Upon reaching marriageable age, he married his wife, a member of the Abeles family of Be’er Yaakov. The couple subsequently established their home in Bnei Brak, where Rav Galei became a respected resident of the Ramat Elchanan neighborhood.

He maintained a particularly close relationship with the neighborhood’s rav, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein, and was known among local residents for his dedication to Torah and his expertise in the demanding responsibilities of shechitah.

Over the years, Rav Galei emerged as one of the most respected shochtim and bodkim in Eretz Yisroel. His responsibilities extended well beyond performing shechitah itself. He was recognized as an authority on the examination of chalafim, the specialized knives used for shechitah, an area requiring extraordinary precision and familiarity with the relevant halachos.

Among the Gedolei Yisroel who placed exceptional confidence in him was Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, who relied heavily on Rav Galei’s expertise and trusted his shechitah.

His standing among Gedolei Yisroel was such that numerous leading rabbonim insisted that the meat served at their tables come specifically from animals slaughtered and examined under his supervision.

For many years, Rav Galei occupied senior positions within Badatz Shearis Yisroel, including overseeing its shechitah operations and supervising the work of shochtim and bodkim.

His responsibilities involved maintaining the stringent standards of the hechsher, examining the work of those entrusted with shechitah, and ensuring that the many details of the process were carried out in strict accordance with halachah.

Beyond his work with Shearis Yisroel, Rav Galei devoted considerable effort to preparing and examining future generations of shochtim and bodkim.

For extended periods, he was responsible for administering examinations to shochtim preparing to work overseas, helping ensure that those entrusted with providing kosher meat to Jewish communities around the world possessed the necessary knowledge, skill, and yiras Shomayim.

He was known for refusing to compromise on even the smallest detail when evaluating candidates, understanding the enormous responsibility involved in determining whether someone was qualified to perform shechitah for the public.

In recent years, Rav Galei endured considerable personal suffering. During the past year, he was diagnosed with a serious illness, and his condition gradually deteriorated.

Despite the physical difficulties associated with his illness, he continued his work in shechitah and the examination of shochtim for as long as he was physically able.

His extraordinary dedication was evident as recently as last week, when, despite his weakened condition and severe suffering, he left his sickbed and traveled to Haifa to personally oversee examinations for prospective shochtim.

According to accounts of the incident, even his physicians were astonished that he was able to undertake the journey and fulfill his responsibilities under such difficult circumstances.

In the final days of his life, Rav Galei’s medical condition worsened considerably, and numerous Gedolei Yisroel visited him at his bedside at Mayanei Hayeshua Hospital.

His brother, Rav Shimon Galei, remained near him during his final hours. Rav Shimon spent time at his brother’s bedside over Shabbos, offering tefillos for his recovery.

Rav Mordechai was niftar shortly after Shabbos, leaving his family, talmidim, colleagues, and the wider kashrus community in mourning.

The family’s grief was compounded by the fact that Rav Galei had suffered the devastating loss of his son, R’ Yechiel Yehoshua Galei z”l, approximately one year earlier. Yechiel Yehoshua, who was 42 at the time of his petirah, had endured severe suffering since childhood and was remembered as a pure and righteous individual who bore his difficulties with remarkable strength.

The Galei family had previously suffered another loss with the petirah of Rav Mordechai’s brother, Rav Yaakov Moshe Galei zt”l, in 5781. Rav Yaakov Moshe, who was 73 at the time of his petirah, had devoted himself to strengthening Torah life in Kiryat Ata and was remembered for his efforts to establish and support Torah institutions in the community.

Rav Galei leaves behind his wife, sons and daughters, sons-in-law, grandchildren, and other descendants, as well as his brother, Rav Shimon Galei.

His levayah was held Sunday morning at his home at 11 Avnei Nezer Street in Bnei Brak’s Ramat Elchanan neighborhood, with kevurah in Elad.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

A Father’s Day message posted by Rep. Ilhan Omar more than a decade ago and subsequently deleted has resurfaced amid a federal investigation into the Minnesota Democrat’s immigration and identity records, reviving longstanding allegations that she married her brother in 2009.

The controversy centers on a June 2013 social media post in which Omar referred to her father by a name resembling that of her former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. The apparent similarity has drawn renewed attention following an October 12 federal search of the congresswoman’s Washington, D.C., residence and the emergence of a court document identifying her under a disputed alternative name.

The New York Post reported Saturday that the deleted message, preserved in an online archive, referred to Omar’s father as “Nur Said,” a name that also appears in her former husband’s full name.

“Happy Father’s Day to my aabo Nur Said, I am forever grateful to Allah for giving me the best father …,” Omar wrote in June 2013, according to the archived post.

The message was reportedly removed from her account on September 19, 2019, several years after it was published. Fox News previously reported on the deletion, while the Daily Caller had drawn attention to the message in 2019.

The significance of the post is being debated because other public records identify Omar’s late father as Nur Omar Mohamed. Among those records is a 2020 memorial statement issued by the Congressional Black Caucus following his death.

Critics have pointed to the difference between the names, arguing that Omar’s reference to her father as “Nur Said” warrants further examination because her former husband’s name is Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

However, the similarity does not independently establish that the two men were related. Somali naming conventions commonly incorporate the given names of a person’s father and paternal grandfather, and individuals may also be known by different names or nicknames.

The controversy dates back years, with allegations that Omar married Elmi, purportedly her brother, in 2009 to help him obtain legal immigration status in the United States.

Omar has consistently denied that Elmi is her brother, and the allegation has not been established as fact.

The renewed scrutiny follows a federal investigation examining whether false information may have been submitted in connection with Omar’s immigration or naturalization records.

Federal agents searched her Washington residence on October 12, an operation that attracted considerable attention because of the allegations surrounding her past marriage and identity documents.

A subsequent filing in federal court has added another element to the controversy.

According to the Post, federal prosecutors submitted a motion Wednesday seeking to prevent the public release of the search warrant associated with the investigation.

The filing identified the congresswoman as “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.”

The designation has prompted questions about whether investigators are examining an alternative identity allegedly associated with Omar.

The document, however, does not explain why that name was included, nor does its appearance establish that the congresswoman used a fraudulent identity.

Two individuals familiar with the investigation reportedly told Fox News Digital that “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi” could be Omar’s legal name, an assertion disputed by her office.

When questioned Friday, Omar insisted that her “real name” is “Ilhan Abdullahi Omar” and rejected the suggestion that the alternative name accurately identifies her.

The disagreement has focused additional attention on the naming conventions used in Somalia, where a person’s name traditionally reflects paternal ancestry rather than the inherited family surnames common in the United States.

A previously circulated statement attributed to an Omar spokesperson offered another explanation for the 2013 message, claiming that “Nur Said” had been her father’s childhood nickname.

That explanation has resurfaced alongside the archived tweet, although the Post described the statement as allegedly attributed to her spokesperson rather than independently establishing its authenticity.

Omar’s office has forcefully rejected the renewed allegations.

In a statement provided to Fox News Digital on Thursday, a spokeswoman characterized the accusations as a “baseless, disgusting conspiracy theory.”

The spokeswoman also addressed the removal of the Father’s Day message, saying Omar deleted the post because she and members of her family had received threats.

The congresswoman herself discussed the accusations during a recent appearance on MS Now with host Chris Hayes.

During the interview, Omar dismissed the suggestion that she had married her brother as “insane.”

Hayes then pressed her on whether there might be any factual basis for the longstanding claims, asking if there was a “weird kernel of truth” to the allegations.

“Not to my knowledge,” Omar replied.

The response attracted attention because critics interpreted the wording as less categorical than an outright denial of any possible family connection.

Omar and her representatives, however, have repeatedly denied the central accusation that her former husband is her brother.

Omar came to the United States from Somalia as a refugee in 1995 and subsequently established herself in Minnesota politics before winning election to Congress.

Her marriage history has been the subject of public scrutiny for years.

She married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009, later divorcing him in 2017. She subsequently legally married Ahmed Hirsi in 2018.

Questions surrounding the earlier marriage have periodically resurfaced in political disputes, but the allegations concerning a purported sibling relationship have never been conclusively substantiated.

The current federal investigation has brought renewed attention to those claims because investigators are reportedly examining matters involving identity and immigration documentation.

The search of Omar’s residence and the court filing containing the disputed name have intensified scrutiny of records that previously received attention during earlier controversies.

Nevertheless, the precise scope of the investigation remains unclear, and the publicly described court documents do not establish that Omar committed immigration fraud or that her former husband was a relative.

The congresswoman has maintained that the allegations are false and politically motivated, while critics continue to demand a fuller accounting of her marriage history and identity records.

The archived Father’s Day message has now become a central part of that renewed debate, with attention focused on the name “Nur Said,” its connection to Omar’s late father, and its similarity to the name of her former husband.

For now, the questions raised by the deleted post remain unresolved. The existence of the message and the disputed federal filing has generated renewed scrutiny, but neither independently proves the longstanding allegation that Omar married her brother.

