Feed aggregator

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a constitutional challenge to a federal law that has prohibited Americans from distilling liquor in their homes for more than 160 years, setting the stage for a major ruling on the federal government’s authority to regulate alcohol production and protect billions of dollars in tax revenue.

The justices will review a lower court decision that struck down the longstanding prohibition, which dates to the Civil War era. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, arguing that the restriction is an essential part of the federal government’s system for collecting excise taxes on distilled spirits, including whiskey, vodka, and other alcoholic beverages.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, the administration accused the lower court of adopting a “blinkered view” of Congress’s constitutional powers and warned that the ruling could undermine federal taxation of an industry that generates substantial annual revenue.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the government’s ability to regulate where liquor is produced is closely connected to its constitutional authority to impose and collect taxes.

“The government has a substantial interest in its authority to safeguard a significant source of tax revenue—a source that was used to pay Revolutionary War debts at the Founding and now generates billions of dollars in tax revenue every year,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the administration’s petition.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments during its current term, most likely early next year, with a final decision anticipated by the summer of 2027.

At the center of the dispute is a federal statute enacted during the 1860s that makes it a felony to manufacture distilled spirits inside a private residence or in certain structures and areas connected to a home.

The law specifically prohibits distilling “in any dwelling house” or in an adjoining “shed, yard, or inclosure.” Individuals convicted of violating the prohibition can face prison sentences of up to five years.

Although Americans may legally produce limited quantities of beer and wine at home under federal law, distilling liquor for personal consumption remains subject to significantly stricter restrictions.

The federal government maintains that the prohibition is necessary to prevent unregistered distilling operations from escaping taxation and to ensure that authorities can properly monitor the production of alcoholic spirits.

The administration’s legal argument rests on Congress’s authority to impose taxes and enact laws needed to enforce those taxes. Under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress may adopt legislation that is reasonably connected to carrying out its enumerated constitutional responsibilities.

Federal taxes on distilled spirits have a history extending back to the earliest years of the United States, when the newly established government sought revenue to help repay debts incurred during the Revolutionary War.

One of the first major disputes over those taxes culminated in the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, when resistance to a federal excise tax on distilled liquor escalated into violent protests and prompted President George Washington to mobilize forces to enforce federal law.

The Trump administration argues that the longstanding restrictions on residential distilling facilities are part of that broader historical framework of federal alcohol taxation.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the government’s contention that the home-distilling ban could be justified under Congress’s taxation powers.

The appeals court concluded that the prohibition exceeded the scope of the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution, delivering a victory to individuals and organizations challenging the restriction.

In seeking Supreme Court review, Sauer argued that the appeals court failed to account for the practical difficulties authorities face when attempting to monitor distilling operations conducted inside private residences.

He maintained that prohibiting residential distilleries makes it harder for producers to conceal their activities, misrepresent the alcoholic strength of their products, or avoid paying the appropriate federal taxes.

“Those practical realities have not changed. Today, as at the time of enactment, a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation (or conceal a spirit’s strength and avoid the proper tax rate) if a still is located at a dwelling-house or another business,” he wrote.

The lawsuit was brought by the Hobby Distillers Association and four individuals who want to produce distilled spirits in their own homes.

The challengers contend that the federal government cannot impose a sweeping prohibition on home distilling merely because it has the constitutional authority to tax alcohol production.

They argue that Congress has other methods available to collect taxes and enforce compliance without criminalizing the activity simply because it takes place in a private residence.

The legal battle has also produced conflicting rulings in the federal appeals courts, with another appellate court reaching a different conclusion in a separate challenge involving the same federal restrictions.

That disagreement helped pave the way for Supreme Court review, with even the Hobby Distillers Association, despite prevailing in the Fifth Circuit, agreeing that the nation’s highest court should settle the constitutional question.

The challengers have compared the potential effects of legalizing home distilling to the expansion of home beer brewing, which they argue helped transform American beer culture and encouraged the growth of independent breweries.

“Homebrewing revitalized beer culture in the United States; home distilling could do the same for spirits, but for the prohibition,” they wrote in court filings.

The case, formally titled Department of Justice v. McNutt, originated in federal court in Texas, where the challengers filed suit in December 2023 against the Justice Department and the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

One of the central figures in the litigation is Rick Morris, a bourbon enthusiast who owns a business manufacturing distilling equipment. Morris wants to experiment with bourbon recipes at home and founded the Hobby Distillers Association to advocate for the legalization of personal distilling.

Another plaintiff, Scott McNutt, already holds a permit to produce alcohol for fuel purposes at a facility away from his residence. He wants to experiment with producing beverage spirits at home, an activity federal law currently prohibits.

In April 2026, the Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling against the prohibition, concluding that Congress could not use its taxation authority to impose a blanket criminal ban on distilling in residential settings. The government subsequently sought reconsideration, but the appeals court refused in June.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case on October 19 followed a conflicting ruling from the Sixth Circuit, which upheld the federal restriction as a permissible means of enforcing alcohol taxes.

The federal law carries penalties of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Its origins date specifically to 1868, when Congress was attempting to combat widespread tax evasion by commercial liquor producers following the Civil War.

The case raises a constitutional question extending beyond alcohol production: whether Congress can prohibit an otherwise taxable activity in a particular location on the grounds that allowing it would make tax collection more difficult.

More than a dozen Republican-led states have supported the challengers’ position, arguing that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority.

Even if the Supreme Court ultimately strikes down the residential distilling prohibition, the decision would not necessarily eliminate other federal licensing requirements, excise taxes, or state restrictions governing liquor production.

The justices are expected to issue their ruling by the end of the Court’s term in June 2027.

{Matzav.com}

House Speaker Mike Johnson revealed that he had cautioned the White House about potential repercussions from President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend sanctions against Russia, as the administration faces growing criticism from Republican and Democratic lawmakers over its approach to ending the war in Ukraine.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican and close Trump ally, said he had raised concerns with senior administration officials after the president signed an executive order last week waiving sanctions that Congress had recently approved with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The sanctions were part of legislation spearheaded by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who championed tougher economic penalties against Moscow as a means of pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the fighting in Ukraine.

Trump’s decision to set aside the restrictions prompted an unusually sharp response from members of his own party, several of whom accused the administration of weakening American leverage over Russia at a critical moment in the conflict.

Appearing on Fox News with Larry Kudlow, Johnson was asked whether he supported the sanctions waiver or believed the administration should reconsider its decision.

“Congress voted on this decisively just several weeks ago, and we understand that Putin cannot be trusted.”

“He demonstrates that over and over and over,” Johnson said. “So I did talk to several of my colleagues yesterday who had concerns about that. They’re on committees of jurisdiction, like intelligence and foreign affairs, and I didn’t talk to the president yesterday because he and I are both traveling nonstop and we’re on different schedules. But I told the White House team that we need to talk about it, and I think carefully consider the unintended consequences that may ensue from that.”

The speaker’s remarks indicated that concerns about the administration’s decision extend to lawmakers serving on congressional committees responsible for national security, intelligence, and foreign affairs.

Although Johnson said he had not spoken directly with Trump about the matter, he confirmed that he had conveyed those concerns to White House officials and wanted further discussions about the implications of suspending the sanctions.

At the same time, Johnson avoided a direct confrontation with the president, emphasizing his confidence that Trump was weighing the competing considerations involved in the decision.

Johnson said he understood that the “president’s evaluating this as he does everything else.”

“Look, he has two major objectives, as you know, Larry. Every day he wants to keep America safe, and he wants to bring down the cost of living for every American. He thinks outside the box with creative ideas all the time, and he carefully evaluates those. So I think the right decision will be made here in the end,” Johnson said.

The speaker’s comments reflected the difficult position facing congressional Republicans, many of whom have strongly supported imposing additional economic pressure on Russia while also backing Trump’s efforts to negotiate an end to the war.

Several Republican lawmakers, however, were considerably more outspoken in their criticism of the sanctions waiver.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina condemned the administration’s action and questioned why the White House would decline to enforce legislation that had received such overwhelming support in the Senate.

“What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand? It’s unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine and butchers innocent civilians every single day,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) wrote on the social platform X.

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska also criticized the decision, accusing Trump of “prolonging the war, not ending it.”

The backlash underscored continuing divisions within the Republican Party over how aggressively Washington should confront Moscow and whether economic sanctions should remain in place while negotiations are underway.

Trump has defended his decision as part of a broader diplomatic strategy intended to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated settlement.

In a post on Truth Social, the president explained that he was “in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don’t want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.”

The legislation at the center of the dispute, the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, was signed into law by Trump on September 18. It established sweeping new penalties targeting Russia and countries that continue purchasing Russian energy, including potentially steep tariffs on goods entering the United States.

Under the measure, Russian imports could face tariffs of 500 percent, while goods from the five largest purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas could be subjected to additional tariffs of 100 percent. The law also included penalties aimed at countries facilitating efforts to evade sanctions on Russian energy exports.

On October 16, just before the new restrictions were scheduled to take effect, Trump issued an executive order invoking a provision of the legislation allowing the president to waive the sanctions when he determines that doing so serves American national interests.

The White House submitted the required certification to Congress, explaining that the administration believed suspending the penalties was warranted under the circumstances.

Importantly, the executive order did not eliminate all existing American sanctions against Russia. It waived provisions of the newly enacted Graham legislation while leaving other sanctions imposed under earlier executive orders in place.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently described the administration’s decision as a 60-day pause intended to allow officials to evaluate the potential economic consequences of implementing the restrictions.

The administration has expressed concern that imposing sweeping penalties on countries purchasing Russian energy could disrupt international oil markets, increase fuel prices, and complicate Washington’s relationships with major trading partners.

Among the countries potentially affected is India, one of the world’s largest importers of Russian oil. The sanctions waiver has eased concerns in New Delhi about possible American tariffs and has improved prospects for ongoing trade negotiations between the two countries.

Rubio indicated that the administration’s broader trade discussions with India were among the considerations surrounding the decision.

The White House has also argued that immediately implementing the sanctions could interfere with Trump’s efforts to negotiate a settlement between Moscow and Kyiv.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the waiver as a diplomatic incentive intended to encourage Russia to participate in peace negotiations, while critics argued that reducing economic pressure would give Putin fewer reasons to make concessions.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed disappointment with the decision, warning that the sanctions could have played an important role in pressuring Russia to end its military campaign.

Several additional Republicans joined the criticism. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas argued that Graham, who had been a leading advocate for stronger sanctions before his death, would have strongly opposed the decision.

Rep. French Hill of Arkansas also called for maintaining economic pressure on Moscow and requested a classified briefing explaining the administration’s reasoning.

Democrats, meanwhile, accused Trump of disregarding the bipartisan intent of Congress and providing economic relief to Russia while the war continues.

The disagreement has created a political challenge for Republican lawmakers ahead of the November midterm elections, with some members of the party defending Trump’s negotiating strategy and others insisting that Congress’s sanctions legislation should be enforced.

For now, the administration has maintained that the waiver is intended to preserve diplomatic flexibility while officials assess its economic implications. Johnson, however, has made clear that lawmakers remain concerned about the possible consequences of easing pressure on Moscow, particularly while Putin has yet to agree to end the war.

