Feed aggregator

Rav Yitzchak Yosef, nosi of Shas’ Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, sent a special letter to Shas chairman MK Aryeh Deri congratulating him on the passage of the historic Basic Law: Torah Study, praising the legislation for elevating the honor and importance of Torah and its learners.

In the letter, Rav Yosef wrote that the law “has greatly increased kavod Shamayim and elevated the importance of Torah and those who study it.”

He continued by emphasizing the indispensable role of bnei Torah in protecting the Jewish people.

“Those who study Torah are the protectors of the Jewish people and ensure the transmission of Torah from generation to generation. May it be Hashem’s will that this will lead to a complete end to the persecution of Torah scholars and restore the situation to what it once was.”

Rav Yosef also praised the repeal of former minister Matan Kahana’s kashrus reform, offering special recognition to Religious Services Minister MK Michael Malkieli and ministry Director-General Yehuda Avidan for their efforts.

“I also extend my blessing to those engaged in safeguarding the walls of kashrus—MK Rabbi Michael Malkieli, together with the energetic and devoted Rabbi Yehuda Avidan and all those involved in this sacred work—who, with Hashem’s help, merited bringing this effort to completion and eliminating the danger that hovered over the kashrus standards in Eretz Yisrael.”

Last week, Rav Yosef took the unusual step of publicly intervening in the legislative process, sending a letter to Deri urging him to prioritize passage of the Torah Study Law.

Quoting the famous words of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, Rav Yosef wrote, “Ten li Yavneh v’Chachameha. There is no room for delay, and under no circumstances should the passage of the Torah Study Law be jeopardized. Regarding kashrus, we must save the Jewish people from eating neveilos and treifos and support the current version of the law. It is not sufficient merely to refrain from doing wrong.”

Following Rav Yosef’s appeal, Shas intensified its efforts to advance the legislation. Over the past day, both measures were approved in their final Knesset readings. The Basic Law: Torah Study formally recognizes Torah study as a foundational value of the State of Israel, while separate legislation repealed Kahana’s kashrus reform.

The new kashrus law, promoted by the Ministry of Religious Services, significantly restructures Israel’s kashrus supervision system and eliminates the longstanding direct employment relationship between supervisors and the establishments they oversee. Supporters say the legislation strengthens the integrity of the country’s kashrus system and reverses reforms that had drawn widespread criticism and prompted legal challenges before Israel’s Supreme Court.

In his concluding brocha to Deri, Rav Yosef wrote that the passage of the Torah Study Law had increased kavod Shamayim and affirmed the central role of Torah scholars in safeguarding the Jewish people. He expressed hope that even those distant from Torah and mitzvos would come to recognize the greatness of Torah learners and that the legislation would ultimately bring an end to the persecution they have endured.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu sharply defended the recently enacted law freezing the arrests of yeshivah students during private conversations with government ministers, reportedly condemning the arrest of Torah scholars and comparing the practice to religious persecution in Soviet Russia.

According to a report by Channel 14 correspondent Moti Kastel, Netanyahu expressed anger over criticism of the law, which was temporarily suspended by Israel’s High Court pending its review of petitions challenging the legislation.

During the conversations, Netanyahu reportedly urged ministers to push back forcefully against opponents of the law.

“We need to push back against this false propaganda. This law causes no harm whatsoever!” he said.

Netanyahu argued that freezing arrests would actually encourage military enlistment rather than discourage it.

“We want recruits. We don’t want arrests. The more arrests there are, the fewer recruits there will be. We’re hearing this from the heads of the hesder yeshivos. The moment this threat exists, everything stops. It only sows hatred and division. Anyone who is not learning should face the full force of the law.”

The prime minister also strongly criticized the ongoing arrests of bnei Torah, invoking the persecution of religious Jews under the Soviet regime.

“Taking Torah learners? They did this in Russia, and we cried out against it! This is not the solution. The Torah is our Jewish heritage for hundreds of generations! It is what has sustained the Jewish people.”