Additional details have emerged concerning the federal search of Omar’s Washington residence, which was carried out by approximately 25 Homeland Security Investigations agents on October 12.

During an interview with Chris Hayes, Omar said the search lasted roughly five hours and that agents removed 17 items, including telephones belonging to family members, notebooks, a camera, and a Somali language-learning book.

She also said agents presented her with a document concerning the constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress, which she declined to sign.

Omar has described the investigation as an attempt to intimidate her politically and said that threats against her family have become so serious that she intends to move from her Washington home.

Meanwhile, the federal government has sought to keep the underlying search warrant materials sealed. In a motion filed Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro argued that investigators had not completed their work under the warrant and that releasing the documents prematurely could interfere with the investigation.

President Donald Trump unleashed a blistering attack on Barack Obama early Sunday morning, accusing him of campaigning for a Democratic Senate candidate whom Trump described as a “Muslim Brotherhood Jihadist” who hates Jews, Black Americans, and the United States. The president also denounced Obama’s record on Iran, ridiculed his past political endorsements, and urged Michigan voters to support Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers.

The extraordinary broadside, posted on Truth Social following Obama’s Saturday campaign appearance in Detroit, centered on Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim physician and former Detroit health director who is running against Rogers for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Gary Peters.

Trump opened his statement with a sweeping condemnation of Obama’s presidency, particularly his administration’s handling of Iran and the 2015 nuclear agreement.

“Obama was a grossly incompetent President!” Trump wrote.

“He paid off Iran with $Billions, and gave them a road to a Nuclear Weapon,” the president continued, referring to the nuclear agreement negotiated during Obama’s administration and the billions of dollars in Iranian assets that became accessible following the lifting of sanctions.

Trump, who withdrew the United States from the agreement during his first administration, has repeatedly accused Obama of enabling Iran’s nuclear ambitions rather than permanently eliminating the threat.

The president then turned to Obama’s record of campaigning for Democratic presidential candidates, pointing to the defeats of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024.

“He said that Crooked Hillary Clinton was going to WIN, he campaigned hard for her, and she lost in all directions and ways. He then campaigned full out for Kamala, and likewise, she lost,” Trump wrote.

Trump followed those remarks with his sharpest criticism of Obama’s latest endorsement, accusing El-Sayed of extremist sympathies and hostility toward Jews and other Americans.

“Now he’s campaigning for a Muslim Brotherhood Jihadist, who hates Jews and Blacks and AMERICANS and TRUMP, and he is going to lose, also,” Trump declared.

The allegations represent an escalation of attacks that Trump and other Republicans have directed at El-Sayed throughout the Michigan Senate campaign. El-Sayed has denied having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and publicly available evidence has not established that he belongs to the organization. Trump’s additional accusations concerning the candidate’s alleged hatred of Jews and Black Americans were not accompanied by supporting evidence.

The president also questioned El-Sayed’s professional credentials, calling him a “Fake Doctor” and alleging that he operates the worst clinic in the country.

El-Sayed is a physician and epidemiologist who previously served as Detroit’s health director. Trump’s post did not provide evidence substantiating his allegations about the candidate’s medical qualifications or professional record.

Turning to his own political history in Michigan, Trump credited his administration with reviving the state’s automotive industry, strengthening employment, and preserving important military infrastructure.

“I won Michigan, BIG, have brought back the Car Industry, the Air Force Base, and everything else. Also, more jobs than ever before,” Trump wrote.

He then returned to El-Sayed, accusing the Democratic nominee of supporting open borders and warning that additional damaging information about him would emerge before Election Day.

“Michigan doesn’t want an arrogant, Open Borders, Fake Doctor, Jihadist, whose reputation will only get worse as more information is revealed – And there’s plenty,” Trump stated.

The president concluded his message with an endorsement of the Republican nominee.

“VOTE FOR MIKE ROGERS! He will never let you down!” Trump wrote.

The post came hours after Obama appeared before thousands of supporters at Cass Technical High School in Detroit, where he campaigned for El-Sayed and other Democratic candidates ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

More than 4,300 people attended the event, where Obama defended El-Sayed against Republican criticism and presented the Senate contest as part of a broader effort to challenge the Trump administration.

Obama praised El-Sayed’s positions on healthcare and campaign finance, arguing that the Democratic nominee would continue work begun during his own presidency.

“He’ll finish the job we started,” Obama said, referring to the Affordable Care Act.

Obama also addressed the Republican attacks on El-Sayed’s Muslim background, comparing them to allegations about his own identity and religion during his presidential campaigns.

“We have seen this movie before. I starred in it,” Obama told the audience.

“This stuff didn’t work on me. Not in Michigan, it’s not going to work for Abdul,” he added.

The former president also criticized the Trump administration’s handling of the economy and the ongoing conflict with Iran, urging Democrats to use the midterm elections to impose greater accountability on Washington.

“We got to flip that circuit breaker, bring some accountability to this government,” Obama said.

Referring to the war with Iran, Obama told the Detroit audience that El-Sayed supported bringing the conflict to an end.

“Abdul is fighting for change, real change, change that will bring an end to this war,” he said.

Trump had already taken aim at Obama’s appearance during a Saturday campaign rally in Perry, Georgia, where he mocked the former president’s ability to attract supporters.

“You know, I saw Barack Hussein Obama was in Michigan, and the place was empty,” Trump told the crowd.

Reports from the Detroit rally, however, documented thousands of attendees.

The dispute over El-Sayed’s alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood has become a recurring issue in the Michigan Senate campaign.

Rogers and other Republican figures have pointed to El-Sayed’s past political activities and associations, including his support for a 2012 statement concerning Egypt’s then-president Mohamed Morsi, who was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

They have also raised questions about donations from individuals associated with Muslim advocacy organizations and public comments made years ago by members of El-Sayed’s extended family.

El-Sayed has repeatedly denied any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and rejected the suggestion that those associations establish extremist ties. Independent examinations of the allegations have not established that he is a member of the organization.

The Republican nominee, Mike Rogers, previously served in Congress and chaired the House Intelligence Committee. A former FBI agent, Rogers has emphasized national security, immigration enforcement, and economic policy during his campaign.

El-Sayed, meanwhile, has focused on healthcare costs, economic concerns, and opposition to the Trump administration’s policies, including its handling of the war with Iran.

The two candidates have clashed repeatedly during debates and campaign appearances, with disputes over immigration, foreign policy, Israel, and Iran becoming prominent features of the contest.

Trump has previously attacked El-Sayed using similar language, including in a Truth Social post following a recent Senate debate in which he accused the Democrat of extremism and hostility toward the United States.

El-Sayed responded at the time by accusing Trump of deliberately distorting his name and using his Muslim faith as a political weapon.

“He knows my name is Abdul. He says it every day. But he’s not just attacking me. He’s attacking all of us. He thinks so low of us. He thinks he can use my name and my faith to distract us from the suffering his policies are inflicting on us at the pump, at the grocery store, and at the doctor’s office. He thinks we don’t know any better. It’s time for change,” El-Sayed said.

President Donald Trump warned that the United States could launch additional military strikes against Iran, declaring that his administration intends to permanently eliminate Tehran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons while leaving open the possibility of reaching a negotiated agreement with the Islamic Republic.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Georgia last night, Trump portrayed the American military campaign against Iran as a sweeping success that had crippled the country’s armed forces, devastated its nuclear infrastructure, and severely weakened its leadership. Nevertheless, he stressed that Washington’s central objective remains preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Trump: I terminated the Iran nuclear deal—luckily, just in time. We have to make sure they never have a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/q3D3cJm4vU

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 25, 2026

The president also defended his earlier decision to abandon the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama, arguing that the arrangement had failed to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

Trump said he had withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) “just in time”, describing the agreement as one that “was a road to a nuclear weapon for Iran.”

Turning to the military operations conducted against Iranian targets, Trump credited American forces with destroying much of the country’s nuclear enrichment infrastructure and substantially diminishing its ability to threaten the region.

“And we obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity with Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury. We defeated them militarily, financially, and otherwise. And now we are ensuring that just one thing, we have to make sure that they never, ever have a nuclear weapon. And we’ll do that very easily.”

Trump went on to ridicule the state of Iran’s military and political establishment, claiming that American operations had eliminated successive levels of the regime’s leadership and left the country with few remaining military assets.

“They don’t have any airplanes, no ships, no anything, no leaders. Level one leader is gone, level two leader is gone,” he stated, before joking, “I got to stop because I got to figure out who the hell are we negotiating with.”

The president’s comments followed an earlier exchange with reporters in which he declined to disclose whether he was preparing to authorize another American attack against Iran.

Asked how close he was to ordering additional strikes, Trump dismissed the question and suggested that publicly revealing military plans would undermine any potential operation.

“Would you really think I’d tell you that? I mean, can anybody from the Wall Street Journal ask a question so stupid?” Trump replied.

Despite refusing to discuss operational details, the president acknowledged that another attack remained a possibility. At the same time, he emphasized that negotiations could still produce an agreement, although he questioned whether Tehran could be trusted to honor its commitments.