[Video and photos below.] New York Governor Kathy Hochul made a high-profile campaign tour through three of the state’s largest chassidishe communities on Monday, receiving a massive welcome from more than 6,000 Satmar schoolgirls in Kiryas Yoel before traveling to Monsey for meetings with Vizhnitzer community leaders and concluding her day with a visit to the Skverer Rebbe in New Square.

The visits came just over two weeks before the November 3 gubernatorial election, in which Hochul is seeking another term against Republican challenger Bruce Blakeman. With the chareidi vote representing a significant electoral force in Orange and Rockland counties, the governor’s itinerary underscored the importance of these communities to her reelection effort.

Hochul began her day in Kiryas Yoel, where more than 6,000 students from the Bais Rochel girls’ schools assembled for an elaborate reception in her honor. The enormous gathering featured welcoming banners and a show of appreciation for the governor’s relationship with the Satmar community and her support for religious education.

Among the banners displayed at the event were messages reading “Kiryas Joel Welcomes Governor Kathy Hochul” and “Thank You Governor Hochul – For Protecting Our Schools.”

The governor was accompanied by Kiryas Yoel Village Administrator Gedalya Szegedin, Satmar political liaison Moshe Indig, and other prominent community representatives who participated in the reception.

According to Yoel M. Petlin, superintendent of the Kiryas Yoel School District, the event was intended to recognize Hochul’s support for religious education and her approval of a new federal education tax credit intended to benefit parents.

Petlin described the reception as a major expression of gratitude from the community, writing on social media that the governor had received a “royal welcome” from the thousands of students who participated.

The visit carried considerable political significance, as Satmar has already endorsed Hochul’s reelection bid. Kiryas Yoel, one of the country’s largest concentrated chassidishe communities, has long been an important destination for candidates seeking the support of Orthodox Jewish voters.

The large turnout at Bais Rochel provided Hochul with a particularly visible demonstration of communal support at a time when both parties are working to mobilize voters ahead of Election Day.

Following the Kiryas Yoel reception, Hochul traveled to Rockland County, where she continued her outreach with a series of stops in the Monsey area.

Her first visit was to the Vizhnitzer girls’ school, where she was welcomed as part of her tour of local chassidishe educational institutions.

The governor subsequently participated in a separate meeting with representatives of the Vizhnitzer kehilla, its mosdos, and officials from the Village of Kaser.

The meetings brought Hochul together with communal leaders involved in the operation of local schools and municipal institutions, providing another opportunity for direct engagement between the governor’s office and one of Rockland County’s prominent chassidishe communities.

During her time in the area, Hochul also paid a shivah visit to Kaser Mayor Elya Pinkasowitz, who is sitting shivah following the petirah of his brother, Reb Shlomo Moshe Pinkasowitz z”l.

The governor’s visit to the mourning family was included in her Rockland County itinerary alongside the meetings with Vizhnitzer communal representatives.

From Monsey, Hochul proceeded to New Square, where she visited the home of the Skverer Rebbe.

The meeting marked another significant stop on her tour, coming shortly after the Skverer kehilla formally announced its endorsement of Hochul for reelection on October 10.

New Square, home to the Skverer chassidus, is among the most politically organized chassidishe communities in New York, with communal leadership playing a central role in coordinating political participation and maintaining relationships with elected officials.

The governor’s meeting with the Skverer Rebbe followed a longstanding tradition of political candidates and public officials visiting prominent chassidishe leaders ahead of major elections.

Hochul’s three-community tour took place as her campaign seeks to consolidate support among Orthodox voters, particularly in areas where large numbers of residents vote in accordance with communal endorsements.

The visits also highlighted the continuing relationship between the governor and chassidishe leadership on matters of particular importance to Orthodox families, including educational autonomy, school funding, and government policies affecting religious institutions.

Religious education has been an especially prominent issue in New York politics in recent years, with chassidishe communities closely following state policies governing private schools and the ability of parents to educate their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

For Hochul, the public reception in Kiryas Yoel and her meetings in Monsey and New Square provided opportunities to reinforce those relationships while encouraging voter participation in the upcoming election.

The governor’s outreach comes as Blakeman, the Nassau County executive and Republican gubernatorial nominee, works to challenge her across the state, including among constituencies that have historically supported Republican candidates in national elections.

{Matzav.com}

What started as one bochur’s idea has grown into one of the world’s largest shidduch resource organizations, helping thousands of singles every year.

It wasn’t exactly the headquarters you’d expect for a nationwide organization.

No office. No employees. No elaborate business plan.

Just a bochur, a dorm room in the Irv at BMG, and an idea.

In January 2022, Elimelech Weinreb noticed something interesting. While countless shadchanim worked tirelessly to make shidduchim, very little support existed for what happened after someone said yes to a date.

Where should a bochur go? How should he plan the evening? Where could he borrow a GPS or other dating necessities?

So he started a hotline.

There was no grand vision of building a nationwide organization. Just a willingness to help.

And then the phone started ringing.

A Small Idea That Refused to Stay Small

What began as a date-planning hotline quickly expanded into a network of gemachs providing everything from GPS devices and umbrellas to drinks and games.

Today, the Dating Resources Network (DRN) operates 16 gemachs, used over 25,000 times this year, while its hotline assists with more than 4,000 dates annually.

What started in a dorm room has become what its founder believes is the largest organization of its kind in the world.

But as DRN grew, it uncovered a much bigger problem.

When the Biggest Obstacle Is the Cost

Imagine a bochur who finally receives a promising shidduch suggestion.

Both sides say yes. The date is arranged.

There’s just one problem.

He can’t afford to go.

Between car rentals, gas, tolls, and parking, even a simple first date can cost $165 or more. For families struggling to cover basic necessities, repeated dating expenses can be overwhelming.

That’s why DRN established its Financial Aid Program, discreetly assisting bochurim whose families cannot afford the cost of dating.

Today, DRN distributes over $20,000 every month in financial assistance, with applicants carefully vetted through rabbanim.

The goal is simple: No bochur should have to put shidduchim on hold because he can’t afford another date.

The People Behind the Date

Perhaps most remarkable is that DRN remains almost entirely volunteer-run, with only a part-time bookkeeper on payroll.

Elimelech, now married, continues running the organization together with his wife, Chani, and a dedicated team of volunteers.

What began as a dorm-room project has become a family mission, quietly helping thousands of singles navigate the dating process.

And that brings us to this year’s campaign.

Behind the Date: Keeping the Show Going

DRN’s annual fundraising campaign, “Behind the Date,” takes its inspiration from the theater.

When the curtains open, the audience sees what’s happening on stage. What they don’t see are the countless people working behind the scenes to make it possible.

Dating is much the same.

When a young man and woman sit down together, they should be focused on getting to know each other, not worrying about logistics or whether they can afford another date.

That’s where DRN comes in.

Four years ago, it was one bochur in a dorm room trying to help someone plan a date.

Today, it’s thousands of dates, tens of thousands of gemach visits, and hundreds of families receiving critical assistance.

And somewhere right now, there’s another bochur preparing for a date who has no idea how many people are working behind the scenes to help him.

Help DRN keep the show going.

Support the Behind the Date campaign

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has joined more than 100 Democratic officials in an effort to make it harder for federal immigration authorities to operate in New York, urging private parking garage and lot owners to refuse overnight parking accommodations to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other federal officers.

The initiative represents another confrontation between New York’s Democratic leadership and the Trump administration over immigration enforcement in the sanctuary state. Rather than seeking to restrict federal agents through legislation, the officials are calling on private property owners to deny ICE access to facilities that could be used to store vehicles involved in immigration operations.

According to Gothamist, Mamdani and the other elected officials signed a letter asking parking facility operators across New York to make clear that federal immigration enforcement personnel are not permitted to use their properties.

“Make it known to ICE that it is not authorized to use your garages and lots,” the mayor says in his letter.

The request specifically targets parking arrangements that could allow federal agents to keep their vehicles in convenient locations overnight, potentially complicating the logistical preparations for immigration enforcement operations.

The letter follows a recent confrontation involving ICE officers and Oscar Belgal, a Dominican national described in the original report as an illegal immigrant with a criminal background. Belgal was wounded during an encounter in which authorities alleged that he attempted to use his vehicle against federal immigration agents seeking to arrest him.

Mamdani and the other signatories cited the shooting in their appeal to parking garage operators, presenting the incident as part of their argument against allowing federal immigration authorities to use privately owned parking facilities.

The effort has attracted support from some of New York’s most prominent Democratic officeholders, extending well beyond City Hall.

Among those signing the letter were Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, along with numerous state and local Democratic officials.

New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin also added her name, as did most members of the City Council, demonstrating the breadth of political support for the initiative among the city’s Democratic leadership.

The Department of Homeland Security responded by making clear that immigration enforcement operations would continue regardless of whether individual parking facility owners agreed to accommodate ICE vehicles.

A DHS spokesperson sharply criticized Mamdani, arguing that federal immigration officers were performing important public safety work in New York and would not be deterred by the proposed restrictions.

“Mayor Mamdani should be grateful to our brave law enforcement officers for cleaning up the streets of NYC since he won’t,” the DHS spokesperson said, according to The Hill. “Luckily, no terminated parking will stop ICE from deporting criminal illegal aliens to make New York safe again.”

The dispute also underscores the limits of New York City’s existing sanctuary policies. Municipal rules already restrict the use of city-owned property for federal civil immigration enforcement, but privately owned parking lots and garages are not automatically subject to the same prohibition.

Mamdani’s letter, released October 16 and directed to more than 1,000 parking facility owners and operators, seeks to extend those restrictions through voluntary action by private businesses rather than a new citywide legal requirement.

The controversy intensified after the October 8 shooting of Belgal in the Marble Hill section of the Bronx. Belgal, 28, was shot in the neck during an ICE operation while his five-year-old son was inside the vehicle. Federal officials have maintained that the officers faced a threat involving the vehicle, while local officials have questioned the circumstances of the shooting.

Local elected officials alleged that immigration agents had used a nearby Target parking lot as a staging location. Target said it had no agreement with federal immigration authorities, while DHS disputed claims that the lot had been used as a staging area on the day of the shooting.

The mayor’s appeal also identified other locations where immigration officers have reportedly parked or assembled vehicles, including two bank parking lots on Northern Boulevard in Queens and a garage on Morton Street in Manhattan.

The Morton Street garage had already become a flashpoint in the controversy. Its operator ended a parking arrangement with ICE in May after immigration activists protested the agency’s presence at the property. The new letter points to that decision as an example for other parking businesses to follow.

Similar pressure has emerged elsewhere in the Northeast. In August, Democratic officials in Boston sought to prevent ICE from obtaining parking accommodations for its vehicles, despite the absence of an ICE detention facility in the city.

The latest confrontation comes amid a broader legal and political battle over New York City’s sanctuary protections. A federal judge recently dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit challenging the city’s restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, leaving those local policies in place.

For now, the parking initiative remains a request directed at private businesses, which must decide individually whether to accommodate federal immigration officers. DHS has indicated that ICE will continue its enforcement activities in New York regardless of the response from garage and parking lot operators.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reportedly traveled to Israel on Monday for an undisclosed meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, just eight days before the country’s Knesset elections and amid ongoing discussions between Washington and Yerushalayim about the possibility of renewed military action against Iran.

