[COMMUNICATED]
Register by NOVEMBER 15th to receive incredible early bird rates!
Discover Camp Bnei Aliyah — the ultimate summer adventure for boys entering 7th grade and up.
Experience a perfect blend of excitement, growth, and inspiration with:
Intense Sports
Action-Packed Trips
Engaging Torah Learning
Uplifting Shabbosim
…and so much more!
Join Camp Bnei Aliyah for an unforgettable Summer 2026!
Under the Auspices of Rav Aryeh Stechler, Rosh Yeshiva of Heichal Hatorah
Spots are limited — don’t miss out!
Register today to claim the early bird special!
[Video below.] A remarkable encounter took place this week between Rav Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, head of the Shuva Yisroel institutions, and Ye, the artist once known as Kanye West.
The meeting, held privately on Tuesday, was deeply emotional, as Ye expressed genuine regret for his past remarks about the Jewish community. He came, those present said, with humility and a sincere desire to seek forgiveness and begin again.
Rabbi Pinto received Ye warmly, sharing messages of Torah and hope, and offering spiritual encouragement. “A person is not defined by his mistakes, but by the way he chooses to correct them. This is the true strength of man: The ability to return, to learn, and to build bridges of love and peace,” Rabbi Pinto told Ye.
During their conversation, Ye spoke openly about his struggles and the consequences of his words. “I’m really blessed to be able to sit here with you today and just take accountability,” Ye said. “I was dealing with some various issues, bipolar, also, so it would take the ideas I had and had them, take them to an extreme where I would forget about the protection of the people around me, or myself.”
He went on to explain his realization that taking responsibility was essential: “So it’s like if you left the house and left your kid at the house and your kid went and messed up the kitchen and messed up the garage, mess up the living room. Now, when you get back, it’s your responsibility, because that’s your child,” he said. “And I really just appreciate you embracing me with open arms and allowing me to make amends. And this is beginning in the first steps, and the first brick by brick to build, to build back the strong walls.”
WATCH:
{Matzav.com}
Elon Musk’s showdown with Tesla investors ended in victory Thursday, as shareholders overwhelmingly signed off on an unprecedented $1 trillion compensation plan—after he warned he might walk away if it didn’t pass.
The massive payout, the biggest in corporate history, could make Musk the first trillionaire on the planet. But to claim it, he must meet a demanding set of milestones over the next ten years. Musk, 54, already tops the global wealth rankings, with an estimated $490.1 billion fortune, according to Forbes.
The structure of the deal splits Tesla stock into 12 separate tranches. The first payout comes only if Tesla’s market value hits $2 trillion and the company rolls out 20 million vehicles. Another phase triggers when Tesla reaches a $3 trillion valuation and produces one million “Optimus” humanoid robots.
If the automaker clears every target, Tesla’s worth would skyrocket to about $8.5 trillion, giving Musk control of roughly a quarter of the company’s shares.
Even limited success could mean astronomical gains. Should Tesla only meet the first two benchmarks, Musk alone would pocket $26 billion—an amount exceeding the total career pay of Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and Jensen Huang combined, according to Reuters.
Roughly three-quarters of shareholders backed the pay plan, according to preliminary results released at Tesla’s annual meeting. The show of support was a major boost for Musk after a turbulent period in which slumping sales had weighed on Tesla’s stock price.
For the company’s board, the result was equally crucial. Executives had cautioned investors that Musk might abandon the company entirely if the plan was voted down.
Not everyone was thrilled. The payout drew sharp criticism from several quarters, including Pope Leo XIV, who said it defied “the value of human life, of the family, of the value of society.” Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, one of Tesla’s biggest institutional investors, also opposed the measure.
Leading proxy advisors ISS and Glass Lewis recommended shareholders reject the deal, calling it excessive. Musk, undeterred, countered on Oct. 29, posting that “control of Tesla could affect the future of civilization.”
Longtime investor Ron Baron publicly supported the compensation package, praising Musk’s unmatched energy and vision. “Without his drive and uncompromising standards, there would be no Tesla,” he said.
The new plan also places no restrictions on Musk’s political involvement—a sticking point for some investors who had tied his collaboration with President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency to declining Tesla sales earlier this year.
Tesla’s board insists the company’s ambitious future—centered on self-driving cars and fleets of “Optimus” humanoid robots—requires Musk’s leadership. “If we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over that robot army?” Musk asked on an earnings call. “I don’t feel comfortable building that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”
The proposal came together after a Delaware judge invalidated Musk’s earlier $56 billion pay deal, ruling that it was “excessive” and tainted by conflicts of interest. Furious at the decision, Musk promptly switched Tesla’s legal home from Delaware to Texas.
Ahead of the shareholder meeting, prediction platform Kalshi forecasted a 92% likelihood that investors would approve the plan. Tesla’s board, in a statement posted to its website before the vote, urged them to do just that: “the future of Tesla is in your hands.”
“We are at a pivotal juncture in Tesla’s history, and the proposals the Special Committee has carefully designed and the Board has put forward will help determine Tesla’s future,” the statement said. “If you believe, like us, that Elon is the CEO that can make our ambitious vision a reality, vote NOW.”