“Let me tell you, while we’re thinking about doing it, and maybe tomorrow, do you really think I’m going to tell you? If I’m going to do it, and there’s a possibility I will, there’s also a possibility we’ll have a nice, big, beautiful agreement. They want to make a deal. But the problem is, will they hold the deal?”

Trump explained that his objective extends beyond inflicting temporary damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He argued that any military or diplomatic solution must prevent the regime from rebuilding its nuclear weapons capabilities in the years ahead.

“Look, I could have done the B-2 bomber thing a year ago and left. The problem is, over the course of a year, a year and a half, two years, they would have somehow figured a way to make a nuclear bomb. I’ve got to make it permanent. That’s the only reason I’m doing it, as long as I’m doing it.”

The president also offered an extensive account of what he described as the destruction of Iran’s conventional military capabilities, including its fighter aircraft, naval fleet, and radar installations.

He claimed that American forces had established control over critical military infrastructure while maintaining the movement of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important shipping route.

“We’ve done an amazing job. Your paper wrote yesterday, two days ago, that we’re getting more oil out of the Hormuz Strait than we did before the war started. We get it out very, very strongly. Our Navy has done an incredible job. Our military has done. They have no jet fighters left. They’ve knocked out every jet fighter in Iran. They’ve knocked out every ship, 259 ships, all at the bottom of the sea…I knocked out their radar. I knocked out all of the different things. And the only thing they have going for them right now is inflation.”

Trump then pointed to Iran’s deteriorating economic conditions as further evidence of the pressure being exerted on the regime, asserting that inflation had climbed to an extraordinary level.

“They’re setting a record in inflation. Their inflation as of this morning, I just read, was 301%. So we’ve done a great job, and the question is, do we finish that, which would not be difficult, or do we make a deal with them? And that’s going to be up to them,” he said.

The president’s warnings came amid growing speculation that the administration could order another round of strikes against Iranian targets, potentially within days.

On Friday, Tom Barrack, the American ambassador to Turkey and Trump’s special envoy for Syria and Iraq, indicated that military action could occur as early as the weekend.

During an interview with Lebanese-Australian businessman and podcaster Mario Nawfal, Barrack suggested that the possibility of an imminent strike remained very real, even as the White House continued pursuing a diplomatic resolution.

“Could there be a strike this weekend? Absolutely. The president has been clear, I’m giving you American policy, the president is very clear: he’s open, and available and accessible to a deal. And we’ve been at the table for months and months and months,” Barrack said.

The comments prompted questions about whether Washington had already settled on a timetable for renewed military action.

When reporters raised Barrack’s remarks with Trump on Friday, the president appeared to distance himself from the suggestion that an attack had been scheduled.

“[Barrack] is a pretty powerful man, I guess. If that’s the case, I don’t know anything about it,” the President responded.

Later Friday, however, Trump again threatened the possibility of additional military operations during an appearance at a campaign rally in Florida.

Referring to the earlier American campaign against Iran, the president suggested that another operation could be avoided if Tehran agreed to negotiate on terms acceptable to Washington.

“We may do another little Operation Epic Fury, or they will agree. If they’re smart, they will just say, ‘Let’s get down to business.’ But I doubt they will do that because perhaps they’re not smart.

Meanwhile, a report published by The Hill revealed that the Pentagon has already developed multiple plans for renewed strikes against Iran, with some scenarios reportedly under consideration for implementation after the November 3 congressional midterm elections.

According to individuals familiar with the preparations, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees American military activity throughout the Middle East, has prepared operational plans that could be activated if Trump gives the order.

One source indicated that military planners have completed proposals for additional attacks, while another confirmed that several alternatives have been developed for review by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

The existence of multiple plans would allow the president to choose among different military responses depending on developments in negotiations and the broader regional situation.

Pentagon officials declined to confirm the details of the reported preparations, emphasizing that developing military options is a routine responsibility of the Defense Department.

A Pentagon official told The Hill that the department’s “job is to develop and present military options to the President.”

“We don’t speculate on hypothetical situations or future operations,” the official added.

The reported planning does not establish that Trump has made a final decision to launch another offensive. Military commanders routinely prepare contingency operations, and the president has repeatedly emphasized that a diplomatic agreement remains possible.

Nevertheless, his latest remarks make clear that the administration is continuing to apply military and economic pressure on Tehran while demanding assurances that Iran will never be able to develop nuclear weapons.

Trump has portrayed the damage inflicted by previous American operations as providing Washington with substantial leverage in any future negotiations. At the same time, he has argued that destroying existing facilities will accomplish little if Iran is eventually able to rebuild them.

With the November 3 elections approaching and American military planners reportedly preparing additional strike options, the administration faces a consequential decision over whether to pursue another confrontation with Iran or attempt to secure a lasting nuclear agreement.

For now, Trump is leaving both possibilities open, insisting that Iran’s leadership must decide whether to reach an agreement or face the prospect of further American military action.

Additional reporting indicates that the renewed threats come as the Iran conflict approaches its eighth month, with the economic consequences of the fighting becoming an increasingly prominent issue ahead of the November 3 elections.

The prolonged confrontation has disrupted energy markets and contributed to higher fuel prices, placing additional political pressure on the administration as Republicans seek to maintain control of Congress.

American intelligence officials have also reportedly warned of increasingly advanced Iranian plots targeting U.S. diplomats and other personnel abroad. Security concerns have prompted the State Department to reduce staffing at several diplomatic facilities in the Middle East, including locations in Saudi Arabia.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, have reportedly prepared contingency plans of their own. Two senior Iranian security officials indicated that Tehran had considered targeting undersea communications cables in the Persian Gulf in response to further American and Israeli attacks, potentially threatening regional internet connectivity, banking systems, and commercial activity.

The United States military has reportedly completed preparations for several possible new attacks against Iran, with military planners developing options that President Donald Trump could authorize following the November 3 congressional midterm elections.

According to a report published by The Hill, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which directs American military operations throughout the Middle East, has prepared a range of potential operations against the Islamic Republic as the Trump administration considers whether to launch another round of military action.

Sources familiar with the planning told the publication that the proposals are ready for consideration by senior administration officials, although no final decision has been announced.

One individual familiar with the preparations said CENTCOM has developed plans for additional strikes that could be carried out upon receiving authorization from President Trump.

A second source confirmed that military commanders have assembled several operational options for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to review.

That source stressed that Trump has deliberately avoided committing himself to a particular course of action, preferring to retain the ability to respond to developments without eliminating any potential military option.

The Pentagon declined to discuss the specific plans but acknowledged its responsibility to provide the president with military alternatives.

A Defense Department official told The Hill that the department’s “job is to develop and present military options to the President.”

“We don’t speculate on hypothetical situations or future operations,” the official added.

CENTCOM did not provide a response when contacted by the publication for comment.

The latest disclosures come amid mounting speculation that Washington could resume military operations against Iran, potentially targeting the country’s nuclear program and other strategic infrastructure.

The possibility of renewed American strikes has gained particular attention following Hegseth’s previously undisclosed visit to Israel earlier in the week.

During the trip, the secretary met with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday and visited American military personnel stationed in the Middle East.

The meeting with Netanyahu had not been publicly announced beforehand, and Hegseth later acknowledged that the two had met without revealing the substance of their discussions.

Speaking with reporters Tuesday in Wisconsin, Hegseth emphasized the extensive military relationship between the United States and Israel, particularly their shared efforts to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

“We’ve worked with the Israeli military quite a bit. That’s nothing new. We have for a long time. They have great capabilities, and we appreciate their contributions to assuring Iran never gets a nuclear weapon,” Hegseth said.

He also described Israel as “good partners.”

The secretary’s remarks came as American officials were reportedly reviewing options for another confrontation with Iran, raising questions about whether the United States and Israel could again coordinate military operations.

A separate report published Thursday by The Atlantic indicated that Trump was considering a new military offensive against Iran shortly after the November elections.

According to officials familiar with those discussions, the proposed campaign could last several days and involve attacks against Iranian nuclear installations, missile production and deployment capabilities, drone infrastructure, and energy facilities.

Such an operation would represent another significant escalation in the administration’s confrontation with Tehran.

The timing of any potential military action remains uncertain, however, with senior American officials offering differing indications about when an operation might occur.

On Friday, Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Trump’s special envoy for Syria and Iraq, raised the possibility that American forces could launch strikes even before the weekend was over.

During an interview with Lebanese-Australian entrepreneur and podcaster Mario Nawfal, Barrack said the possibility of imminent military action could not be dismissed, while emphasizing that Trump remained prepared to pursue a diplomatic agreement with Iran.

“Could there be a strike this weekend? Absolutely. The president has been clear, I’m giving you American policy, the president is very clear: he’s open, and available and accessible to a deal. And we’ve been at the table for months and months and months,” Barrack said.

His comments drew attention because they suggested that the administration might be contemplating military action on a considerably shorter timetable than the post-election scenario described in other reports.