According to Axios, which cited two individuals familiar with the visit, Hegseth met with Netanyahu during a trip that had not been publicly announced. The reported meeting comes at a particularly sensitive moment, with the Trump administration weighing its next steps toward Tehran while President Donald Trump has openly thrown his support behind Netanyahu’s reelection campaign.

Neither the Pentagon nor Israel’s embassy in Washington provided comment on the reported meeting. Netanyahu’s office also did not immediately respond to inquiries, leaving the precise agenda of the discussions undisclosed.

The visit came one day after Trump issued a forceful endorsement of Netanyahu on Truth Social, portraying the Israeli prime minister as an indispensable partner in the American-led effort to confront the Iranian regime.

Trump praised Netanyahu’s leadership and credited the combined military and economic pressure exerted by Washington and Israel with inflicting severe damage on Iran’s capabilities.

At the same time, the president made clear that additional military action remains a possibility if Tehran refuses to alter its course.

“It would have been only a question of time until Iran would have put that ominous phrase into effect, but they have been systematically destroyed, both Militarily and Financially, and unless they change their ways, rapidly, we will soon finish the job.”

Trump also tied the outcome of Israel’s upcoming election to the broader confrontation with Iran, arguing that Netanyahu’s continued leadership is critical to maintaining the close military and strategic cooperation between the two countries.

“If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so,” Trump warned.

On Monday, Netanyahu spoke with Trump by telephone to express his appreciation for the endorsement. During the conversation, Trump reiterated his confidence that Netanyahu would emerge victorious in the October 27 election and reaffirmed his support for the Israeli leader.

Netanyahu responded with effusive praise for Trump, describing him as an extraordinary ally of Israel and a powerful leader on the international stage.

“I’m so grateful for this incredible endorsement,” Netanyahu told Trump. “You’ve been an incredible leader of the free world, of America, by far the greatest friend Israel has ever had or will have in the White House, and all of civilization is emboldened by your boldness.”

The Israeli prime minister also echoed Trump’s suggestion that the confrontation with Iran has not necessarily reached its conclusion, emphasizing their shared determination to complete the objectives of the American-Israeli campaign.

“Donald, we have a job to finish, you said it, and we’ll finish it together. We’ll finish it, and no one else will do it,” Netanyahu added.

The unannounced visit follows reports that senior American defense officials have been preparing options for another round of strikes against Iran, although Trump has not authorized a new offensive.

According to earlier reporting, Netanyahu and Trump discussed the possibility of renewed joint military operations targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities. Israeli officials have expressed concern that Tehran is attempting to rebuild elements of its nuclear program, including potentially developing uranium enrichment capabilities at the underground Pickaxe Mountain complex.

Hegseth and senior commanders at U.S. Central Command have reportedly been among the strongest advocates of renewed military action, while other administration officials have favored continuing economic pressure and diplomatic efforts.

The administration has also undertaken military preparations that would give Trump additional options should he decide to authorize another operation. American forces have been placed on heightened alert, and the Pentagon has reportedly been instructed to prepare for possible strikes.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu said last week that he was not seeking a preemptive attack on Iran before Israel’s October 27 election, rejecting suggestions that he intended to initiate another military confrontation for electoral purposes. He maintained that Israel would respond forcefully to any attack by Iran or its regional allies.

The timing of Hegseth’s visit has drawn particular attention because of the close proximity of Israel’s election and the American midterm elections in November. Netanyahu is facing a closely contested race against opposition parties led by figures including Gadi Eisenkot, while Trump has now made clear that he considers Netanyahu’s reelection important to American strategic interests.

Although the precise contents of Monday’s meeting have not been disclosed, Hegseth’s arrival underscores the continuing high-level military coordination between Washington and Yerushalayim as both governments assess Iran’s capabilities and consider whether further military action will be necessary.

{Matzav.com}

A disturbing incident in Beit Shemesh has sparked widespread outrage throughout the chareidi community after a group of extremists hurled stones and other objects at the vehicle of the Stoliner Rebbe as he departed a wedding on Sunday evening.

According to eyewitnesses, the troublemakers gathered outside the wedding hall and confronted the Rebbe as he was preparing to leave the simcha. They shouted insults and threw stones and various objects toward his vehicle, creating a dangerous and deeply disturbing scene.

The Rebbe’s attendants acted quickly, escorting him into the vehicle and ensuring that he was able to leave the area safely. Boruch Hashem, the Rebbe was not injured.

The attack was the latest in a series of incidents involving fringe extremist elements who have harassed the Stoliner Rebbe on previous occasions, including in the vicinity of Meah Shearim in Yerushalayim.

Despite the repeated provocations, the Rebbe has consistently instructed his chassidim not to respond with violence or retaliate against those responsible. His approach has been to avoid confrontation even in the face of repeated harassment.

The latest incident has drawn sharp condemnation from rabbonim, public representatives, and members of the chareidi community, who expressed outrage over the bizayon of a prominent admor and the dangerous conduct of those involved.

MK Meir Porush contacted Yerushalayim District Police Commander Major General Avshalom Peled following the incident and demanded immediate action against the perpetrators. Porush urged police to identify and arrest those responsible and to treat the attack with the seriousness it deserves.

Noam Party chairman MK Avi Maoz also issued a strong condemnation, invoking the words of Chazal that “Yerushalayim was destroyed only because Torah scholars were treated with contempt there.”

Maoz called on the Israel Police to act decisively, apprehend the attackers, and ensure that they face the full consequences of their actions.

Additional details emerging from the incident indicate that the Rebbe had been attending a family wedding at the home of his mechutan in Beit Shemesh when the attack occurred. Footage circulating from the scene shows the disturbance surrounding his departure.

The episode follows previous confrontations involving the Rebbe in Meah Shearim, including incidents when he attended simchos of his descendants and when he departed his Bais Medrash.

In one incident in August, extremists gathered outside the Rebbe’s Bais Medrash in Yerushalayim during a sheva brachos for his grandson, shouting insults and attempting to prevent him from leaving. The confrontation escalated into clashes between demonstrators and Karlin-Stolin chassidim.

Following that episode, the Rebbe publicly addressed the matter and emphasized the importance of avoiding violent retaliation, despite the deeply offensive conduct directed against him.

The latest attack has renewed calls for a firm response from rabbonim and community leaders, with widespread condemnation of the violence and the bizayon talmidei chachamim involved.

As of Monday evening, no arrests had been reported in connection with Sunday’s attack, and there were no reports of injuries.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is warning that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could shut Otzma Yehudit out of the next government and instead bring Gadi Eisenkot into his coalition, despite Netanyahu’s assurances that Ben Gvir would receive a senior ministerial position if he returns to power.

Speaking in an extensive interview with Arutz Sheva-Israel National News in Yerushalayim, the Otzma Yehudit chairman said his party must secure at least ten Knesset seats in the upcoming elections to prevent Netanyahu from pursuing a coalition that would sideline the right-wing agenda Ben Gvir has been promoting.

“If Otzma Yehudit doesn’t win double-digit seats, they’ll leave us out. Don’t have any illusions about that,” Ben Gvir said.

Although Netanyahu has publicly expressed his intention to include Ben Gvir in a future government, the national security minister said he remains deeply skeptical. He pointed to comments by Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter, Minister Miki Zohar, and other discussions surrounding Eisenkot’s possible inclusion in a future coalition as indications that Netanyahu’s plans may differ from his public assurances.

“I hope Netanyahu is right,” Ben Gvir said, while observing that Netanyahu has never explicitly promised to reject a coalition arrangement involving Eisenkot.

Ben Gvir suggested that Netanyahu may be looking toward a less contentious term as prime minister, one in which he would face fewer demands from coalition partners seeking major changes in security and government policy.

“Netanyahu may want his next term to be calmer and quieter,” he said. “If we’re strong, if we’re big, we’ll make sure it’s a term filled with challenges.”

The Otzma Yehudit leader was particularly adamant that he would refuse to participate in a government that placed Eisenkot in a powerful security position.

“A government with Gadi Eisenkot is a government of paralysis. It’s a government I cannot be part of,” he said.

According to Ben Gvir, bringing Eisenkot into the government would effectively halt efforts to reform the judiciary and prevent the adoption of the policies he favors in Gaza and Yehuda and Shomron.

Nevertheless, Ben Gvir insisted that his political concerns should not be mistaken for personal hostility toward Netanyahu, whom he said he continues to support as prime minister.

“I love you, I want you to remain Prime Minister, but the right-wing standard-bearer must, must, must be Otzma Yehudit,” he declared in a direct message to Netanyahu.

Ben Gvir pointed to the coalition negotiations following the 2013 elections as a warning about relying on political assurances. Recalling his time as a parliamentary aide to former MK Michael Ben Ari, he said he witnessed the National Union being excluded from the government despite promises that had led its members to expect otherwise.

“I love him, I respect him, I appreciate him. And I know that if I’m not strong, he’ll leave us out,” Ben Gvir said of Netanyahu.

He also emphasized that Otzma Yehudit was instrumental in assembling the parliamentary majority that allowed the current government to take office following the previous election. His objective now, he said, is to substantially increase the party’s strength and ensure that its demands cannot be disregarded.

A major portion of the interview focused on Ben Gvir’s dissatisfaction with Israeli policy toward Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, despite what he acknowledged were substantial military accomplishments during the war.

“This government has done many good things,” he said, referring to the elimination of large numbers of terrorists and Israel’s control over extensive territory in Gaza.

However, Ben Gvir maintained that these military gains fall short of the decisive outcome he believes Israel must achieve. He called for Hamas to be completely destroyed, the Gaza Strip to be conquered, and emigration from the territory to be encouraged.

He also reiterated his determination to dismantle the Palestinian Authority and fundamentally change Israel’s approach toward Yehuda and Shomron.

Ben Gvir was sharply critical of the continued movement of humanitarian aid into Gaza and financial arrangements that benefit the Palestinian Authority, policies he said he has consistently opposed.

Confronted with the question of why these measures have continued while he serves as both national security minister and a member of the Security Cabinet, Ben Gvir argued that he has fought against them from within the government.

“I’m the only one in the Cabinet who voted against the aid trucks. That was me,” he said.

He further maintained that he opposed proposals designed to preserve Palestinian Arab banking operations and shield them from economic measures that could disrupt their activities.

Turning to his record at the National Security Ministry, Ben Gvir argued that even a relatively small parliamentary faction can bring about far-reaching changes when its representatives are determined to use their political influence.

He highlighted tougher conditions for security prisoners, the expansion of civilian emergency response squads, demolitions of unauthorized structures in the Negev, and changes concerning Jewish activity on Har Habayis.

“With five or six seats, look at the changes I made in the prisons. With five or six seats, look at the changes I made with the emergency response squads, on the Temple Mount, and with demolishing houses in the Negev,” he said.

Ben Gvir said a larger Otzma Yehudit faction would allow him to pursue additional objectives, including confiscating weapons held by Palestinian Authority forces, providing free land to soldiers in the Negev and Galilee, and revising the IDF’s rules of engagement.

“I want to dismantle the Palestinian Authority. Yes, I want to take away their weapons. Yes, I want to give soldiers free land in the Negev and Galilee,” he said.

He also repeated his support for encouraging voluntary emigration from Gaza and Yehuda and Shomron, presenting the policy as an essential component of his broader security agenda.

