Rav Dov Landau voiced sharp criticism over the practice of screening girls during seminary (high school) admissions based on aptitude and “suitability,” even when they and their families are regarded as spiritually exemplary.
During a conversation that was recorded and later circulated, a questioner described the situation: “Girls who are outstanding in spirituality, their families are outstanding in spirituality, but the girls are not the most brilliant.”
Rav Landau responded pointedly: “What is this? Yeshivos?”
The questioner continued, noting that “the major seminaries don’t want them.”
Rav Landau reiterated: “What is this, yeshivos?!”
At that point, a grandson present added, “Yes! It’s terrible and awful. He is right.”
Rav Landau concluded emphatically: “It will not be kli gever al isha,” invoking the Torah prohibition of adopting inappropriate models from the opposite gender, in a clear rejection of applying yeshiva-style academic selectivity to girls’ seminaries.
The remarks come against the backdrop of ongoing tensions surrounding seminary admissions in Yerushalayim. At the beginning of the current academic year, a major dispute erupted when the municipality imposed student placements on several seminaries. In response, a number of institutions delayed opening the school year for days.
Subsequently, at Rav Landau’s personal request, an agreement was reached to open two additional ninth-grade classes at the Beis Yaakov Teachers Seminary (“the old seminary”) in Yerushalayim. The move ensured placements satisfactory to all girls who had remained at home without assignments.
In a personal letter to the seminary’s director, Rabbi Yisrael Levin, Rav Landau wrote that “the cry of the students is piercing and it is impossible to stand aside,” instructing him to open the additional classes. Following that intervention, Rav Landau directed that the school year begin in all ninth-grade classes throughout the city’s seminaries once the arrangements were finalized.
{Matzav.com}
In the wake of the recent arrest of several yeshiva bochurim by Israeli military authorities for the “offense” of learning Torah, the senior posek, Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein, penned a special letter of chizuk addressed to the bochurim who were taken into custody.
The letter was written to strengthen the detained bochurim, as well as their parents and families, many of whom are anxious and uncertain about what lies ahead. Rav Zilberstein framed the painful events within the timeless perspective of Chazal, emphasizing that everything unfolds with precise hashgachah from Shamayim.
At the beginning of the letter, Rav Zilberstein wrote:
“To the dear bochurim who were taken to prison because of Torah learning, and to all the bochurim and their parents who are worried and do not know what tomorrow will bring: In Maseches Berachos (61b) it is stated that once the wicked government decreed that Klal Yisroel should not engage in Torah study. Pappus ben Yehuda came and found Rabbi Akiva publicly assembling gatherings and learning Torah. He said to him: Akiva, are you not afraid of the government?”
The letter continues with the well-known mashal brought in the Gemara:
“He said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this comparable? To a fox walking along the riverbank who saw fish… He said to them: Why are you fleeing? They said to him: Because of the nets that men bring against us. He said to them: Would you like to come up onto dry land and dwell together, you and I, just as my ancestors dwelled with your ancestors? They said to him: Are you the one they call the cleverest of animals? You are not clever, but foolish. If in the place of our life we are afraid, in the place of our death all the more so. So too, we—now that we sit and engage in Torah, about which it is written ‘For it is your life and the length of your days’—if we go and neglect it, how much more so. It was not many days before they seized Rabbi Akiva and imprisoned him, and they also seized Pappus ben Yehuda and imprisoned him with him. Pappus said to him: Who brought you here? He replied: Fortunate are you, Rabbi Akiva, that you were seized for matters of Torah; woe to Pappus who was seized for idle matters.”
Rav Zilberstein then elaborated on the identity of Pappus and the deeper lomdus underlying the exchange.
“Who was Pappus?” Rav Zilberstein wrote. “The Vilna Gaon explains that he was among the gedolei hador, for he addressed Rabbi Akiva simply as ‘Akiva,’ implying that he was his colleague. If so, there was a genuine halachic discussion here—whether one is permitted to be moser nefesh for the sake of publicly gathering kehillah gatherings for limud haTorah. At first glance, Pappus seems correct, for we are commanded to give up our lives only for the three cardinal aveiros, and not for limud haTorah b’rabim.”
In concluding, Rav Zilberstein cited the explanation of the Birchas Shmuel:
“The Baal Birchas Shmuel explained that Pappus, too, understood that one must be moser nefesh for limud haTorah. Even though nothing is more beloved before the Ribbono Shel Olam than Rabbi Akiva and his chaveirim when they are alive in this world and learning Torah, nevertheless the continuity of Torah learning is the kiyum of the entire Torah. For if the young goats are not taught, there will be no mature rams—meaning that without transmitting Torah to the next generation, there is a bitul of the entire Torah. For that, one must be moser nefesh. This is a simple and clear matter.”