Asked about Barrack’s remarks during a conversation with reporters later Friday, Trump appeared to distance himself from the suggestion that an immediate strike had already been decided upon.

“[Barrack] is a pretty powerful man, I guess. If that’s the case, I don’t know anything about it,” the president responded.

Nevertheless, Trump continued to raise the possibility of another military campaign against Iran during a rally in Florida later that day.

Addressing supporters, the president referred to the possibility of repeating Operation Epic Fury, the name associated with the previous American military campaign against Iranian targets.

“We may do another little Operation Epic Fury, or they will agree. If they’re smart, they will just say, ‘Let’s get down to business.’ But I doubt they will do that because perhaps they’re not smart.

The president’s remarks underscored his administration’s continuing effort to pressure Tehran into an agreement while keeping the threat of military force on the table.

Although Trump has repeatedly emphasized his willingness to negotiate, he has also made clear that the United States is prepared to employ military power if he determines that diplomacy will not achieve Washington’s objectives.

The latest reports suggest that military commanders are preparing for that possibility by developing multiple operational scenarios rather than relying on a single proposed course of action.

When The Hill contacted the White House seeking a response to the reported strike preparations, administration officials referred the publication to Trump’s statements to reporters Friday.

The White House did not publicly confirm whether the president had reviewed or approved any of the specific military plans described by the sources.

The distinction between military contingency planning and a final presidential decision remains significant. CENTCOM routinely develops operational options for potential conflicts, and the existence of such plans does not necessarily mean that an attack has been ordered.

Additional reports indicate that American and Israeli military officials have also developed proposals for coordinated strikes, with exercises reportedly involving aircraft flying over Iraq to rehearse possible operations. The planning is said to include the possibility of a relatively brief but intensive campaign.

The Pentagon has also reportedly been strengthening its military presence in the Middle East, with three American aircraft carrier groups expected to be positioned in the region by the end of October, providing additional military options should Trump decide to resume large-scale operations.

Trump previously stated on October 8 that the United States would not launch new attacks before the November 3 elections, even as he maintained that Iran would not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons.

A young child from Netivot desperately needs life-saving surgery.

His family cannot afford the enormous medical expenses and is turning to Acheinu Bnei Yisrael for help.

Whoever saves one Jewish life is considered to have saved an entire world.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE. 

Anti-Israel demonstrators gathered outside a performance by Jewish comedian Jerry Seinfeld in Washington, D.C., on Motzoei Shabbos, confronting people waiting to enter the theater and staging a protest in which pictures of Seinfeld and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were reportedly struck with shoes.

The demonstration took place outside The Anthem, a major entertainment venue in Washington’s Southwest Waterfront district, where Seinfeld was scheduled to perform.

Videos of the protests can’t be shared here because of profanity throughout.

According to accounts of the protest, demonstrators directed anti-Israel chants toward the venue and its patrons, targeting Seinfeld over his outspoken support for Israel. Protesters also reportedly placed photographs of the comedian and Netanyahu on the ground and struck them with their shoes, an act intended to express contempt for the two men.

The incident represents another confrontation between anti-Israel activists and Seinfeld, who has become an increasingly frequent target of protests since publicly expressing solidarity with Israel following the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023.

Seinfeld’s appearance in Washington was part of his ongoing stand-up comedy tour. The venue had scheduled his performance for 8 p.m., with doors opening at 7:15 p.m.

The comedian’s support for Israel has made his appearances a recurring focus of anti-Israel demonstrations, with activists previously interrupting his performances and confronting him at public events.

Earlier this month, protesters disrupted Seinfeld’s October 9 performance at the Chicago Theatre, shouting accusations about Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

During that incident, Seinfeld responded to the hecklers with sarcasm, drawing laughter and applause from the audience.

When one protester accused him of racism, Seinfeld mockingly responded, “I am a racist.”

He also told a heckler, “I’m gonna find out how much your ticket was and I’m sending it to Israel,” before joking that he would keep the money instead.

The Chicago confrontation was recorded and widely circulated online, drawing renewed attention to Seinfeld’s refusal to retreat from his public support for Israel despite repeated protests.

Seinfeld traveled to Israel with his family in December 2023, just weeks after the October 7 massacre, meeting with survivors, released hostages, and families affected by the attacks.

During that visit, he toured Kibbutz Be’eri, one of the communities devastated by Hamas terrorists, and met Israelis whose lives had been profoundly affected by the massacre.

He subsequently described the trip as one of the most powerful experiences of his life.

Israeli consumers will pay more for eggs beginning November 1, 2026, after the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security announced an approximately 2.1% increase in the government-controlled prices of eggs, adding between 27 and 33 agorot to the cost of a dozen, depending on size.

The new prices, announced Thursday, October 22, represent the first adjustment to regulated egg prices since November 2025 and reflect rising production and distribution costs throughout Israel’s poultry industry.

Under the revised pricing schedule, a carton of 12 medium-sized eggs will cost a maximum of 13.40 shekels, up from 13.13 shekels, an increase of 27 agorot.

A dozen large eggs will rise from 14.24 shekels to 14.54 shekels, an increase of 30 agorot, while a carton of 12 extra-large eggs will increase from 15.48 shekels to 15.81 shekels, a rise of 33 agorot.

All prices include Israel’s value-added tax.

The Agriculture Ministry explained that the increase follows a periodic review of the expenses involved in producing and marketing eggs, from poultry farms through distributors and retailers to the final consumer.

Among the factors contributing to higher costs are increases in poultry feed prices, employee wages, energy expenses, and packaging materials.

The price adjustment is being implemented under an automatic pricing mechanism introduced in 2023, which replaced the previous system requiring the approval and signatures of both the finance and agriculture ministers for each adjustment.

Under the current arrangement, regulated egg prices are reviewed quarterly using a predetermined formula designed to reflect changes in production and distribution expenses.

The mechanism allows prices to move either upward or downward, depending on changes in the underlying costs.

A price adjustment is triggered when cumulative changes exceed 3% and at least six months have passed since the previous adjustment. Alternatively, after a full year has elapsed, an adjustment may be implemented when the cumulative change exceeds 1%.

Because the last adjustment occurred in November 2025, the latest increase falls within the annual review provisions.

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson is facing renewed scrutiny after a video clip circulated online showing him condemning Wikipedia as an intelligence agency-controlled source of propaganda, only to recommend the online encyclopedia’s coverage of the Gaza war moments later as a credible source of information.

The apparent contradiction, which unfolded within approximately 40 seconds during an episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, has attracted attention because of Carlson’s longstanding criticism of Wikipedia and his increasingly outspoken opposition to Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

In the clip, Carlson initially dismisses Wikipedia in sweeping terms, telling his guest that he “never recommend[s] Wikipedia for anything.”

He goes on to claim that the online encyclopedia is “controlled by the intelligence” agencies, both “foreign and domestic,” adding that “everything about it offends me.”

However, moments later, as the conversation turns to the war in Gaza, casualty figures, and American foreign policy, Carlson changes his assessment of the website’s usefulness.

He encourages viewers to consult Wikipedia’s coverage of Gaza since the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks, suggesting that the contentious nature of the subject makes the article particularly useful.

According to Carlson, because the information has been subjected to intense scrutiny and competing political pressures, readers “can look at it with some confidence.”

He further argues that the entry cannot simply be dismissed as “Israeli propaganda” or “third world leftist propaganda.”

The remarks have raised questions about Carlson’s standards for evaluating information, particularly his willingness to endorse material from a website he had just characterized as fundamentally compromised.

The episode is especially noteworthy given Carlson’s previous accusations that Wikipedia has been transformed into an instrument of political and intelligence-agency influence.

In September 2025, Carlson interviewed Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who has become one of the encyclopedia’s most prominent critics.

During that interview, the two discussed allegations that Wikipedia’s editorial processes had become dominated by ideological activists and that intelligence agencies had exerted influence over its content.

Promoting the interview, Carlson described Wikipedia as having been transformed into “the most comprehensive propaganda op in human history.”

Sanger, who helped establish Wikipedia in 2001, has repeatedly argued that the website abandoned its original commitment to neutrality.

He has criticized Wikipedia’s treatment of politically controversial subjects, its policies governing which news organizations may be cited, and the influence exercised by experienced editors who can remain anonymous.

Sanger has also proposed changes intended to make the website’s editorial decision-making more transparent and to restore what he considers its original standards of impartiality.

Wikipedia, meanwhile, maintains that its articles are governed by neutrality requirements and that its open editing process allows contributors to challenge inaccurate or inadequately supported information.

The controversy surrounding Carlson’s latest remarks comes amid a broader debate about Wikipedia’s treatment of Israel and the war in Gaza.

Jewish organizations and other critics have accused groups of Wikipedia editors of promoting anti-Israel narratives and presenting disputed allegations against Israel as established facts.

The Anti-Defamation League published research in 2025 alleging that a group of editors had coordinated efforts to influence articles concerning Israel, Zionism, and the Israel-Hamas war.