Netanyahu also addressed the recently approved Basic Law: Torah Study, dismissing criticism of the measure.

“What do they want? The law states that Torah study is a foundational value in Israel’s heritage. Wow! What’s the big deal? There’s nothing more to it.”

{Matzav.com}

A dramatic coalition showdown erupted in the Knesset on Wednesday evening just before the final vote on the government’s landmark judicial reform bill, after MK Moshe Gafni threatened to block the legislation unless funding issues affecting Chareidi preschool teachers were resolved. Following hours of behind-the-scenes negotiations, Gafni prevailed, clearing the way for the bill to move forward.

The legislation, championed by Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Constitution Committee Chairman MK Simcha Rothman, reached its final stages after roughly 70 committee meetings. However, moments before the decisive vote, the process came to an abrupt halt as Chareidi parties threatened to withhold their support, triggering a direct confrontation between Gafni and Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich.

As coalition leaders scrambled to prevent the bill’s collapse, Rothman deliberately prolonged his speech from the Knesset podium, buying time for intensive negotiations behind the scenes. Those talks ultimately ended with the coalition accepting Gafni’s demands.

At the heart of the dispute was growing frustration within United Torah Judaism, particularly from Gafni, over the government’s failure to approve promised seniority-based salary increases for Chareidi preschool teachers. UTJ accused Smotrich of intentionally delaying the funding and removing it from the government’s agenda in an effort to pressure the party politically, specifically to secure representation for his Religious Zionism Party in the municipal coalition in Beit Shemesh.

In response, UTJ informed coalition leaders that it would not support one of the government’s signature judicial reform measures, a move that would almost certainly have doomed the legislation.

Religious Zionism fired back with an unusually sharp public response. Associates of Smotrich argued that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara should “send flowers” to Gafni because, by threatening the bill, he was effectively preserving what they described as her judicial “dictatorship.”

Party officials also warned that if Gafni and his colleagues were responsible for defeating legislation intended to curb the attorney general’s authority, “they will not be able to show their faces in the Chareidi street,” adding bluntly, “they should not threaten us.”

Despite the heated rhetoric, Gafni’s political pressure ultimately succeeded. After marathon negotiations, Smotrich’s camp agreed that funding for the salary increases would remain on the government’s agenda, officially resolving the crisis.

The confrontation unfolded despite an earlier coalition agreement under which the Chareidi parties had pledged full support for the attorney general legislation as part of a broader package negotiated with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In return, the coalition had advanced several key Chareidi-backed measures, including the Basic Law: Torah Study, the law freezing the arrests of draft evaders—which was later suspended by the High Court—and legislation repealing the kashrus reform.

Gafni’s last-minute threat briefly cast doubt over the entire agreement. Once the dispute over the preschool teachers’ funding was resolved, however, coalition unity was restored and the legislative package remained intact.

The legislation at the center of the dispute is designed to significantly reshape the relationship between Israel’s government and the attorney general. Its primary provision removes the binding status of the attorney general’s legal opinions, making them advisory rather than mandatory for ministers and the cabinet.

Under the proposal, the attorney general will continue serving as the government’s chief legal adviser, offering legal guidance and outlining available options while helping ensure compliance with the law. Final policy decisions, however, would remain with elected officials.

The bill further provides that while written legal opinions from the attorney general will reflect the government’s legal position, they will not themselves determine the law. The government will be permitted to conclude that an opinion does not accurately reflect existing law, provided it reports that determination to the Knesset Constitution Committee.

In addition, the legislation grants the government greater authority over its legal representation in the courts. If the attorney general declines to represent the government’s position, ministers will be authorized to retain private outside counsel to argue the government’s case. With the coalition crisis resolved, the legislation is now expected to proceed to a final vote.

{Matzav.com}

The struggle over Israel’s military draft law is set to intensify dramatically after the Sanzer Rebbe announced that he will personally lead a mass tefillah rally and protest outside Military Prison 10 following the arrests of two members of the Sanz community over the draft issue.