Another issue raised during the interview was former senior IDF officer Ofer Winter’s decision to remain in the Knesset election contest rather than withdraw his candidacy.

Ben Gvir warned that Winter’s continued participation could divide right-wing voters and potentially damage the bloc’s chances of securing a parliamentary majority.

“A big mistake. Winter must demonstrate responsibility for the sake of the right-wing bloc,” Ben Gvir said.

He argued that political leaders sometimes have an obligation to abandon their individual ambitions when doing so is necessary to protect the broader ideological camp.

Recalling previous election campaigns, Ben Gvir said he had repeatedly sought agreements with the Religious Zionist Party, even during periods when polling suggested that Otzma Yehudit was in a stronger electoral position.

“I always tried to unite. I always tried to join forces,” he said.

Asked why he had not at least reached a surplus-vote agreement with Winter, Ben Gvir said he would not enter an arrangement that might ultimately benefit a candidate willing to join a government with Naftali Bennett, Eisenkot, or Avigdor Liberman.

“What do you think, that people will vote for me and end up getting someone who goes and sits with Eisenkot, or Bennett, or Liberman? Absolutely not,” he said.

The interview also addressed criticism from Zehut chairman Moshe Feiglin, who had appeared earlier in the Arutz Sheva studio and questioned Ben Gvir’s decision to wear a noose-shaped lapel pin symbolizing his campaign to impose the death penalty on terrorists.

Feiglin argued that a noose does not convey a positive national vision, contrasting it with the aspiration to rebuild the Bais Hamikdosh.

Ben Gvir responded by expressing personal respect for Feiglin while questioning whether his years in the Knesset had produced meaningful accomplishments.

“First of all, I have tremendous respect for my friend Moshe Feiglin,” he began.

He then challenged Feiglin’s political record.

“Moshe was a Knesset member for four years. He talked about a vision, talked about the Holy Temple. Did he do even one thing that actually moved things forward?”

Ben Gvir contrasted Feiglin’s emphasis on ideological aspirations with his own efforts to change longstanding practices on Har Habayis, including expanding opportunities for Jewish prayer and permitting worshippers to bring prayer sheets onto the site.

He claimed that implementing these measures required him to overcome objections from the police, the Shin Bet, and, on certain occasions, Netanyahu himself.

“I appreciate Feiglin, but I suggest to him that if we’re talking about the world of action and politics, this is the world of action,” he said.

Ben Gvir also pointed to changes in prison administration, the easing of civilian firearms licensing requirements, the creation of additional emergency response squads, the development of the National Guard, and salary increases for police officers as examples of the practical results he believes distinguish his political approach.

Relations with the Religious Zionist Party were another subject of discussion. Ben Gvir praised Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich for his activities on behalf of Jewish communities in Yehuda and Shomron but objected to suggestions from within Smotrich’s party that its representatives achieve results quietly while Ben Gvir merely attracts publicity.

He argued that such characterizations dismiss substantial policy changes that he has worked to implement.

“What, making all those changes on the Temple Mount is just making noise? What, bringing forward the death penalty law for terrorists is just making noise? What, making life hell for terrorists in prison is just making noise?” he asked.

Ben Gvir again cited the civilian emergency response squads and firearms licensing changes, insisting that these initiatives have produced tangible results rather than simply generating headlines.

He was also asked about criticism from Likud MK Moshe Saada, who had described him as a TikTok artist. Ben Gvir responded that although he respects Saada, politicians should ultimately be evaluated according to their accomplishments rather than their public image.

The conversation subsequently turned to criticism from Rav Yitzchak Yosef, who had issued a ruling instructing voters not to support Otzma Yehudit.

Rather than engage in a public confrontation with the former Sephardic chief rabbi, Ben Gvir emphasized his respect for rabbonim and declined to challenge the ruling directly.

“I have tremendous respect for rabbis. I don’t speak against rabbis, whatever they may say,” he said.

Ben Gvir explained that he grew up in a family where rabbonim were treated with respect even when their statements were at odds with the family’s views. He indicated that he would maintain that approach while continuing his political work.

The minister also weighed in on the controversy surrounding television personality Yinon Magal, who had referred to Eisenkot using the word “monkey.”

Ben Gvir acknowledged that the expression was offensive and should not have been used, but rejected accusations that Magal’s comment demonstrated racial prejudice.

“I didn’t like the use of the word ‘monkey’ either. It’s inappropriate. But, and this is the big ‘but,’ Yinon Magal is not a racist,” he said.

Drawing on his own family background and his longstanding personal acquaintance with Magal, Ben Gvir said he had visited Magal’s home on numerous occasions and had never encountered discriminatory behavior.

“Yes, he made a mistake in his wording. You don’t speak that way,” he said.

At the same time, Ben Gvir defended the broader political criticism of Eisenkot, accusing him of attempting to cultivate a right-wing image while maintaining positions that Ben Gvir considers inconsistent with right-wing policies.

He further alleged that wealthy individuals associated with Israel’s political left were backing Eisenkot.

Referring to discussions held by the Security Cabinet during the war, Ben Gvir claimed that Eisenkot had opposed certain military operations in Gaza. His remarks represented his own account of those deliberations, and no cabinet transcripts were presented during the interview to substantiate the claims.

Toward the conclusion of the interview, Ben Gvir was asked about posters reportedly displayed in northern Tel Aviv that depicted him with a mustache resembling Adolf Hitler’s.

Ben Gvir said that although he frequently encounters hostile demonstrations and personal attacks, he also receives considerable public support.

He recalled incidents at Tel Aviv University in which, according to his account, activists attempted to disrupt his appearances and prevent him from speaking.

The minister accused his political opponents of applying a double standard, arguing that Arab politicians are treated differently while his own appearances are met with shouting and efforts to silence him.

“It won’t help them. They’ll keep shouting, and I’ll keep getting things done,” he said.

Ben Gvir ended the interview by reaffirming his intention to continue pursuing changes through the National Security Ministry while working to increase Otzma Yehudit’s Knesset representation, which he believes will determine how much influence the party can exercise over Israel’s next government.

The dispute has intensified in the final days before Israel’s October 27 election. At a press conference in Yerushalayim on Sunday, Ben Gvir went further than his previous warnings, alleging that Netanyahu’s office had privately assured European officials that Otzma Yehudit would be excluded from the next coalition. Ben Gvir said he had received information about such communications and expressed shock at the possibility that Netanyahu was preparing to abandon his existing coalition partner.

Likud rejected the accusation, describing it as a political maneuver and reiterating Netanyahu’s commitment to preserving the current coalition’s core partners. The party also indicated that additional Zionist factions could be invited to join a government if they accepted its policy guidelines.

The possibility of Netanyahu joining forces with Eisenkot has also been discussed by political commentator Amit Segal, who recently outlined scenarios in which the two leaders could establish a unity government, including a possible rotation arrangement if neither political bloc emerges with a clear majority.

The tensions have been compounded by Netanyahu’s recent statements that Ben Gvir would not receive either the defense or police portfolio in the next government, positions the Otzma Yehudit chairman has sought. Netanyahu has also pressed Ben Gvir and Smotrich to unite their electoral lists, warning that a divided right-wing vote could ultimately benefit Eisenkot and his allies.

With the election approaching, Ben Gvir is seeking to turn the dispute into a central campaign argument: voters who want Netanyahu to remain prime minister while ensuring that Otzma Yehudit’s policies continue to shape the government must give his party sufficient parliamentary strength to make its participation indispensable.

President Donald Trump issued a sharp warning Monday about the future of Paris, predicting that the French capital would soon become a predominantly Muslim city and accusing French President Emmanuel Macron of making a serious mistake by allowing large numbers of migrants to enter France.

Trump made the remarks while responding to questions about reports that Macron had blamed the war in Iran on the American president and connected the conflict to unrest in France. Trump rejected the suggestion that Macron was currently making such accusations and instead turned his attention to France’s immigration policies.

“I don’t think he is now,” Trump responded.

“I think that’s the fake news.”

Despite his criticism of the French government’s approach to immigration, Trump described Macron as a personal friend and said he had repeatedly warned the French leader about the consequences of failing to control the country’s borders.

“He’s a friend of mine,” Trump said of Macron.

“I told him a long time ago. ‘You make it a big mistake in France. You’re letting everybody from the world come in. The whole world was coming in.’”

Trump then offered a stark prediction about the demographic future of the French capital, arguing that the country’s immigration policies were fundamentally changing Paris.

“And, you know, as you know, Paris is going to be a Muslim city very soon. And that wasn’t the deal. That wasn’t the deal.”

The president said he had urged Macron to take stronger action on border security from the earliest days of their relationship, which began during Trump’s first presidential term.

“I told Emmanuel, you should close up your borders. And let’s see, I’ve known him for probably 8 or 9 years.”

“I told him as soon as I met him. I said, you make it a big mistake.”

Trump concluded by contrasting France’s immigration situation with his administration’s policies in the United States.

“We closed our borders. His borders are a problem,” Trump added.

The remarks came as France was grappling with widespread violent unrest following demonstrations over rising living costs and deteriorating conditions in public education. What began as large-scale protests developed into rioting, vandalism, looting, and clashes with police in several major cities, including Paris, Marseille, Lyon, and Lille.

French authorities reported more than 2,400 arrests over the weekend as demonstrators and violent groups damaged businesses, attacked public buildings, and set fires. Among the most prominent incidents was the burning of the historic town hall in Limoges, which suffered extensive damage.

Macron condemned the violence and pledged that those responsible for attacking public property and businesses would be held accountable. His government has faced mounting pressure over its handling of the disturbances, with Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu blaming extremist left-wing groups and criminals for exploiting the protests.

French officials also moved toward imposing localized curfews in areas affected by the disturbances, while police continued efforts to restore order. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez acknowledged serious shortcomings in the security response, and reports indicated that he offered his resignation, which Macron declined.

The unrest has intensified political arguments in France over immigration, public safety, economic conditions, and the government’s ability to maintain order. However, the demonstrations were initially driven largely by grievances over education and living costs, and authorities have not established that migrants as a group were responsible for the violence.

Trump’s comments also touched on a longstanding controversy surrounding immigration and the changing religious composition of France. France has one of Western Europe’s largest Muslim populations, with immigration and integration remaining major issues in the country’s political debate.

A French national statistical study conducted in 2019 and 2020 found that approximately 10% of people ages 18 to 59 in metropolitan France identified as Muslim, making Islam the country’s second-largest religion. The survey did not establish that Paris was approaching a Muslim majority, and Trump’s prediction was not accompanied by demographic evidence or a specific timeline.

The president’s criticism of Macron reflects a broader disagreement over immigration policy, with Trump repeatedly arguing that European governments have failed to adequately protect their borders and that the United States should avoid following the same approach.

The latest exchange comes at a particularly difficult moment for Macron, whose government is confronting major domestic unrest while facing growing political pressure ahead of France’s next presidential election.

For Trump, the developments have provided another opportunity to draw a contrast between his administration’s immigration policies and those of European leaders, particularly Macron, whom he said he had personally warned about the issue for nearly a decade.

{Matzav.com}

The Torah world is mourning the petirah of Rav Menachem Mendel Porush zt”l, a distinguished talmid chacham, the longtime rav of the Kahal Adas Yerushalayim–Masmidim communities in Modiin Illit, and a prominent member of the Biala chassidus. He was 71 years old.