The organization argued that the editing activity contributed to coverage that disproportionately emphasized criticism of Israel while minimizing or omitting important context concerning Palestinian terrorism and antisemitism.

Those allegations have been part of a larger dispute over whether Wikipedia’s editorial procedures adequately protect politically sensitive articles from coordinated efforts to influence their presentation.

Wikipedia’s leadership has defended the encyclopedia’s underlying model, emphasizing that articles are expected to reflect reliable published sources and that disagreements over content can be addressed through its established editorial processes.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has revealed that he ordered the preparation of a contingency plan to protect Israel’s economy against possible international sanctions, including restrictions on its banking system, with digital currencies among the options under consideration. His remarks prompted an unusually sharp public response from the Bank of Israel, which warned that cryptocurrency cannot provide an effective means of circumventing economic sanctions.

In an interview with Israel’s Economy Channel, Netanyahu acknowledged that he is concerned about the possibility of foreign governments imposing financial restrictions on Israel and said the country must prepare alternative economic mechanisms to protect itself.

“Of course I’m concerned,” Netanyahu said. “You have to understand that there could be sanctions, including banking sanctions. You have to organize an alternative economic system. And you know what that is. You know what digital currencies are, and I’m working on that as well. And there are other things, too.”

Asked whether blockchain technology, which allows financial transactions to be recorded and managed through decentralized digital networks without relying on a central intermediary, could provide an alternative to the traditional banking system, Netanyahu confirmed that the government was examining that possibility.

“Yes, that is one of the ways,” he said. “And I have already requested that a plan be prepared for it.”

The prime minister’s comments indicated that his government is considering how Israel could maintain financial activity if international sanctions were to interfere with access to conventional banking services.

Netanyahu also issued a warning about the future of American military assistance to Israel, saying the country must prepare for the possibility that the substantial financial support it has received from Washington will eventually come to an end.

“If you think we will continue receiving what I secured twice, which amounts to tens of billions of dollars in American assistance for the defense budget, get used to the fact that it won’t continue, because America has changed,” Netanyahu declared. “It’s over. It’s only a question of time.”

His remarks suggested that Israel should not assume that the current level of American security assistance will remain available indefinitely, particularly as political attitudes and priorities in the United States continue to evolve.

The comments drew an immediate response from the Bank of Israel, which issued an unusually forceful statement challenging the economic feasibility of Netanyahu’s proposed approach.

“Cryptocurrencies cannot serve as a route for circumventing sanctions,” the central bank declared.

The bank argued that Israel’s economic interests would be better served by maintaining strong relationships with its principal trading partners and working to prevent sanctions rather than developing mechanisms intended to bypass them.

“The correct course for Israel’s economy is to preserve economic relations with our main trading partners and focus on preventing sanctions and their negative effects on the economy,” the bank stated. “This matter falls within the responsibility of the political leadership, and it would be appropriate to act to advance that objective.”

The statement amounted to a public disagreement between Israel’s central bank and the prime minister over how the country should prepare for the possibility of international financial restrictions.

Responding to the criticism, Netanyahu emphasized that cryptocurrency was merely one option under examination and that no decision had been made to adopt it.

“Cryptocurrency is one of the tools, not the only tool, and it is not certain that it will be used,” Netanyahu said. “I hear the objections and take them into account.”

The prime minister also defended his economic record, suggesting that his previous policies demonstrated his ability to guide Israel through difficult financial circumstances.

“I have received advice from various sources, including the Bank of Israel, and I think that, looking at my record over time, I have led the State of Israel to unprecedented economic prosperity,” Netanyahu said.

“I introduced a free-market economy here, broke up monopolies, reduced waste in the public sector, and we lowered taxes and prices as never before.”

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

​​For more info, email bitachon4life@gmail.com.

LISTEN:

New questions have emerged regarding the cancellation of an El Al flight from Eretz Yisroel to Newark that was diverted to Paris early Friday morning after one of the aircraft’s pilots experienced a medical emergency, leaving passengers scrambling to make alternative arrangements as Shabbos approached.

A passenger aboard Flight LY27 contacted Matzav.com following our original report, questioning whether the approaching onset of Shabbos adequately explained why the aircraft did not continue to Newark after landing in Paris.

The passenger also stated that a frum physician aboard the aircraft had treated the ailing pilot during the flight.

“There certainly was plenty of time for the plane to refuel and reembark to Newark,” said the passenger. “Indeed, many passengers were able to book flights back to the States which took off more than 6 hours after we landed. Also, the pilot was treated by a frum physician on board.”

The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner had departed Ben Gurion Airport shortly after midnight Friday, October 23, bound for Newark Liberty International Airport. Several hours into the flight, one of the pilots reportedly became ill, prompting the crew to divert to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, where the aircraft landed at approximately 5:30 a.m. local time.

Following the diversion, El Al canceled the remainder of the flight and began arranging alternative transportation for passengers wishing to continue to the United States. Others were accommodated at an airport hotel in Paris, where arrangements were made for kosher meals, minyanim, a Sefer Torah, and assistance from a local rav for Shabbos.

Initial aviation reports attributed the inability to continue the flight to the medical incident and the limited time remaining before Shabbos.

However, the passenger who contacted Matzav.com said that other flights departing considerably later were available to passengers traveling to the United States, raising questions about the specific circumstances that prevented the original El Al aircraft from continuing.

The availability of alternative flights does not necessarily establish that the El Al flight itself could have resumed. A medical emergency involving a pilot can create additional operational complications, including the need for a replacement pilot, crew-duty limitations, and other safety requirements.

Nevertheless, the precise reason for the cancellation of the original flight’s remaining segment has not been publicly clarified.

{Matzav.com}

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of R’ Naftali Hirschfeld z”l. He was in his nineties.

R’ Naftoli was among the talmidim who had the extraordinary privilege of learning directly under Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l, rosh yeshiva of Beth Medrash Govoha, in Lakewood, whose vision and leadership transformed the landscape of Torah learning in America.

He belonged to the generation that knew Lakewood Yeshiva long before it became the enormous Torah institution recognized throughout the world today. In those early years, BMG was a relatively small but intensely dedicated makom Torah, where a select group of bnei Torah devoted themselves to learning under the personal guidance of Rav Aharon.

As one of Rav Aharon’s talmidim, R’ Naftoli was privileged to witness firsthand the rosh yeshiva‘s extraordinary dedication to Torah, his fiery shiurim, and the uncompromising standards that became the foundation of the Lakewood Yeshiva.

Over the years, R’ Naftoli was recognized as someone who possessed personal recollections of Rav Aharon, his approach to learning, and his leadership during the formative period of the American Torah world.

Those recollections carried particular significance as the years passed and the number of individuals who had personally learned under Rav Aharon steadily diminished.

Following his years in Lakewood, R’ Naftoli continued his involvement in harbotzas haTorah. At one point, he joined Rav Shmuel Feivelsohn in establishing a yeshiva in St. Louis, Missouri, bringing the dedication to Torah learning that characterized Rav Aharon’s talmidim to another American Jewish community.

Later in life, R’ Naftoli pursued a professional career and resided for many years in Queens, New York.

In more recent years, he lived in Lakewood with his son R’ Eli, returning to the community where he had spent his formative years learning under Rav Aharon.

R’ Naftoli and his contemporaries were part of the foundational generation of Beth Medrash Govoha, a group of talmidim whose commitment to Torah helped establish the mosad during an era when the concept of full-time, advanced Torah learning in America was still developing.

The petirah of R’ Naftoli marks the loss of another member of that remarkable generation.

The levayah will take place Sunday at 11 a.m. at the Congregation Sons of Israel Holocaust Memorial Chapel, located at 613 Ramsey Avenue in Lakewood, NJ.

Yehi zichro baruch.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Avraham Moshe Ziskind, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Kesser Torah, delivered an emotional address at an emergency election gathering in Telz Stone, recounting a personal experience involving Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch that he said transformed his understanding of emunas chachomim. According to Rav Ziskind, guidance he received from Rav Hirsch regarding a difficult decision in his life proved accurate in every detail, despite having initially appeared impossible.

The account was shared during a large gathering in Kiryat Ye’arim, also known as Telz Stone, attended by thousands of residents, avreichim, and yeshiva bochurim ahead of the upcoming Knesset elections.

Among the Gedolei Yisroel seated at the dais were Rav Dov Landau and Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, who have been leading efforts to address the challenges facing the Torah community during the election campaign.

Rav Ziskind was invited to deliver the concluding address. Rather than speaking exclusively about the elections, he chose to relate an experience from his own life that he said demonstrated Rav Hirsch’s extraordinary insight and ability to foresee developments that others considered impossible.

Opening his remarks, Rav Ziskind told the assembled crowd that he wanted to discuss the meaning of emunas chachomim, explaining that an experience several years earlier had brought him to an entirely different level of understanding.

“I need to share with you a subject called emunas chachomim,” he began. “I once stood at the level of emunas chachomim. But the Ribbono Shel Olam, several years ago, showed me something far greater than emunas chachomim!”