The move comes less than a day after emergency meetings were held by senior Sanz er activists to coordinate a series of nationwide demonstrations in response to the arrests. News of the Rebbe’s personal involvement surprised many Chassidim and is being viewed as a major escalation in the campaign.

According to organizers, the decision was made after an avreich and a yeshivah bochur from the Sanzer community were arrested in recent days under Israel’s military draft law. The Rebbe will interrupt his stay in Caesarea, where he had been resting, and is expected to arrive Thursday evening at 7:00 p.m. at the entrance to Military Prison 10.

He will be accompanied by thousands of Sanzer Chassidim from across Israel, who are expected to travel to the prison on organized buses for what organizers describe as a massive prayer gathering and protest outside the prison walls.

Those coordinating the event say the Rebbe’s decision represents a significant breakthrough in the campaign against the draft law. He will become the second member of the Chassidishe Agudas Yisroel’s Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah to personally lead a demonstration outside the military prison together with his Chassidim. The first to do so was the Gerrer Rebbe.

{Matzav.com}

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., said Wednesday that while he remains committed to the Democratic Party, he would walk away if it formally abandoned its support for Israel. Speaking at The Hill Nation Summit in Washington, D.C., Fetterman said backing Israel remains a defining principle for him.

“If our party ever becomes — and just makes it official — the anti-Israel party, that’s when I would leave because that’s been a moral clarity for me,” he said Wednesday during an interview at the Hill Nation Summit in Washington, D.C.

Fetterman said he has become increasingly troubled by what he sees as a growing shift among Democrats away from supporting Israel, driven in part by pressure from the party’s progressive wing.

“My long-term concern has been with the Democratic Party, as I am a member of that, is that our party is going to back away and turn its back on Israel,” he said.

As an example, Fetterman pointed to House Minority Whip Katherine Clark’s support for an amendment introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that sought to eliminate the $3.3 billion in annual U.S. security assistance provided to Israel.

Although the proposal failed in the House on Wednesday, Fetterman argued that Clark’s vote reflected a broader ideological movement taking shape within the Democratic Party.

“You look at the kinds of individuals that are winning our recent primaries,” he said. “It’s becoming more anti-, anti-Israel and hostile to people” who are pro-Israel.

He also criticized Democrats whom he believes are attempting to appeal to voters who are deeply opposed to Israel.

“are trying to ingratiate ourselves with that segment of the base of our voters are intensely, intensely anti-Israel.”

Fetterman acknowledged that Republicans have approached him about changing parties but declined to discuss the conversations in detail, saying they were private.

The Pennsylvania senator also expressed concern about the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, where progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed has been performing well in public polling.

He argued that if El-Sayed secures the nomination, Democrats would be forced to invest substantially more resources to remain competitive in the battleground state during the general election.

“Rogers just barely, barely lost in ’24,” Fetterman said, referring to former Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate who narrowly lost the 2024 Michigan Senate race to Sen. Elissa Slotkin.

“If El-Sayed wins, then that puts Michigan much more in play for us and would require us to spend more money. What’s defined El-Sayed is the more anti-Israel and hostile-to-Israel thing,” Fetterman said.

Fetterman also took aim at progressive candidates who continue to embrace the “defund the police” movement, questioning whether Democrats have learned from the political setbacks they suffered in the 2024 election.

“Now here’s more Democrats to ‘defund the police.’ Here we are back to part of the worst impulses that we just can’t resist,” Fetterman said.

“We forgot the crazy things that we said and that cost us the election in 2024. Now we want to revisit that,” he continued.

“If anything, they’re coming back in the strongest kind of terms. Look at the people who are winning.”

Among those candidates, Fetterman pointed to Darializa Avila Chevalier, a 32-year-old democratic socialist backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who defeated Rep. Adriano Espaillat in the Democratic primary for New York’s 13th Congressional District. He noted that Chevalier had previously deleted a social media account in which she advocated abolishing police, borders, and prisons, and asserted that Israel does not exist.