Rav Porush was niftar Monday at Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Yerushalayim, where he had been hospitalized in serious condition in recent days. Many tefillos had been held on his behalf, but, to the sorrow of his family, talmidim, and the many who knew him, he returned his neshamah to its Creator.

The levayah was scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. Monday at the Shamgar Funeral Home in Yerushalayim, proceeding past Yeshivas Hamasmidim on Minchas Yitzchak Street and the Biala Bais Medrash on Yaakovson Street, before continuing to Har Hazeisim, where he was to be brought to kevurah.

Rav Porush was born in Yerushalayim on 15 Tammuz 5715 (1955), the eldest son of Rav Chaim Shalom Porush zt”l, a noted researcher and author on the history of chassidus who was among the distinguished Biala chassidim.

His father was widely known for his many seforim and for his decades of dedicated service as the longtime secretary of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas Yisroel, a position in which he worked closely with leading gedolei Yisroel.

His mother, Mrs. Miriam Porush a”h, was a daughter of Hagaon Rav Eliezer Dovid Brand zt”l.

Rav Chaim Shalom Porush maintained close relationships with the Biala Rebbe, the Chelkas Yehoshua zt”l, as well as the Bais Yisroel of Ger zt”l and, ybl”c, the Belzer Rebbe.

Growing up in this atmosphere of Torah and chassidus, the young Menachem Mendel received his early chinuch at Talmud Torah Eitz Chaim in Yerushalayim. He subsequently continued his learning at Yeshivas Torda.

For his years in yeshiva gedolah, he entered the renowned Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, where he became deeply attached to his rebbeim, Maran Rav Shmuel Rozovsky zt”l and Maran Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l.

During his years in Ponevezh, he learned b’chavrusa with a number of outstanding talmidei chachamim who would themselves become prominent marbitzei Torah, among them Rav Yehoshua Ehrenberg, Rav Yisroel Bunim Schreiber, Rav Dovid Miller, and Rav Chaim Kook.

In later years, Rav Porush developed a particularly close relationship with Hagaon Rav Leib Mintzberg zt”l, the renowned author of the Ben Melech and rav of Kahal Adas Yerushalayim–Masmidim.

He became one of Rav Mintzberg’s foremost talmidim and was deeply involved in preserving and transmitting his rebbi’s teachings. Among his contributions was the writing of Rav Mintzberg’s sefer Shomea K’oneh, reflecting his close involvement in the Torah and derech halimud of the baal Ben Melech.

Upon reaching marriageable age, Rav Porush married the daughter of Harav Meir Dovid Halperin zt”l, and together they established a distinguished Torah home.

As the Kahal Adas Yerushalayim–Masmidim communities expanded beyond Yerushalayim, Rav Porush was appointed to serve as rav of the kehillos in Modiin Illit, specifically in the Brachfeld and Green Park neighborhoods.

In that capacity, he became a central figure in the Torah life of the local communities, serving as a moreh horaah and spiritual guide while maintaining his lifelong dedication to limud haTorah and harbotzas haTorah.

Rav Porush was renowned as an exceptional talmid chacham whose breadth and depth of Torah knowledge were evident in his shiurim and writings.

He served as a maggid shiur at Yeshivas Toras Hashem of the Masmidim community and delivered shiurim in additional yeshivos, including a Breslover yeshiva, where talmidim benefited from his extensive knowledge and clarity in Torah.

Alongside his close association with the Masmidim community and its founder, Rav Leib Mintzberg, Rav Porush remained deeply connected to the Biala chassidus throughout his life. He enjoyed a close relationship with the admorim of Biala and was regarded as one of the distinguished members of the chassidus.

In addition to his many years of teaching Torah, Rav Porush devoted considerable effort to writing and organizing his chiddushei Torah.

He leaves behind an extensive collection of manuscripts covering the entirety of Shas and numerous areas of Torah, with plans reportedly underway to publish these writings in the near future.

His passing leaves a profound void among the Masmidim kehillos in Modiin Illit, the Biala chassidus, and the many talmidim who were privileged to learn from him over the years.

Rav Porush leaves behind a beautiful mishpachah of sons, daughters, sons-in-law, and descendants who continue in the path of Torah and yiras Shomayim.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli security forces thwarted a suspected terrorist attack Monday evening, arresting two individuals along Highway 1 near the Latrun Interchange after receiving precise intelligence indicating that they were planning an attack against Israeli civilians. The dramatic operation came amid heightened security concerns surrounding Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s planned appearance at a soccer match in Yerushalayim, which was subsequently canceled.

The arrests were carried out by Yamam, the Israel Police’s elite counterterrorism unit, together with operatives from the Shin Bet security agency. The forces were operating as part of Task Force Tequila, a specialized counterterrorism framework activated in response to intelligence concerning potential imminent attacks.

תיעוד המעצר הדרמטי של השב״כ בכביש 1. במגבלות הצנזורה, טרם הוכח קשר להדיווחים על הגעת רה״מ נתניהו לאיצטדיון טדי pic.twitter.com/14BmWiNLRq

— המצודה (@hamtzuda_likud) October 19, 2026

According to Israeli security officials, the suspects were located on the main highway connecting Tel Aviv and Yerushalayim, near the Latrun Interchange, and apprehended without resistance resulting in injuries to Israeli personnel.

The Shin Bet and Israel Police issued a joint statement confirming that the operation had been launched following specific intelligence about preparations for an attack.

“A short time ago, Yamam counterterrorism officers, together with Shin Bet operatives, carried out an operation based on precise intelligence provided by the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) to arrest two suspects involved in planning a terrorist attack against Israeli civilians. Acting on the intelligence, the forces located the suspects on Highway 1, near the Latrun Interchange, and arrested them. There were no casualties among our forces. The suspects were transferred to the Shin Bet for further interrogation.”

The suspects were taken into Shin Bet custody for questioning as investigators worked to establish the intended target, the extent of the alleged plot, and whether additional individuals were involved.

The operation involved security deployments at several locations in the Yerushalayim area. The unusual activity prompted concern among motorists and residents who witnessed the presence of heavily armed security personnel without initially knowing the circumstances behind the operation.

Initial reports indicated that investigators were examining whether the suspects had been attempting to reach Teddy Stadium in Yerushalayim, where Netanyahu had been expected to attend a Beitar Yerushalayim soccer match.

The prime minister’s planned attendance was canceled following security warnings, although officials had not publicly confirmed whether the suspects were specifically targeting Netanyahu, the stadium, or another location.

The possible connection to Teddy Stadium remained under investigation Monday night, and authorities had not released information establishing the intended destination of the suspects.

The arrests occurred during a period of unusually heightened security preparations in Israel, with the country scheduled to hold Knesset elections on October 27.

Israeli security officials have been preparing for the possibility of terrorist organizations attempting to carry out attacks during the election period, when large numbers of civilians are expected to gather at polling stations and other public locations.

Earlier Monday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir ordered a series of measures designed to strengthen the military’s operational readiness ahead of the elections.

Among the directives was a suspension of military leave beginning Thursday, intended to ensure that additional personnel remain available for security assignments and emergency deployments.

Zamir also ordered reinforcements to Yehudah and Shomron and other sensitive areas, reflecting concern about potential terrorist activity during the days leading up to the election.

Senior military commanders were instructed to increase their presence in operational headquarters, command centers, and military units to ensure that security forces could respond immediately to developing threats.

One of the more significant measures involves strengthening the IDF’s Central Command, which is responsible for military operations throughout Yehudah and Shomron.

Under Zamir’s directive, the headquarters of the Paratroopers Brigade, together with additional assigned forces, will be deployed to reinforce the area between Shomron and Binyamin.

The brigade headquarters will function as a dedicated operational command structure, strengthening coordination among forces in the area and improving their ability to respond to security incidents.

Additional military resources are also being allocated to other operational sectors according to developing security requirements, including personnel and capabilities from the air force, navy, and ground forces.

The expanded deployment reflects the military’s efforts to maintain readiness across multiple fronts while providing additional security during the election period.

The latest developments also come amid continuing tensions involving Iran and terrorist organizations operating against Israel, with Israeli leaders repeatedly warning that the country remains prepared to respond to threats against its civilian population.

Earlier Monday, Netanyahu visited an Israeli Air Force base, where he issued a forceful warning to Israel’s enemies against attempting further attacks.

“I say to our enemies: Do not test us. You will suffer blows more severe than anything you have suffered until now,” Netanyahu warned.

The prime minister’s remarks came as the Israeli military continued reinforcing its preparedness ahead of the elections, with security agencies maintaining an elevated state of alert.

The arrests near Latrun demonstrated the importance of intelligence-driven counterterrorism operations, with the Shin Bet and Yamam acting on information that authorities said indicated an attack was being prepared.

As of Monday night, officials had not disclosed the identities of the two suspects, their organizational affiliations, or whether weapons or explosives were recovered during the operation.

Investigators were continuing to examine the circumstances of the alleged plot, including the possibility of a connection to the planned gathering at Teddy Stadium, while the suspects remained in Shin Bet custody for interrogation.

The Yerushalayim District Court has ruled that prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against Agam Tzarfati and Shilat Huta in connection with the murder of Benayahu Razi z”l in the Nachlaot neighborhood of Yerushalayim, marking a significant development in a case that has drawn widespread attention across Eretz Yisroel.

The decision represents a major setback for the prosecution in the case, which initially involved seven defendants accused in connection with the violent incident that resulted in Razi’s death.

According to the original indictment, Huta and Tzarfati had rented an apartment for a weekend together with Razi and a friend of his. Several days later, the two women alleged that the men had behaved violently toward them.

Following those allegations, the women traveled to the apartment of Linor Sasson, whom they had not previously known.

Investigators alleged that a violent confrontation was subsequently organized at that location, with individuals arming themselves with weapons including clubs, knives, and a meat tenderizing hammer.

One of the most disturbing allegations to emerge during the investigation involved Tzarfati, who was accused of watching the assault unfold in real time through a live video call. Investigators claimed that she was seen smiling during portions of the transmission.

Police also released surveillance footage documenting the movements of suspects in the minutes leading up to the killing.

The footage showed several individuals walking together through the streets of Nachlaot before stopping briefly to speak with one another. They then continued quickly toward the rental apartment where the fatal attack occurred.

At the time, police maintained that each of the suspects had played an active role in the violent episode that ended in Razi’s death.

However, the District Court has now determined that the evidence presented does not establish the charges against Tzarfati and Huta, removing them from the prosecution’s case.

The ruling marks a significant reversal from the allegations initially presented by investigators, particularly given the attention surrounding claims that one of the women had watched the attack through a live video connection.

The court’s decision concerns the evidence against the two women and does not, by itself, resolve the allegations against the other defendants in the murder case.

President Donald Trump has delivered another powerful endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, predicting a decisive victory in Israel’s upcoming elections and revealing that he personally wrote the extraordinary letter of support he recently issued to Israeli voters. During a recorded telephone conversation between the two leaders, Netanyahu thanked Trump for his backing and emphasized their shared determination to confront Iran and expand the Abraham Accords.