He then described a period when he was confronted with an exceptionally difficult personal decision, one that involved numerous complications and considerable uncertainty.

According to Rav Ziskind, every friend he consulted insisted that the step he was considering was simply not feasible.

Nevertheless, he turned to Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch for guidance and continued consulting with him repeatedly over an extended period.

“I had a very difficult step to take in my life, something extremely complicated and complex,” Rav Ziskind related. “All my friends told me that taking such a step was completely out of the question. I went in to Maran Rav Moshe Hillel, and I consulted with him many times over a long period.”

Rav Ziskind explained that the guidance he received was difficult for him to comprehend at the time. Each conversation left him wondering how the course of action Rav Hirsch recommended could possibly succeed.

Yet he was struck by the remarkable clarity and depth of Rav Hirsch’s words.

“Each time, I heard things from him that I could not understand. How could such a step possibly be taken? But every sentence I heard from Maran the rosh yeshiva was filled with such extraordinary insight, such honesty, faithfulness, dedication, and profound understanding.”

Although Rav Ziskind said he generally does not have a particularly strong memory for details, he explained that the precise words Rav Hirsch spoke during those consultations have remained with him throughout the intervening years.

“I am not someone who remembers many things, but the exact words I heard years ago from Rav Moshe Hillel are engraved in my memory. I could not believe or understand how a human being could say such things when all my friends were telling me it was impossible!”

The rosh yeshiva then described what happened in the years following those conversations.

Despite his own doubts and the objections of those around him, he had followed Rav Hirsch’s instructions because of the emunas chachomim with which he had been raised.

Over time, he said, events unfolded exactly as Rav Hirsch had predicted.

“It took several years, and the Ribbono Shel Olam taught me and showed me that every word that emerged from his holy mouth was divrei Elokim chaim! Things I never believed could happen in reality took place with absolute precision, exactly as he said!”

Rav Ziskind emphasized that following the guidance had been extraordinarily difficult, particularly because he could not envision how the situation would develop as Rav Hirsch had described.

“It was only because I had been raised with emunas chachomim that I followed his instructions, even though it was unbearably difficult. But I saw with my own eyes how everything I had thought impossible became a simple reality right before me!”

He explained that the experience fundamentally changed the way he understood the authority and guidance of Gedolei Yisroel.

What had previously been a matter of belief, he said, had become something he regarded as knowledge acquired through personal experience.

“That is why I tell you: For me, this has already gone beyond the category of emunah. It has become clear knowledge! The words of the Gedolei Hador are divrei Elokim chaim. The Ribbono Shel Olam gives them the very words to speak, that same ‘kol gadol velo yasaf’ from Maamad Har Sinai!”

Rav Ziskind’s account formed the centerpiece of his remarks, which concluded with an appeal to the assembled public regarding the upcoming elections.

He connected his experience of following Rav Hirsch’s guidance to the broader principle of accepting the direction of Gedolei Yisroel in communal matters.

Referring to the United Torah Judaism list, whose ballot symbol is Gimmel, Rav Ziskind characterized the vote as an expression of confidence in the rabbinic leadership rather than simply a choice between political parties.

“Therefore, voting Gimmel is not a matter of a political party, but a vote and an expression of confidence in the Gedolei and leaders of Klal Yisroel, who have guided us until today and who will continue to guide us forever!”

{Matzav.com}

Eliakim Stark, the 35-year-old Belzer chossid selected to replace longtime Knesset member Yisroel Eichler on the United Torah Judaism slate, has pledged to become a voice for working chareidim and younger members of the community, declaring that the growing population of chareidim who do not fit traditional communal categories can no longer be dismissed as a marginal group.

In his first extensive interview since being chosen as Belz’s new Knesset candidate, Stark also disclosed his close personal friendship with Motti Leitner, chairman of the newly established HaTzibur HaChareidi party, which is competing against United Torah Judaism in the upcoming elections.

Speaking with Yishai Cohen in the Kikar HaShabbat studio, Stark discussed his unexpected entry into national politics, the circumstances surrounding Eichler’s departure, his position on the military draft controversy, and his plans to introduce a more accessible style of political representation.

Stark, who was born in Belgium, moved to Eretz Yisroel at age 16 to study at the Belzer yeshiva in Rishon LeZion. He subsequently served as a rosh chaburah at Yeshivas Mir before becoming involved in communal affairs within Belz.

His selection as the chassidus’s Knesset representative came shortly before the deadline for submitting party lists, marking a significant generational change in Belz’s political leadership.

Stark described the transition from Eichler, who has represented Belz in the Knesset for many years, as an unusually warm and respectful process.

Rather than portraying the change as a political confrontation, he recalled visiting Eichler at his home and discussing how they could publicly demonstrate the cordial nature of the transition.

“I called him as I normally do and asked, ‘Rav Yisroel, can I come up now? They are supposed to make the change. I understand that you have heard about it, that you know, and that you are waiting.’ He said, ‘Yes, yes, come up now,’” Stark related.

“I went up to his home, and he was waiting for me with his radiant smile. We entered the room, talked, laughed, and joked, and said: Let us do this so that all of Klal Yisroel can see how beautiful it is.”

Stark also cited remarks made by the son of the Belzer Rebbe, who was involved in the process leading to his selection.

“Sending a chareidi person to the Knesset requires very broad shoulders, and it must be done in the cleanest possible manner, with genuine consultation, thorough consideration, and all sides presented before the Rebbe, who then made the decision completely and unequivocally, rather than merely agreeing after the fact.”

According to Stark, his appointment followed a process in which the relevant considerations were presented to the Belzer Rebbe before the final decision was made.

Throughout the interview, Stark repeatedly emphasized his intention to establish a closer relationship between elected representatives and the younger generation of chareidim.

He argued that younger voters increasingly expect their representatives to explain decisions, engage in open discussion, and address concerns that might previously have received little attention.

“The plans for the Knesset are to bring a young spirit to the representation,” Stark declared. “I don’t want all the formalities surrounding me. I am part of you. I see it as a mission to involve the younger generation. The younger generation demands what it deserves, but it is not prepared to take for granted everything that has existed here all these years.”

To illustrate his approach, Stark recalled an educational gathering held several years ago at the Belzer Rebbe’s home, attended by mechanchim from around the world.

During that gathering, he said, the Rebbe addressed the changing expectations of younger people and the importance of helping them understand the reasoning behind communal practices and decisions.

“The Rebbe said in Yiddish, from the depths of his heart: ‘Today’s generation is sometimes no longer prepared to accept everything that existed until now as a matter of course. It wants to learn and understand!’ And I think the spirit I bring is truly one of involving the public.”

Stark acknowledged that his relatively young age and lack of parliamentary experience would likely make him a target of scrutiny.

Nevertheless, he said he was prepared to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them.

“I take into account that everyone will be watching me closely, and there will be missteps, and I am also young. I am not embarrassed to say that I made a mistake. I will learn.”

Turning to the military draft controversy, Stark said that resolving the legal status of yeshiva bochurim must remain a central priority for United Torah Judaism in the next Knesset.

He indicated that the party should not accept government positions before securing an arrangement addressing the status of yeshiva students.

“I heard this term, and I want to be precise: ‘Not taking positions.’ In other words, ultimately there is a feeling that a person sits down in his chair… We will truly do our utmost to establish this in the best possible way and bring it about.”

His remarks reflected the position that obtaining government appointments should not take precedence over resolving the conscription issue.

Asked whether United Torah Judaism would categorically reject alternative political alliances if another coalition offered a solution to the draft controversy, Stark declined to rule out possibilities in principle.

“A public representative who enters office must keep the objective before his eyes, and the objective is to be a faithful representative of those who sent him. And who are you to disqualify anyone? After all, this is politics, without disqualifying and without boycotting.”

He nevertheless acknowledged that the question was largely hypothetical, given the composition of the political parties on the other side of the Israeli political spectrum.

One of the interview’s most notable exchanges concerned HaTzibur HaChareidi, the new political party led by Motti Leitner, deputy mayor of Beit Shemesh.

The party has sought to attract younger and working chareidim who believe their interests have not received sufficient attention from the established chareidi political factions.

Stark surprised viewers by revealing that he and Leitner have maintained a close friendship and have discussed the establishment of the new party at considerable length.

“Motti is a very good friend of mine. We have spoken for countless hours, including about the new party. My position is that the greatest change can be created from within the system, from within the establishment.”

Although the two men now find themselves associated with competing political parties, Stark made clear that their personal relationship has not prevented them from discussing the issues confronting the community.

He also acknowledged the underlying concerns that have contributed to the emergence of HaTzibur HaChareidi.

According to Stark, the number of chareidim who identify with a somewhat different communal lifestyle has grown substantially, making it increasingly unrealistic to treat them as an insignificant minority.

“In the past, there were people who were labeled ‘modern chareidim,’ and they were pushed to the fringes,” Stark explained. “Today, those fringes have become very large fringes. They are no longer fringes! Today, the public says: Listen, I want to live this way. I want a shul that suits me, in my spirit, and I am here to stay.”