{Matzav.com}
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said he has encouraged President Donald Trump to act decisively against Iran’s leadership, arguing that the current moment presents a rare strategic opening that should not be squandered. In an interview with CNBC, Cruz described what he believes is a historic opportunity for sweeping geopolitical change if hostile regimes collapse and are replaced with governments aligned with the United States.
“We are at a moment where, in the next six months, we could realistically see the regimes in Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba all fall, and we could see them replaced with governments that want to be friends with America,” he stated.
https://twitter.com/i/status/2026338689215766914
While acknowledging the risks involved in such dramatic shifts, Cruz stressed the magnitude of the potential outcome. He conceded that “there are a thousand ways that can go wrong,” but he emphasized, “if that happened, that would be the biggest geopolitical shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
Cruz said he spoke with the President last week and argued that Iran’s government is in a uniquely vulnerable position following its loss in the 12-Day War with Israel in June 2024. “They’re teetering. There are real-world consequences to losing a war.”
He explained that he urged Trump to capitalize on what he sees as a fleeting chance to weaken or remove the ruling clerical leadership in Tehran. “What I’ve urged the President is: Do not miss this opportunity. If the Ayatollah is removed from power, it will make America much safer,” he said. “This is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. The Iranian regime is responsible for murdering hundreds of American servicemen and women. They fund terrorism all over the world. So, What I’ve urged the president is, number one, support the protesters and arm the protesters. Let the people of Iran have the ability to overthrow their government.”
Cruz also suggested that limited U.S. military action could be imminent, though he made clear he does not anticipate a large-scale ground deployment. He said that “there’s a very real possibility we will see potentially in a matter of days limited strikes. What we’re not going to see is boots on the ground.”
Earlier Tuesday, former State Department official Aaron David Miller speculated that President Trump could use his State of the Union address to announce military action against Iran.
“Rubio briefing Congress hours before SOTU, delaying his trip to Israel from Saturday to Monday, wouldn’t surprise if Trump announces beginning of strikes against Iran in speech,” Miller wrote.
“No President has ever announced the start of military conflict in a SOTU. Why would they? That’s reason enough for Trump to do it,” he added.
{Matzav.com}
What a busha.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani characterized Monday’s confrontation in Washington Square Park as a “snowball fight,” even as police officials confirmed that several NYPD officers were injured and required hospital treatment for facial cuts after being struck while responding to a disturbance call.
According to an NYPD spokesperson, officers were dispatched to the park following reports of a large, unruly crowd. While attempting to manage the situation, multiple officers were hit in the head with snowballs.
After the incident, NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch issued a statement condemning what occurred, calling the conduct “disgraceful” and “criminal,” and confirming that detectives have opened an investigation.
When questioned about the matter during a press conference Tuesday, Mamdani said he had watched footage of the encounter and maintained that “it looked like kids at a snowball fight.”
The mayor further indicated that he does not believe those involved should be charged with assaulting a police officer.
Authorities confirmed that, as of now, no arrests have been made in connection with the episode.
Police unions, however, sharply rejected the mayor’s characterization. The Sergeants Benevolent Association (SBA) told Fox News Digital that while “some people” may attempt to dismiss the incident as “college hijinks or harmless kids throwing snowballs,” deliberately hurling objects at uniformed officers engaged in official duties amounts to assault.
“We cannot condemn strongly enough the recent disgraceful and dangerous attacks on NYPD Police Officers while responding to a 911 call in Washington Square Park,” SBA president Vincent Vallelong wrote in a statement. “The behavior of the people throwing the snowballs, many of whom are believed to be NYU students, was reckless and unlawful, and put the lives and safety of others at risk.”
Vallelong said those responsible for throwing snow and ice at officers “cross[ed] a clear line.”
“[Officers] are tasked with maintaining public safety in crowded public spaces, often while facing hostility simply for wearing the uniform,” he wrote. “When individuals choose to turn a park into a launching ground for attacks on police, they cross a clear line. Today it is snowballs. Tomorrow it could be rocks, bottles, or worse.
“No worker in this city should be subjected to having objects thrown at them while they do their job — least of all the men and women who run toward danger to protect others. This conduct emboldens further disorder and undermines respect for the rule of law.”