The conversation, released by the Prime Minister’s Office on Monday, came amid the final stretch of Israel’s election campaign, with Trump making clear that Netanyahu remains his preferred partner in Jerusalem.

Trump praised Netanyahu’s leadership and complained that the Israeli prime minister had been subjected to unfair treatment, both within Israel and internationally.

“You’re a fighter, and you’ve been treated unfairly in your country,” Trump told Netanyahu.

The president also discussed his recent letter endorsing Netanyahu, disclosing that the message had been written personally rather than prepared by his staff.

“I actually drafted it myself,” Trump said. “It’s not something some guy wrote for me.”

Trump continued by praising Netanyahu’s determination and suggesting that his political fortunes would soon vindicate him.

“You’re a great fighter, and we’re going to prove it. We’re going to prove it very soon,” the president declared.

The American president went on to express strong confidence that Netanyahu would emerge victorious in the October 27 election.

“I think you’re great, Bibi. I think you’re going to have a tremendous victory,” Trump said.

He then made his preference for Israel’s next leader unmistakable.

“The man I want by my side is Bibi,” Trump stated.

The telephone conversation followed Trump’s unusual public intervention in the Israeli election campaign on Sunday, when he issued a personal endorsement urging Israelis to return Netanyahu to office. The president described the prime minister as an indispensable American partner in confronting Iran and warned that replacing him could complicate efforts to deal with Tehran.

Netanyahu had said earlier Monday that he neither requested the endorsement nor knew in advance that Trump intended to publish it. During their subsequent conversation, he expressed his appreciation for the president’s public support.

“I am so grateful for this incredible support,” Netanyahu told Trump.

The prime minister described the American president as “the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House, or ever will have,” praising his leadership and saying it had strengthened the confidence of countries throughout the free world.

Netanyahu then shifted the conversation from the upcoming election to the strategic objectives he believes the United States and Israel must continue pursuing together.

“Donald, we have work to finish. You said it, and we will finish it together. We’ll finish it, and nobody else will do it,” Netanyahu declared.

The prime minister pointed to the achievements of the American-Israeli partnership, particularly the historic normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab countries that were negotiated during Trump’s first administration.

“Our alliance has proven that we can do amazing things together. We still have work to finish. We have peace that we can expand,” Netanyahu said.

He expressed confidence that additional Arab and Muslim countries could eventually join the Abraham Accords, arguing that the close relationship between Washington and Jerusalem creates opportunities for further diplomatic breakthroughs.

“I don’t want to name them, we’re on an open call, but we all know that we can expand the historic Abraham Accords, which we brought about together under your leadership,” Netanyahu said.

The Abraham Accords, announced in 2020, established formal diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, with Morocco subsequently joining the normalization framework. Expanding those agreements has remained a major diplomatic objective for both leaders.

The latest exchange also comes amid continuing uncertainty over the confrontation with Iran, following the joint American-Israeli military campaign launched in February. Trump has repeatedly warned Tehran that further action remains possible if it fails to change course.

In his endorsement letter, Trump portrayed Netanyahu as a crucial partner in preventing Iran from threatening Israel and the United States. He also warned that Washington could be left to confront the Iranian threat without the same degree of Israeli cooperation if Netanyahu were replaced.

The president’s public backing represents a significant development in the closing days of Israel’s election campaign, particularly after months in which he had avoided offering an explicit endorsement despite his longstanding relationship with Netanyahu.

In an interview Sunday, Trump said he had intended to endorse Netanyahu all along but had deliberately waited until closer to Election Day.

The two leaders have maintained a close political relationship over the years, although disagreements over military operations and diplomatic strategy have occasionally strained their cooperation.

For Netanyahu, Trump’s endorsement provides a prominent expression of international support as he seeks another term in office, with the Likud leader emphasizing his personal relationship with the American president as a central element of his campaign.

Concluding his remarks during Monday’s telephone conversation, Netanyahu returned to the Iranian nuclear threat, praising Trump’s determination to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“The American public needs to know that you stood up to the greatest danger facing it — a nuclear-armed Iran. We will not allow that to happen,” Netanyahu said.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Monday called on former IDF Brigadier General Ofer Winter and other leaders of small right-wing parties to withdraw from the upcoming Knesset elections, warning that their continued participation could split the right-wing vote and jeopardize the bloc’s chances of forming the next government.

Smotrich’s demand came just hours after Benny Gantz announced that he would not participate in the October 27 election, a decision that followed weeks of pressure from opposition figures concerned that his party would fail to cross the electoral threshold and waste votes that could otherwise help the anti-Netanyahu bloc.

The finance minister argued that Gantz’s decision demonstrated a level of political discipline that is currently missing on the right, where several smaller parties are continuing their campaigns despite uncertain prospects of winning Knesset representation.

“When you hear all the left-wing party leaders congratulating Gantz on his decision to withdraw, you understand that he withdrew to demonstrate responsibility toward the left-wing bloc and bring it to power,” Smotrich said in a video statement.

According to Smotrich, Gantz’s departure has substantially reduced the danger of wasted votes among parties seeking to replace Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, while the right continues to face the possibility of losing significant electoral support to lists that fail to qualify for seats.

“The left is now organized with zero wasted votes. Unfortunately, on the right, the situation is now completely the opposite,” he said.

Smotrich specifically criticized Winter and other small-party leaders, describing their political organizations as “fragments of parties that have absolutely no chance in the world of crossing the electoral threshold.”

He accused them of “gambling with the future of the State of Israel” by remaining in the race despite the possibility that their votes would not translate into Knesset seats.

Addressing Winter and the other party leaders directly, Smotrich urged them to abandon their independent campaigns rather than risk weakening the broader right-wing camp.

“I implore Ofer, his colleagues, and all the fragments of parties: Withdraw. We do not gamble on a Palestinian state, we do not gamble on the Jewish identity of the State of Israel, we do not gamble on security, we do not gamble on the future of the State of Israel,” Smotrich declared.

The finance minister also appealed to right-wing voters, urging them to support only parties that are certain to win enough votes to enter the Knesset.

“We do not vote for any party that is not certain to cross the electoral threshold, we do not throw votes in the garbage, and we do not establish a Palestinian state,” he said.

Under Israel’s electoral system, a party must receive at least 3.25% of the national vote to enter the 120-member Knesset. Votes cast for parties that fall below that threshold do not produce any seats, potentially affecting the balance between competing political blocs.

That calculation has become particularly significant ahead of the October 27 election, with both the Netanyahu-aligned parties and the opposition seeking to maximize their representation in what is expected to be a closely contested race.

Winter, a former senior IDF officer who has attracted attention among national-religious and right-wing voters, is among the figures Smotrich believes could draw support away from established parties without necessarily securing enough votes to enter the Knesset.

Smotrich’s remarks also highlight growing concern within the right-wing camp that smaller parties could collectively receive enough votes to influence the election’s outcome while individually failing to win representation.

The finance minister’s appeal followed Gantz’s announcement earlier Monday that he was withdrawing from the race, reversing a declaration he made only last week that he intended to remain a candidate until Election Day.

Gantz had faced sustained pressure from other opposition figures to withdraw because polls had repeatedly placed his party near or below the electoral threshold.

His decision was welcomed by political leaders in the anti-Netanyahu bloc, who viewed his withdrawal as an opportunity to consolidate support behind parties with stronger prospects of winning Knesset seats.

Smotrich is now seeking a similar consolidation on the right, arguing that the stakes of the election are too high for smaller parties to risk wasting votes that could otherwise help secure a right-wing majority.

{Matzav.com}

A man has been arrested in London following a series of disturbing attacks on chareidi women in Stamford Hill, with surveillance footage reportedly showing the suspect deliberately singling out women walking along the street while ignoring men and other pedestrians nearby.

The assaults, which have sparked alarm throughout London’s large chareidi community, are being investigated as suspected antisemitic attacks. The suspect was apprehended after volunteers from the local Shomrim neighborhood security organization pursued and detained him until police arrived.

According to reports from Stamford Hill, the man was captured on video approaching several chareidi women and physically striking them as they went about their daily activities in the neighborhood.

Particularly troubling to community members was the apparent pattern of the attacks. Footage of the incidents reportedly shows the suspect passing other pedestrians, including chareidi men, without confronting them, while specifically approaching and assaulting chareidi women.

The circumstances have raised concerns that the attacker intentionally selected women whom he perceived as less likely to resist or defend themselves.

The attacks were brought to an end following the intervention of Stamford Hill Shomrim volunteers, who responded to the incidents and pursued the suspect.

The volunteers managed to apprehend and restrain the man, holding him at the scene until Metropolitan Police officers arrived and took him into custody for questioning.

The arrest comes amid heightened concern over antisemitism in Britain, where Jewish communities have reported growing hostility in recent years, particularly against the backdrop of widespread anti-Israel demonstrations and tensions surrounding the war in Gaza.

Community representatives said the Stamford Hill incidents were especially alarming because they involved direct physical violence against visibly Orthodox Jewish women in a neighborhood that is home to one of Europe’s largest chareidi populations.

Stamford Hill, located in northeast London, is home to numerous shuls, yeshivos, Jewish schools, and chassidishe communities. Its residents have increasingly relied on local security organizations, including Shomrim, to respond to suspicious activity and incidents affecting the community.

The latest assaults have intensified concerns about the safety of Jewish residents going about their ordinary routines, with particular attention focused on women who may be targeted because of their identifiable religious appearance.

Members of the local chareidi community expressed appreciation to the Shomrim volunteers for their swift intervention, crediting their response with bringing the incidents to an end and ensuring that the suspect was handed over to police.

Community members are now calling on London authorities to pursue the investigation thoroughly and ensure that the suspect faces appropriate legal consequences if the allegations are proven.

The suspect’s identity has not been disclosed, and further details concerning the number of victims, the extent of any injuries, and potential criminal charges have not yet been made available.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an attempt to restore a plea agreement for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, leaving him facing the possibility of execution if convicted in the long-running military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay.

The justices declined to intervene in a dispute over the Pentagon’s decision to cancel an agreement under which Mohammed would have pleaded guilty in exchange for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The agreement, negotiated by military prosecutors and defense attorneys, had initially received approval from the senior Pentagon official overseeing the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

However, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin intervened in 2024 and revoked the arrangement, arguing that a decision of such magnitude, particularly one involving the possible death penalty for the September 11 attacks, should remain under the authority of the secretary of defense.

Mohammed’s attorneys challenged Austin’s intervention, maintaining that the agreement had already been properly approved and that the defense secretary had acted too late to invalidate it.

A divided federal appeals court panel subsequently ruled that Austin had acted within his authority, allowing the Pentagon’s cancellation of the agreement to stand.

Monday’s Supreme Court action leaves that ruling in place, effectively ending the latest effort to reinstate the negotiated resolution.

The case involves Mohammed and two other defendants, Mustafa al Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash, who also reached plea agreements with military prosecutors in 2024. All three sought Supreme Court review of the decision allowing Austin to withdraw from the arrangements.

Under the proposed deals, the defendants would have admitted guilt to charges arising from the September 11 attacks and received life sentences instead of facing capital punishment.

Mohammed is accused of organizing and directing the terrorist plot that resulted in four commercial airliners being hijacked on September 11, 2001. Two aircraft were flown into the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan, a third struck the Pentagon, and a fourth crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to overpower the hijackers.