When Cohen asked whether he was personally committing to represent this population in the Knesset, Stark answered without hesitation.

“Absolutely!”

Stark then recounted an incident in Ramat Beit Shemesh Daled involving a dispute over the allocation of land for shuls.

The disagreement involved the Belzer community and a Kerestir shul associated with Leitner.

According to Stark, some individuals urged him not to engage with Leitner’s community, arguing that doing so would give legitimacy to a group they opposed.

Stark said he refused to accept that approach.

“Various people came to me and said, ‘Listen, this is Leitner. You must not speak with them. Don’t give them legitimacy!’ I said: Absolutely not! I called Motti, we sat down, and we worked things through.”

He said he made it clear that Belz would not pursue its own interests by trampling on the rights of Leitner’s community.

“I said: There is no way Belz will receive an allocation at the expense of trampling on Motti Leitner, his party, and his community! And indeed, boruch Hashem, we worked things out.”

Stark presented the episode as an example of his belief that communal disagreements should be addressed through direct discussion and mutual accommodation rather than through exclusion.

He argued that the growth of the working chareidi population requires a practical response from established communal institutions.

To illustrate the point, he offered an analogy involving a shul in which a small number of bochurim begin talking during davening.

If only three bochurim are talking, he explained, the appropriate response might be to approach them individually and ask them to stop.

But when the number grows dramatically, the situation can no longer be addressed as an isolated disciplinary problem.

“You have a shul with 400 people davening, and you see three bochurim standing outside and chatting during davening. You approach them and reprimand them. When you go outside and see 60 bochurim talking, you understand that this is a phenomenon!”

Stark continued by arguing that communal leaders must respond to such developments by identifying the underlying needs and establishing appropriate frameworks.

“Either you solve it at its root, or you open a separate minyan for them, or you establish activities for them. If you ignore them or think they will be pushed to the side of the road, that will not happen. We need to take care of them and provide them with everything. And I am their representative!”

The remarks were particularly significant given the political controversy surrounding Leitner’s party, which has drawn criticism from senior chareidi rabbonim and political leaders over its decision to compete independently in the Knesset elections.

As previously reported, Rav Dov Landau has issued an exceptionally sharp letter condemning the activities of those involved with HaTzibur HaChareidi, warning that the new party was causing serious harm to chareidi Jewry.

Maran Rav Dov Landau, rosh yeshiva of Slabodka, has issued an unusually forceful handwritten letter condemning the newly established HaTzibur HaChareidi political party, declaring that he will fight its activities with every resource at his disposal and accusing its supporters of causing serious harm to chareidi Jewry.

The letter comes as tensions intensify ahead of Tuesday’s elections for the 26th Knesset, with the new party seeking to challenge the established chareidi factions of United Torah Judaism and Shas.

The recipient of the letter has been identified in Israeli media reports as Rav Yosef Ben Arza, author of the Yosef Daas series, a rebbi at Yeshivas Hesder Mishmar HaTorah, and a descendant of Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap zt”l.

According to sources, Rav Ben Arza, who supports HaTzibur HaChareidi, recently visited Rav Landau’s home to inquire about his position on the new party. During the visit, he spoke with the rosh yeshiva’s son and raised questions concerning the political representation of chareidim whose circumstances differ from those of full-time yeshiva and kollel members.

After learning of the conversation, Rav Landau personally wrote a letter expressing his opposition to the party and its supporters.

“My son told me what you said, which is great foolishness, if not great wickedness,” Rav Landau wrote.

He then declared that he would actively oppose the party’s efforts, using exceptionally sharp language to convey the seriousness with which he views the matter.

“I will fight against you with all the strength I have and even the strength I do not have, because you are causing great harm to Chareidi Judaism.”

The rosh yeshiva went further, comparing the activities of the party’s supporters to violations of some of the Torah’s most severe prohibitions.

“Your actions are like eating forbidden fats on Yom Kippur and eating chametz on Seder night. I wrote this comparison to emphasize the severity of these matters. Retract, retract your actions, and do not cause harm.”

Despite the warning, however, reports indicate that Rav Ben Arza has not withdrawn his support for HaTzibur HaChareidi.

A source familiar with the exchange told Israeli media that Rav Ben Arza had raised substantive questions during his conversation with Rav Landau’s son, particularly regarding the needs of chareidi men serving in the Israeli military and the economic difficulties faced by working chareidi families.

Among the issues he reportedly raised was who would represent and assist chareidi soldiers and who would address the livelihood concerns of families outside the traditional full-time kollel framework.

According to that source, Rav Ben Arza did not receive answers that satisfied his concerns.

The source further indicated that the subsequent handwritten letter had not caused him to reconsider his support for the new party.

HaTzibur HaChareidi is headed by Motti Leitner, deputy mayor of Beit Shemesh, who has positioned the party as an alternative for chareidi voters dissatisfied with their representation by the longstanding chareidi political parties.

The party’s platform focuses heavily on the needs of working chareidim, employment opportunities, education, and the situation of chareidi men who serve in the military.

Its leadership argues that certain segments of the chareidi population have not received adequate attention from the established political representatives.

On the military draft issue, the party supports enlistment for chareidi men who are not engaged in Torah study, while opposing arrests and punitive sanctions against chareidim.

That position differs from the approach advocated by much of the traditional chareidi leadership, which has placed particular emphasis on protecting the independence of the yeshiva world and resisting government efforts to impose military conscription.

The emergence of the new party has generated considerable controversy within the chareidi community, particularly because it is competing for votes traditionally cast for United Torah Judaism and Shas.

Senior figures within the established chareidi political leadership have expressed concern that the creation of competing lists could divide the chareidi electorate and weaken its representation in the Knesset.

Rav Landau has addressed the issue repeatedly in recent days, urging voters to maintain their allegiance to United Torah Judaism and warning against supporting newly established parties that do not have the backing of the traditional rabbinic leadership.

At an election gathering in Ashdod earlier this week, the rosh yeshiva spoke about dissatisfaction among some chareidi voters, acknowledging that complaints and resentment had developed over the performance of political representatives.

He nevertheless stressed that such frustrations should not lead voters to abandon the party supported by the Gedolei Yisroel.

Rav Landau also addressed concerns that working chareidim have been overlooked by the political establishment, emphasizing that those who earn a livelihood while remaining committed to Torah observance are an integral part of the Torah community.

In a separate development, Rav Landau hosted a gathering at his home attended by dozens of chareidi businessmen and other representatives of the working chareidi community.

The meeting was arranged against the backdrop of complaints that the educational and communal needs of working families have not received sufficient attention from United Torah Judaism’s elected officials.

During the gathering, Rav Landau acknowledged that some families have legitimate grievances concerning the services and representation they receive.

He also indicated that he would personally approach the party’s leadership and Knesset representatives to seek improvements in the handling of those concerns.

Among the issues raised were the availability of suitable Torah educational frameworks for children from working chareidi households and the difficulties encountered by families whose circumstances do not fit the conventional yeshiva and kollel model.

The rosh yeshiva emphasized that working chareidim remain part of the Torah world and that their concerns deserve attention.

His statements at that gathering reflected an effort to address the complaints underlying the new party’s appeal, even as he maintained his opposition to separate political representation.

The dispute has also drawn the attention of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

According to Israeli media reports, Netanyahu recently met with Leitner and sought to persuade him to withdraw HaTzibur HaChareidi from the Knesset race.

The meeting came amid growing pressure on the party to avoid competing against the established chareidi factions.

Leitner subsequently acknowledged that he had met with the prime minister and heard his proposal.

On Wednesday, October 21, he publicly announced that the party intended to remain in the race despite the pressure being exerted upon it.

Leitner also accused leaders of Shas and United Torah Judaism of directing threats against his party, allegations that formed part of the increasingly contentious campaign surrounding the new movement.

The party chairman argued that the concerns motivating HaTzibur HaChareidi’s establishment extend beyond the political ambitions of any individual candidate.

He maintained that substantial numbers of chareidim feel politically unrepresented and that the party was established to address their concerns.

The publication of Rav Landau’s handwritten letter has brought the dispute into sharper focus, particularly because the recipient is himself a rav who has publicly associated with the new political initiative.

The exchange highlights a fundamental disagreement over whether the needs of working chareidim and other groups should be addressed through the existing chareidi parties or through a separate political framework.

Supporters of the new party contend that independent representation is necessary to secure meaningful attention to those concerns.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Shabtai Levi, rosh mosdos of Halichos Moshe and rav of the Ramat Aharon neighborhood in Bnei Brak, has issued a letter addressing widespread dissatisfaction with Shas’s political representatives over the past four years, while calling for continued support of the party in light of concerns over the future of the Torah world and assurances that major decisions will be brought before the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah.

The letter comes amid growing frustration within portions of the Sephardic chareidi community over the conduct of Shas lawmakers during the outgoing Knesset term, particularly against the backdrop of the ongoing confrontation over the draft of yeshiva bochurim.