Despite the ups and downs, Tesla shares have risen nearly 20% this year. Investors appear to be betting on Musk’s ability to steer through weak earnings, a maturing product lineup, and aggressive new competition from Chinese rivals like BYD.
Still, Musk himself acknowledged in July that the next few months could be bumpy. “I see a few rough quarters ahead,” he said, though he added that Tesla’s trajectory would shift once the company achieved “autonomy at scale in the second half of next year.”
{Matzav.com}
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Thursday that the Trump administration is preparing to roll out new national dietary guidelines this December, part of an aggressive effort to combat the country’s soaring obesity rates and improve public health.
“We’re about to release dietary guidelines that are going to change the food culture in this country,” Kennedy declared during an event held at the White House.
The updated recommendations had originally been scheduled for release by the end of October, but that timeline was derailed by the government shutdown. According to officials, the revised target date for publication is now December, with both the Department of Agriculture and HHS coordinating the rollout.
Kennedy said the forthcoming changes are intended not only to reshape Americans’ eating patterns but also to align national nutrition policy with his Make America Healthy Again initiative. The new approach, he emphasized, aims to bridge the gap between modern dietary trends and long-term wellness.
The federal guidelines, which undergo revision every five years, play a crucial role in shaping everything from school lunch menus to food assistance programs. Kennedy has repeatedly argued that decades of poor eating habits have contributed heavily to the nation’s worsening health crisis.
He has also hinted that the updated recommendations will promote a stronger focus on whole foods and advocate for the inclusion of more natural saturated fats derived from dairy and meat.
Kennedy’s comments came as President Donald Trump announced a separate agreement with pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to expand access and lower costs for the obesity treatments Zepbound and Wegovy—an initiative closely tied to the administration’s broader health agenda.
{Matzav.com}
In a decisive ruling, a federal judge has mandated that the Trump administration fully fund November’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by Friday, rebuffing the government’s proposal to issue only partial payments during the ongoing federal shutdown.
“People have gone without for too long,” declared Judge Jack McConnell during Thursday’s hearing in the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, as he delivered his order compelling immediate action.
The judge’s decision followed urgent pleas from the plaintiffs—representing a coalition of cities, non-profit organizations, labor unions, and business groups—who argued that partial funding would leave millions of low-income Americans struggling to put food on the table.
The administration had previously announced that it would not draw from a congressionally approved $4.65 billion contingency fund to finance SNAP for November. Full benefits for the month are estimated to cost about $8 billion, far exceeding what the government had planned to cover.
Because Congress has yet to pass a stopgap funding bill to reopen the government, many federal programs, including SNAP, have been left without appropriations. Traditionally, however, prior administrations have maintained SNAP funding during shutdowns to prevent disruptions in food assistance.
The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of municipalities and advocacy organizations, sought to force the administration to release funds from the contingency reserve and explore additional financial resources to sustain the program in its entirety.
At a hearing last Friday, Judge McConnell had already prevented the administration from suspending the food stamp payments, ordering officials to utilize the contingency fund “as soon as possible” and to identify any other available funding sources to meet the full cost.
In response, the administration informed the court on Monday that it intended to cover only 50% of the November benefits from the contingency fund, rejecting the idea of reallocating roughly $4 billion from the Child Nutrition Program or other reserves.
By Wednesday night, officials revised their proposal again, saying they would now cover 65% of benefits — a plan the judge ultimately deemed insufficient, insisting instead that full payments be made to the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP.
{Matzav.com}The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Trump can move forward with his directive requiring passport applicants to list their gender exactly as it appears on their birth certificates. This ruling overturns a lower court injunction that had temporarily stopped the policy and allowed individuals to choose whether to mark M, F, or X on their passports.
Gender markers were first introduced on U.S. passports in 1976. For more than three decades, the government has permitted citizens to align their passports with their gender identity rather than the designation listed at birth. The “X” option — representing those who do not identify as male or female — was introduced in 2021 during President Biden’s administration.
A coalition of plaintiffs led by Ashton Orr, who was accused of presenting a false passport because it still displayed a female gender marker, challenged the Trump policy in court. They argued that the rule would unfairly target “transgender and non-binary people,” undermine identification accuracy, and stem from unconstitutional bias in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.
“The challenged policy undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” Orr’s attorneys wrote. “It is aimed at the rejection of the identity of an entire group — transgender Americans — who have always existed.”
The Justice Department brought the issue before the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to reinstate Trump’s rule. In its emergency petition, the administration said the injunction “injures the United States by compelling it to speak to foreign governments in contravention of both the President’s foreign policy and scientific reality.”
By lifting the hold on the rule, the Supreme Court signaled support for the administration’s reasoning, allowing the birth-gender policy to be implemented while litigation continues. The ruling does not resolve the underlying legal questions but enables enforcement during ongoing proceedings in lower courts.
The justices divided 6–3 along ideological lines. The unsigned order stated, “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth, in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the dissent, joined by the court’s other liberal members, calling the decision a “pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion.”
“This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification,” she wrote.
{Matzav.com}