Nearly 3,000 people were murdered in the attacks, which prompted the United States to launch a global campaign against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in 2003 and subsequently held in secret CIA detention facilities before being transferred to the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay in 2006.

His prosecution has been delayed for years by legal disputes involving evidence, interrogation methods, and the procedures governing military commissions.

One of the central obstacles has been determining whether statements obtained during Mohammed’s detention and interrogation by the CIA can be introduced as evidence. Defense attorneys have challenged the use of such statements because of the coercive interrogation methods employed during his captivity.

In 2024, after lengthy negotiations, military prosecutors reached agreements with Mohammed, Hawsawi, and bin Attash that appeared to offer a way to resolve the cases without proceeding through a full capital trial.

The agreements were approved by retired Brigadier General Susan Escallier, the senior official responsible for overseeing the military commission proceedings.

Two days after the arrangements were announced, Austin intervened and withdrew his approval, asserting that the authority to decide whether the defendants could avoid the death penalty belonged to him.

The intervention triggered another prolonged legal battle over whether the defense secretary could cancel agreements that had already been authorized.

In November 2024, a military judge ruled that Austin’s attempt to invalidate the agreements was unlawful. A military appeals court subsequently upheld that determination, allowing preparations for guilty-plea hearings to proceed.

The Justice Department then appealed to the federal courts, arguing that Austin possessed the legal authority to withdraw the agreements before they became final.

In July 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2–1 in favor of the government, reversing the earlier military court decisions.

The appeals court concluded that Austin “indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements.”

Defense attorneys subsequently asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling, arguing that the defense secretary’s intervention violated military law and undermined an opportunity to bring the decades-old prosecution to a conclusion.

The Supreme Court declined to take up the case Monday without issuing an explanation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in consideration of the appeals.

The proposed plea agreements had also divided relatives of those murdered on September 11.

Some families opposed allowing the defendants to escape the possibility of execution, arguing that the enormity of the attacks warranted a full trial and the potential imposition of the death penalty.

Others supported the negotiated agreements, viewing guilty pleas and guaranteed life sentences as a means of finally obtaining legal accountability after more than two decades of delays.

With the plea agreements no longer available, the military prosecution is scheduled to move forward.

In August, a military judge set June 5, 2028, as the trial date for Mohammed and three other defendants, including Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, who was not a party to the plea agreement appeal.

The trial would begin more than 26 years after the September 11 attacks, although additional pretrial litigation could still affect the schedule.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli journalist and media personality Yedidya Meir, who has become an enthusiastic advocate for Daf Yomi, has revealed that he once believed he would never be capable of learning Gemara consistently. After years of painful memories from his school and yeshiva education, he had effectively given up on Gemara altogether. It was only at the age of 40 that he decided to give it another chance, eventually completing the entire Shas.

Speaking with Ariel Berman on Kol Chai Radio’s afternoon magazine program, Meir shared the personal journey that transformed his relationship with learning. The interview was conducted as part of the program’s “Good News” segment in honor of the yahrtzeit of Rav Meir Shapiro of Lublin, founder of the Daf Yomi movement.

“The moment I finally finished my studies, I closed the Gemara, and that was it,” Meir recalled. “I told myself: Gemara is not for me.”

Meir explained that his difficulties were rooted in deeply unpleasant experiences during his earlier years of education. Rather than associating Gemara with enjoyment and accomplishment, he had come to view it as something frustrating and beyond his abilities.

“My experience of learning in yeshiva and school was so negative,” he said.

One of the strongest reminders of those experiences was something as simple as the traditional typeface used for Rashi’s commentary. For years, merely seeing Rashi script brought back uncomfortable memories of his struggles with learning.

The turning point came when Meir was 40 years old. At the time, the worldwide Daf Yomi cycle had reached Maseches Sukkah, a masechta that brought back a different set of memories.

Unlike other areas of Gemara, Sukkah reminded him of enjoyable childhood lessons involving illustrations of sukkos, explanatory materials and visual demonstrations that had helped him understand the subject.

“I said, ‘I’ll learn Maseches Sukkah,’” Meir recalled.

What began as a limited experiment gradually developed into a daily commitment. Meir discovered that he could maintain a consistent learning schedule, and the effort that began with a single masechta eventually led him to complete the entire Shas.

Despite that accomplishment, Meir acknowledged that certain aspects of learning still present challenges. He continues to use the Schottenstein Edition of the Gemara, relying on its accessible explanations and clear, vowelized Hebrew text.

He explained that the traditional Rashi typeface remains difficult for him, even after years of successful learning. Rather than allowing that obstacle to interfere with his progress, he has found an approach that enables him to continue.

Meir also discussed a practical system he developed to deal with one of the most common difficulties faced by Daf Yomi participants: falling behind.

With a busy schedule and numerous professional responsibilities, he occasionally misses a day’s learning. Instead of allowing the missed material to interrupt his progress, he keeps track of the pages he needs to complete while continuing to learn the current day’s daf.

“I have a WhatsApp group with myself called ‘Daf Yomi Debts,’” he revealed.

Whenever he misses a daf, Meir adds it to the list in that private WhatsApp group. He then continues with the page being studied by Daf Yomi participants worldwide, returning to the outstanding pages when he has an opportunity.

“The principle is to keep moving forward,” he explained.

Meir said that remaining synchronized with the worldwide Daf Yomi schedule has been a major factor in his ability to maintain consistency. Knowing that Jews around the world are learning the same daf on the same day provides encouragement and a sense of belonging to something much larger than an individual’s personal learning program.

He described that shared experience as one of the great strengths of the system established by Rav Meir Shapiro, whose vision created a worldwide framework that continues to unite Jews through daily Gemara learning.

During the interview, Meir also praised the growing number of resources available to people who previously found Gemara difficult or intimidating.

He specifically mentioned the popular Daf Yomi shiurim delivered by Rav Eli Stefansky, whose presentations incorporate humor, visual demonstrations and an engaging teaching style.

According to Meir, such approaches can be especially valuable for people who struggled with attention difficulties or negative educational experiences earlier in life.

He observed that there is an important distinction between someone who has never attempted to learn Gemara and someone who tried repeatedly, struggled and eventually concluded that learning was simply beyond his abilities.

For the second individual, discovering that he can learn consistently represents something much more significant than acquiring a new daily routine. It can fundamentally change how he views his own abilities and his relationship with Torah learning.

Meir also addressed the role that wives and families can play in encouraging Daf Yomi participation, following an earlier interview in which Rav Naftali Wasserman had emphasized the importance of women’s support for their husbands’ learning.

While expressing appreciation for his wife’s encouragement, Meir cautioned that excessive pressure can be counterproductive, particularly for individuals who already associate learning with earlier frustrations.

“My wife has a large share in my learning and in my siyumim, but don’t pressure,” he said.

He explained that well-intentioned demands from family members can sometimes revive the very feelings of inadequacy and discomfort that prevented a person from learning in the first place.

Instead, Meir suggested that families offer encouragement, support and tefillos while allowing the individual to develop a personal commitment to learning at his own pace.

Reflecting on his transformation, Meir said there are still moments when he finds himself amazed by the fact that he has become someone who learns Gemara consistently.

Whether he is sitting down with a daf on Erev Shabbos or Motzoei Shabbos, he sometimes thinks back to the person who once closed his Gemara and decided that learning was not for him.

“Suddenly I say to myself, ‘Look, I’m that masmid,’” he said. “I thought I couldn’t do it, but I can, with one daf every day.”

Meir said the experience has also changed the way he looks back on his education and the teachers and administrators associated with his earlier difficulties.

“We often also settle scores with our teachers, with our principals,” he observed.

He questioned the value of continuing to carry those grievances years later, particularly when a person has the opportunity to begin again and develop a new relationship with learning.

Asked why he feels such a strong responsibility to encourage others to participate in Daf Yomi, Meir said his motivation comes directly from the transformation he experienced.

“When someone or something truly changed your life, in an area where you thought, ‘This is no longer for me, not in this lifetime,’ then you want other people to discover what you experienced.”

{Matzav.com}

Ditza Or, whose son Avinatan spent 738 days in Hamas captivity, has accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of bearing responsibility for policies that allowed Hamas to grow stronger in Gaza and for failing to bring Israel’s military campaign to a conclusion. Despite her sharp criticism, however, she said she could not determine whether Netanyahu should have resigned over the failures surrounding the October 7 massacre.

Speaking in an interview with Kan Reshet Bet radio on the first anniversary of her son’s release, Or addressed the government’s handling of Hamas before the attack, the conduct of the subsequent war, and the need for an investigation into the failures that enabled the massacre.

“Clearly, there is comprehensive responsibility for the nurturing of Hamas in Gaza, for the insane amounts of funding that were transferred, for turning a blind eye to everything that was happening, for everything known as the ‘conception.’ Clearly, the Prime Minister bears responsibility for that,” Or said.

Her remarks referred to the longstanding Israeli security assumptions concerning Hamas before October 7, including the belief that the terrorist organization could be contained and deterred from launching a major attack.

Or argued that Netanyahu’s responsibility extended beyond the policies that preceded the massacre, saying that the continuing military situation also demanded accountability.

“In my view, he also bears responsibility for the fact that the campaign has still not ended when it could have been brought to an end, and not a single front has been closed. He absolutely bears responsibility,” she added.

Nevertheless, when questioned about why senior military and security officials had departed their positions while Netanyahu remained prime minister, Or declined to make a definitive judgment about whether he should step down.

“That’s a difficult question. I really don’t know what to say about it. I tell myself that I don’t have to know everything, and I don’t have to have an answer to everything,” she replied.

She subsequently reiterated that although she believes the prime minister bears substantial responsibility, she has not reached a conclusion regarding the political consequences that should follow.

“Now, as for saying whether he should have resigned or stepped down, I don’t know.”

Or also addressed the demand for a formal investigation into the events of October 7, arguing that the failures were so extensive that they require a thorough examination of the country’s political and security leadership.

“Clearly, there were enormous failures here… I have to summon a tremendous amount of goodwill to say that these were merely failures,” she said.

She maintained that identifying those responsible must be accompanied by fundamental changes to the institutions and procedures that failed to prevent the attack.

“Clearly, these failures must be investigated, and clearly there are people who bear responsibility and people who are to blame, and they must be held accountable. Above all, the systems must be fixed,” she added.

While Or expressed strong support for an inquiry, she objected to the possibility of an investigative commission whose members would be drawn predominantly from one side of Israel’s political divide.

“I very much expect there to be an investigation, for the truth to emerge, and for there to be integrity in the country. The commission must represent all sides of the political spectrum,” she said.

She warned that the public would have difficulty trusting the findings of an inquiry perceived as politically one-sided, regardless of which political camp dominated its membership.

“Otherwise, regardless of which side it comes from, it will not be objective, and that will not help us reach the truth.”

Or was particularly critical of the possibility that Supreme Court justices would lead such an investigation, expressing concern about what she views as the judiciary’s political orientation.

“A commission headed by the court, headed by Supreme Court justices, is a biased commission,” she said.

She explained her objection by asserting that the court “expresses very one-sided positions that belong to one side of the political spectrum.”

Her comments reflected her assessment of the judiciary and her preference for an investigative body representing a broader range of public perspectives.