Rather than dismissing those grievances, Rav Levi acknowledges that serious complaints have been raised against the party’s representatives and indicates that many of them appear justified.

Nevertheless, he argues that political decisions affecting the Torah community must be guided by Torah considerations rather than by disappointment with individual politicians.

A central element of his position is what he describes as a change in the leadership of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, together with a reported commitment to convene the council before major political decisions are made.

Rav Levi presents that commitment as an important safeguard to ensure that the party’s future actions reflect the guidance of Gedolei Yisroel.

In his letter, Rav Levi recalls instructions he personally received from Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l, who urged him to work toward strengthening Shas’s representation in the Knesset.

According to Rav Levi, Rav Ovadiah’s request was rooted in concern for the preservation of the Torah world and the welfare of yeshiva bochurim.

That responsibility, he explains, remains particularly relevant under present circumstances, when the status of yeshiva students and the continued functioning of Torah institutions are subjects of intense political and legal controversy.

Rav Levi emphasizes the importance of maintaining political representation capable of defending the interests of the Torah community and supporting its educational institutions.

The letter places particular emphasis on the distinction between supporting the Torah community’s political representation and approving every decision made by its elected officials.

Rav Levi makes clear that his support does not erase the complaints accumulated during the past four years. Instead, he points to the reported commitment to consult the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah before major decisions as an important development in the party’s leadership.

He stresses that adherence to Daas Torah cannot be replaced by the independent political judgment of party officials, even when those officials believe the appropriate course of action is obvious.

The requirement to convene the Moetzes before major decisions, he explains, is intended to ensure that matters affecting the Torah community are decided under the guidance of its rabbinic leadership.

The letter comes amid a broader dispute within the Sephardic chareidi community over Shas’s handling of the military draft issue.

In a separate development Saturday night, reports emerged that Rav Moshe Tzadka, rosh yeshiva of Porat Yosef and one of the senior Sephardic roshei yeshiva, had signed a letter opposing a vote for Shas over the party’s reported willingness to support conscription of young chareidi men who are not studying in yeshiva.

The reports prompted an unusual intervention by senior members of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, five of whom visited Rav Tzadka’s home in an effort to address his concerns.

Among those who participated were Rav Yitzchak Yosef, Rav Moshe Maya, Rav Avraham Salim, Rav Yehuda Cohen, and Rav Shmuel Betzalel.

According to subsequent reporting, Rav Tzadka clarified during the meeting that although he and his father had not participated in Knesset elections, this did not constitute opposition to Shas, and that those who do vote should support the party for the sake of the Torah world.

The conflicting reports and competing rabbinic positions illustrate the sensitivity surrounding Shas’s campaign, particularly as the question of military conscription continues to dominate discussions within the Sephardic yeshiva community.

Against that backdrop, Rav Levi’s letter reflects an effort to address dissatisfaction with the party’s elected representatives while emphasizing the role of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah in determining its future direction.

He concludes by calling upon the public to support Shas, strengthen the standing of Torah, and act in a manner that brings about a Kiddush Hashem.

{Matzav.com}

Former President Barack Obama ridiculed President Donald Trump’s extensive renovations of the White House during a Democratic campaign rally in Cleveland today, comparing the president’s decorating preferences to those of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and mocking the gold accents and major construction projects undertaken during Trump’s second term.

Speaking at Cleveland Public Auditorium on October 24, Obama delivered the remarks while campaigning for Ohio Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton and Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, with the midterm elections just 10 days away.

The former president used the appearance to criticize Trump’s priorities, arguing that the administration has devoted considerable attention to changes at the presidential residence while Americans contend with economic concerns and other national challenges.

“I mean, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he seems very focused on home renovations,” Obama said. “He should be on HGTV.”

Obama then listed several of the president’s projects, including construction of a new White House ballroom, alterations to the Rose Garden, and the installation of an upgraded helicopter landing area on the South Lawn.

He reserved his sharpest remark for Trump’s preference for elaborate gold-colored furnishings and decorative finishes.

“He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” Obama quipped.

The comparison drew attention to the president’s decorating style, which has featured prominent gold detailing in several White House rooms.

Trump’s renovation program, however, has involved more than aesthetic changes, with the administration arguing that several projects address longstanding operational needs at the presidential complex.

One of the most visible alterations was the transformation of the Rose Garden in 2025.

Under Trump’s direction, the garden’s central grass lawn was replaced with limestone paving, creating a patio designed to accommodate outdoor receptions, presidential speeches, and other official gatherings.

The traditional rose plantings were preserved along the garden’s perimeter, while the redesigned central area provides a more durable surface for events involving large numbers of guests.

The administration has presented the changes as a practical improvement to an outdoor space frequently used for White House functions.

Trump also oversaw construction of a new granite helipad on the White House grounds, incorporating the presidential seal into the landing surface.

The upgraded facility was unveiled in September, with official White House photographs showing Marine One using the new landing area during a September 21 ribbon-cutting ceremony.

The helipad project was designed to modernize the area used for presidential helicopter arrivals and departures.

Another major undertaking is the construction of a permanent White House ballroom, intended to provide expanded facilities for large official gatherings.

For decades, the White House has relied on temporary tents and other arrangements to accommodate events that exceed the capacity of its existing indoor reception spaces.

The Trump administration has argued that a purpose-built ballroom would provide a more secure and practical setting for state dinners, receptions, and other functions requiring substantial guest capacity.

A National Park Service environmental assessment of the project noted that the need for additional White House event space had been identified in a planning document dating back to 2000.

The ballroom has nevertheless become a prominent subject of political controversy, with critics questioning its scale, design, and impact on the historic presidential complex.

Obama’s criticism of Trump’s construction projects also comes amid scrutiny of the former president’s own major building project in Chicago.

The Obama Presidential Center, constructed in Jackson Park, has faced criticism over its distinctive granite-clad tower, substantial construction expenses, and years of delays.

Some architectural critics have nicknamed the structure the ‘Obamalisk,’ a reference to its imposing, monument-like appearance.

The center’s projected construction costs have reportedly exceeded $1 billion, nearly three times the original estimate of approximately $350 million.

The project has also generated disputes involving subcontractors who allege they are owed millions of dollars for completed work.

Separately, public infrastructure improvements associated with the development have involved hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded expenditures beyond the center’s own construction budget.

The comparison between the two presidential construction projects has become part of the broader political debate over the costs and design choices associated with high-profile presidential developments.

Obama’s remarks were not limited to the White House renovations. He also criticized Trump’s handling of the conflict with Iran, blaming the administration’s military decisions for increased energy costs and accusing the president of involving the United States in a conflict that Americans had not sought.

“Most importantly, he decided to start an unnecessary war that nobody asked for and nobody voted for,” Obama said.

The former president also defended the nuclear agreement reached between Iran and world powers during his administration, arguing that the arrangement had prevented Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons because I had put a deal in place that everybody knows kept them from getting nukes,” Obama claimed.

Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement in 2018, maintaining that its restrictions were inadequate and that the arrangement failed to address important threats posed by Tehran.

The president argued that the deal’s temporary limitations on Iran’s nuclear activities, combined with its failure to adequately confront the country’s ballistic missile development and support for terrorist organizations, made it unacceptable.

Under the agreement, Iran received relief from international sanctions in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program and a system of international inspections.

Inspectors reported Iranian compliance with certain provisions before the American withdrawal, although Tehran subsequently increased uranium enrichment beyond the agreement’s established limits.

The two presidents have long disagreed over the agreement’s effectiveness, with Obama defending it as a diplomatic achievement and Trump maintaining that it provided Iran with financial benefits without sufficiently eliminating its long-term nuclear ambitions.

Obama also criticized the administration’s broader economic policies, arguing that decisions made by Trump have contributed to higher costs for American consumers.

He took aim at the president’s immigration enforcement measures and accused Republican lawmakers of failing to adequately challenge administration policies.

During the Cleveland appearance, Obama additionally criticized Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy over a campaign advertisement featuring the estranged mother of Democratic candidate Amy Acton.

The advertisement, which addresses Acton’s personal background, has drawn criticism from some Republicans as well as Democrats. Ramaswamy and his supporters have defended the campaign’s approach.

Obama’s Ohio appearance was part of a broader series of campaign events intended to support Democratic candidates ahead of the November 3 elections.

Following the Cleveland rally, he traveled to Detroit, where he appeared in support of Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and other Michigan Democrats.

During that appearance, Obama continued his criticism of Trump’s economic record, tariffs, the Iran conflict, and White House renovation projects.

He is also scheduled to campaign in Georgia next week as Democrats seek to increase voter participation in the closing days before Election Day.

In Ohio, Acton is challenging Ramaswamy for the governorship, while Brown is attempting to return to the Senate by unseating Republican Sen. Jon Husted.

Brown previously represented Ohio in the Senate before losing his reelection bid in 2024.

Obama carried Ohio in both of his successful presidential campaigns, winning the state in 2008 and again in 2012.

The state’s presidential voting patterns subsequently shifted, with Trump carrying Ohio in 2016, 2020, and 2024.