Fetterman also criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for continuing to strongly support Graham Platner in Maine’s Senate race despite reports published by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal in early June detailing allegations about Platner’s past.

According to Fetterman, the collapse of Platner’s campaign has made it “more difficult” for Democrats to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins and regain control of the U.S. Senate.

{Matzav.com}

The New York Times asked a federal court on Wednesday to block Justice Department subpoenas issued to several of its reporters, setting the stage for a high-profile legal battle over press freedom and the government’s effort to uncover the sources behind leaked information concerning security concerns involving the new Air Force One.

In a statement accompanying the newspaper’s legal challenge, David McCraw, the Times’ senior vice president and deputy general counsel, argued that the administration’s actions were intended to retaliate against the newspaper.

“As we set out in our motion, these subpoenas are brought in bad faith to punish The Times for its coverage,” David McCraw, the newspaper’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel, said in a statement.

“They violate the constitutional rights of The Times and its journalists.

“We are going to court to defend our journalists’ rights to report freely on the administration and to provide the public with stories that matter,” McCraw’s statement said.

The motion was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the reporters were ordered to appear before a federal grand jury under subpoenas served last Friday.

Although the newspaper initially anticipated that five reporters would receive subpoenas, only three journalists were ultimately served.

The subpoenas, which were delivered directly to the reporters’ homes, represented a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s campaign to identify the sources of classified leaks. Press freedom advocates quickly criticized the move as an attempt to intimidate journalists and news organizations.

The latest development follows an earlier incident this year in which FBI agents searched the home of a Washington Post reporter and seized her electronic devices as part of a separate leak investigation.

At the center of the dispute is reporting by The New York Times concerning security issues involving the newly commissioned Air Force One aircraft.

The aircraft, which was gifted by Qatar and later underwent approximately $400 million in upgrades and modifications by the Trump administration, recently entered active service.

However, when President Trump departed last week for the NATO summit in Turkey, he traveled aboard an older Air Force One rather than the newly upgraded aircraft.

Citing anonymous sources, the Times reported that the Secret Service had urged Trump to use the older aircraft because the newer jet lacked certain advanced defensive capabilities, including anti-missile systems.

Trump publicly rejected those reports on social media, dismissing claims that security concerns played any role in the decision.

The Justice Department has defended its decision to subpoena the reporters, insisting that its investigation is focused on the unauthorized disclosure of classified information rather than on journalists themselves.

“to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

“We value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country,” the department said after the Times reported it had received the subpoenas.

“But DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information,” the DOJ said.

During his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended approving the subpoenas.

“The Department of Justice requires that I authorize it, which I did.

“And those reporters: we’re not targeting reporters, they’re material witnesses,” he said.

When Sen. Peter Welch questioned whether prosecutors intended to force reporters to identify confidential sources, Blanche responded by emphasizing that the investigation concerns classified information.

“No, the question we want to ask them is who provided them with classified national security information, which everybody in this body should want to protect.”

Over the years, the Justice Department has repeatedly revised its internal guidelines governing leak investigations involving members of the press.

Although administrations from both parties have at times obtained journalists’ phone records during national security investigations, compelling reporters to testify before a grand jury about confidential sources has remained an exceptionally uncommon step.

In April 2025, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden administration policy that barred the secret seizure of journalists’ phone records during leak investigations, restoring broader investigative powers that many media organizations had strongly opposed.

The revised policy once again authorized prosecutors to use subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to identify government officials responsible for making “unauthorized disclosures” to reporters.

Bondi’s directive also stated that members of the news media are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” while requiring that subpoenas be “narrowly drawn.”

The memo further instructed that search warrants include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or news gathering activities,” the memo stated.

Earlier this year, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who covers the Trump administration’s restructuring of the federal government, during an investigation involving a Pentagon contractor accused of improperly removing classified documents.

{Matzav.com}