The interview also revisited Or’s outspoken position during the more than two years that her son was held hostage in Gaza. Throughout that period, she was associated with the Tikva Forum, an organization representing hostage families that advocated continued military pressure on Hamas rather than concessions that could leave the terrorist organization in power.

Or explained that her approach was based on her conviction that defeating Hamas militarily offered the best prospect of securing the captives’ freedom.

“My understanding of the situation told me that the only way to bring the hostages home was to defeat Hamas,” she said.

She argued that the objectives of destroying Hamas’ military capabilities and securing the hostages’ release were mutually reinforcing, rather than competing priorities.

“If we stand strong against them and weaken them to the point where they have no choice, then they will return as many as possible, and ultimately all of them,” she explained.

Or said she regarded sustained pressure on Hamas as essential both to obtaining the hostages’ release and to preventing future attacks against Israel.

“Weakening them is a means of bringing the hostages home, and at the same time, it is also a means of ensuring Israel’s security,” she said.

Her remarks follow an interview earlier this month in which she described a conversation her son allegedly had with one of his Hamas captors shortly before his release. According to Or, Avinatan asked a terrorist known as Abu Hassan why Hamas had agreed to free the remaining living hostages together.

Or recounted that the captor answered, “Hamas is weak, there’s nothing we can do, we have to.”

She presented the exchange as further support for her belief that military pressure had forced Hamas to release the captives.

Avinatan was kidnapped from the Nova music festival during the Hamas-led massacre on October 7, 2023, along with his girlfriend, Noa Argamani. Images of the two being abducted became among the most widely recognized scenes from the attack.

Argamani was rescued by Israeli special forces in June 2024, while Avinatan remained in captivity until October 13, 2025, when he was freed alongside 19 other living hostages under a ceasefire agreement brokered by President Donald Trump.

Following his release, his family disclosed that he had endured severe deprivation and isolation during his 738 days in Gaza. He had lost a substantial amount of weight and had spent much of his captivity without contact with other Israeli hostages.

In Monday’s interview, Or spoke about the changes she has witnessed in her son during the year since he returned home, describing his determination to rebuild his life despite the suffering he experienced.

“He turned darkness into light. He went through such terribly difficult experiences, and he transformed them in an amazing way into strength, joy for life, love for others, and positive action,” she said.

Or acknowledged that the reality of having her son home after such a prolonged ordeal has been difficult to fully absorb, even as the family has resumed its daily routines.

“The realization that he is already here is so overwhelming that, from the very beginning, I felt I couldn’t truly take it all in,” she said.

Looking back on the years of fear, uncertainty, and waiting, she said the experience sometimes seems almost impossible to believe.

“And on the other hand, when I look back, I ask myself, ‘Did that really happen?’ It feels like a dream, like a nightmare we woke up from, and of course, Avinatan is home.”

{Matzav.com}

Elon Musk announced Monday that he intends to give every child in the United States one share of SpaceX stock next year, unveiling a potentially multibillion-dollar giveaway that could provide approximately 72 million American children with an ownership stake in his aerospace company.

The SpaceX chief executive disclosed the plan in a message on X, the social media platform he owns, suggesting that the initiative could be the beginning of a broader effort to distribute company shares directly to the public.

“Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America,” Musk wrote.

“This will be the first of many.”

Based on SpaceX’s reported closing share price of $146.03 on Friday, the proposed distribution would carry an estimated value of $10.5 billion if all approximately 72 million Americans under the age of 18 received a share.

Musk did not provide details about how the shares would be transferred, whether all children would qualify regardless of family income or citizenship status, or what arrangements would be established to hold the investments on behalf of minors.

Musk holds billions of shares in SpaceX, giving him the financial capacity to carry out the proposed distribution without relinquishing a substantial portion of his ownership.

An August filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission listed his beneficial ownership at approximately 6.4 billion shares, including stock options and awards that had not yet vested. Those holdings represented roughly 48.4% of the company.

SpaceX entered the public stock market in June, completing what was described as the largest initial public offering in history. The company began trading under the ticker symbol SPCX after pricing its initial offering at $135 per share and raising approximately $85.7 billion.

The stock closed Friday at $146.03, placing the company’s market valuation at approximately $2 trillion. At that price, each child receiving one share would obtain an investment initially worth about $146, although its value could rise or fall with the stock market.

Musk’s announcement follows a separate commitment by SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell, who pledged more than $320 million worth of her personal SpaceX holdings to help fund investment accounts for more than two million American children.

That initiative is connected to Trump Accounts, a federal program established under President Donald Trump’s administration to encourage long-term investment and savings for children.

Under the program, children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, are eligible for a one-time $1,000 federal contribution to a qualifying investment account.

The accounts are designed to allow investments to accumulate over time, potentially providing young Americans with financial resources as they reach adulthood.

It remains unclear whether Musk intends to distribute his SpaceX shares through Trump Accounts or establish a separate arrangement for the proposed giveaway.

The billionaire’s announcement came amid a broader discussion about how some of the world’s wealthiest technology companies should share their financial gains with the public, particularly as artificial intelligence raises concerns about future employment and economic inequality.

On Sunday, artificial intelligence developer Anthropic announced that it would dedicate at least 5% of its shares to a newly established Public Benefit Fund intended to support charitable initiatives and address the economic consequences of technological change.

The fund could eventually be worth tens of billions of dollars, depending on Anthropic’s valuation and the performance of its shares.

Anthropic said the initiative could provide funding to nonprofit organizations, distribute financial assistance directly to certain populations, and support programs intended to help workers affected by artificial intelligence.

Musk responded to the announcement by suggesting that a more direct approach would be preferable to distributing corporate wealth through charitable organizations.

“I recommend giving the shares directly to the public,” Musk wrote Sunday.

“This is what I will be doing.”

Several hours later, Musk followed up with his announcement that he would begin distributing SpaceX stock to American children in 2027.

The proposal would represent one of the largest individual stock giveaways ever announced, potentially giving millions of children a direct financial interest in a company involved in rocket launches, satellite communications, and other advanced technologies.

SpaceX, founded by Musk in 2002, has become a major contractor for NASA and the U.S. government, while its Starlink satellite network provides internet connectivity to customers around the world.

The company is also pursuing ambitious plans for expanded space exploration and advanced technological development, with Musk frequently discussing the possibility of establishing a permanent human presence on Mars.

For families, the proposed distribution would mean that children could become shareholders in a company whose future financial performance would directly affect the value of their investments.

However, significant questions remain unanswered, including whether the shares would be held in custodial accounts, whether recipients would be permitted to sell them, and what tax or administrative requirements might accompany the transfers.

Musk has also not clarified whether his reference to every child in America includes all minors living in the United States or only those meeting specific citizenship or residency requirements.

For now, the announcement remains a pledge rather than an established distribution program, with additional details expected before the proposed rollout next year.

Tens of thousands of mispallelim expected to visit Kever Rochel for the yahrtzeit of Rochel Imeinu this week will encounter major changes in transportation and access arrangements, with organizers introducing a new system modeled after the annual Lag Ba’omer gathering in Meron. Under the revised plan, buses will no longer bring passengers directly to the entrance of the kever, and visitors will instead be required to walk approximately ten minutes in each direction.

The new arrangements will take effect beginning Wednesday night and continuing through Thursday, 11 Cheshvan, when large crowds traditionally travel to Kever Rochel to daven on the yahrtzeit. Organizers hope the changes will eliminate the severe traffic congestion and lengthy delays that have repeatedly disrupted transportation during previous years.

According to sources, this year’s preparations have also involved a change in the company responsible for managing the event. For the first time, the production contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process following a directive from legal advisers at Israel’s Ministry of Religious Services.

In previous years, the annual gathering was organized by Azrieli Productions. This year, however, the contract was awarded to Kapayim Productions, which will oversee the logistical arrangements and coordination of the large-scale event.

The company’s producer visited the site during the past week to familiarize himself with the layout of the complex and assess the particular requirements of the chareidi public, which makes up a substantial portion of those who visit the kever during the yahrtzeit.

The preparations are taking place under significant financial constraints. According to the report, the entire budget allocated for this year’s event is just 900,000 shekels, considerably less than the amounts provided in previous years.

Organizers have also been required to cover expenses unrelated to the usual arrangements for the yahrtzeit, including the relocation of protective shelters that were installed at the complex during the war with Iran.

Until recently, the shelters were positioned near the entrance to the kever. To accommodate the anticipated crowds and free up space in the immediate vicinity of the entrance, they have now been transferred to the upper parking lot.

The relocation alone cost approximately 50,000 shekels, consuming more than five percent of the total event budget and leaving organizers with fewer resources for other aspects of the operation.

The most significant change for visitors, however, involves the route between the buses and the kever itself.

In previous years, buses carrying mispallelim were permitted to proceed through the security corridor leading from Checkpoint 300 to the entrance of the complex. Passengers were dropped off close to the kever, allowing them to reach the site with relatively little walking.

That arrangement frequently created serious transportation problems. The narrow entrance road and nearby traffic circle became congested as buses continuously entered and exited, resulting in substantial delays and lengthy waiting periods for those attempting to arrive or depart.

Under the new system, buses will stop before the yellow security gate rather than continuing through the corridor toward the kever. Passengers will disembark at that point and proceed on foot to the complex.

The walk is expected to take approximately ten minutes each way, and the same arrangement will apply to visitors returning to their buses after davening.

Organizers believe that keeping buses away from the narrow entrance will allow traffic to move more efficiently and prevent the bottlenecks that have plagued previous gatherings.

An official involved in managing the event compared the new arrangements directly to the transportation system used for the massive annual gathering at the kever of Rav Shimon bar Yochai in Meron.

“Just as in Meron, where buses drop off the public at the bottom of the mountain and there is a walk of approximately 20 minutes to the kever, we have adopted the same idea here,” the official told Emess. “It is far preferable to the collapse of the transportation system that occurred every year.”

Special accommodations will be available for elderly visitors and individuals with disabilities who cannot comfortably make the walk. Organizers will operate small electric vehicles, including golf carts, to transport those requiring assistance between the drop-off area and the kever.

Additional details published by the National Center for the Development of Holy Sites confirm that private vehicles and buses will not be permitted to enter the Kever Rochel complex during the yahrtzeit. Pedestrians will be allowed to travel along the designated route from the Rosemary Junction area to the kever, subject to security instructions.

Dedicated bus service will operate from the western parking lot of Teddy Stadium in Yerushalayim, near Gates 8 and 9. Routes 662 and 663 will transport passengers directly to the designated drop-off area near the yellow gate.

The special service is scheduled to operate Wednesday, October 21, from 3 p.m. until 6 a.m. Thursday, and again Thursday, October 22, from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. Passengers will be charged the regular urban public transportation fare and are being advised to load their Rav-Kav cards in advance, as reloading facilities will not be available at the site.

Regular bus routes 163 and 238 will not operate during the yahrtzeit arrangements, and several nearby bus stops will be temporarily closed. Officials have also warned that waiting times and congestion remain possible despite the new transportation plan.

The revised arrangements represent the first year that the Meron-style system will be implemented at Kever Rochel. Following the yahrtzeit, organizers intend to review the operation, evaluate the effectiveness of the changes and determine whether further adjustments will be necessary for future years.

{Matzav.com}