Vallelong also questioned why the mayor, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and NYU leadership had not forcefully denounced the incident.
“We call on city leadership, prosecutors, and the courts to treat these incidents with the seriousness they deserve,” he wrote. “… The members of the NYPD will continue to serve and protect every New Yorker — even those who show them disrespect. But they deserve the full support of city officials and the public when they are so brazenly attacked.”
The Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York likewise blasted the events as “unacceptable and outrageous.”
“This is the environment that NYC police officers are up against,” the association wrote in a statement. “Our police officers are being treated for their injuries, but the case CANNOT end there. The individuals involved must be identified, arrested and charged with assault on a police officer. And all of our city leaders must speak up to condemn this despicable attack.”
The Detectives’ Endowment Association also criticized those who targeted officers in the park.
“What we saw in Washington Square Park today was not harmless fun — it was a deliberate, outrageous, and dangerous attack on uniformed police officers,” the group’s President Scott Munro wrote in an X post. “The Detectives’ Endowment Association is calling on Mayor Mamdani and District Attorney Bragg to ensure every individual responsible for this illegal behavior is prosecuted. No free pass. No get out of jail free card.”
“Make no mistake: detectives will do what they always do,” he added. “They will identify those involved and they will apprehend them. Our men and women in blue deserve to be safe. They deserve to be protected. And they deserve to be respected. They earn it every single day.”
Although Mamdani did not directly address accusations that dismissing the incident was “an overreaction,” he later posted a message on social media urging respect for law enforcement.
“I’ve seen the videos of kids throwing snowballs at NYPD officers in Washington Square Park. Officers, like all city workers, have been out in a historic blizzard, keeping New Yorkers safe and cars moving. Treat them with respect. If anyone’s catching a snowball, it’s me,” Mamdani wrote.
Political leaders, including Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, also pressed the mayor to unequivocally condemn the attack.
“This is disgraceful,” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., wrote on X. “@NYCMayor and every elected official in our city should denounce this juvenile attack on our #NYPD. Back the blue and hold those who disrespect them accountable.”
Cuomo added that Mamdani, “who has a history of calling the police ‘racist, evil, wicked and corrupt’” had “set the tone.”
“Words have consequences,” Cuomo wrote on social media. “We are seeing that in the growing disrespect for law enforcement — just as we’ve seen it in the rise in antisemitism. Real leaders understand that. This mayor does not. @NYCMayor must denounce this at once.”
Former NYPD Chief of Department John Chell also condemned the episode, calling it a “f—ing disgrace,” and noting that the officers “were outnumbered — yet stood tall the best they could.”
He said he expects a firm response from City Hall.
“Tomorrow morning at about 0800 hours the @NYPDnews better be in full force in Washington Square Park and other parks in full force,” he said in another post. “Let me be clear — if one snowball hits a cop, there should be very forceful arrests – make it legally painful.”
{Matzav.com}Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara informed the Israeli High Court of Justice on Tuesday that the government’s failure to revoke personal economic benefits from yeshiva students obligated to enlist constitutes a “lapse,” arguing that the lack of sanctions contradicts prior court rulings and harms both the army’s needs and the principle of equality in bearing the burden of service.
In her response to petitions questioning why no sanctions have been imposed on members of the chareidi community who received draft orders but did not report for service, Baharav-Miara wrote: “The government has not formulated a plan to revoke personal economic benefits from those evading service, despite the fact that personal and economic sanctions against draft evaders from the chareidi public have proven effective. This lapse contradicts the High Court’s ruling, harms the needs of the army, and undermines equality in the burden of service.”
At the outset of her submission, the Attorney General emphasized that the respondents recognize their obligation to take effective personal enforcement measures against individuals who were issued draft orders and failed to appear. Such enforcement, she wrote, is necessary to ensure equal application of the draft requirement to the entire public. This includes both criminal proceedings and the development of an effective, equitable, and proportionate government enforcement policy that incorporates complementary economic-civilian measures against evaders, in accordance with the principles established in the relevant High Court ruling.
Baharav-Miara noted that, in recognition of this duty, IDF authorities have for some time been working to enforce the draft requirement on members of the chareidi community through continued implementation of the army’s enlistment plan and increased enforcement efforts. As part of this process, draft appearance orders were gradually issued to all eligible chareidi draft candidates, marking what she described as a milestone enabling equal enforcement. Following the issuance of these orders, the “enlistment chain” began, eventually leading to a significant increase in the number of draft-eligible individuals who completed the summons process, many of whom were later formally designated as draft evaders.
At that stage, she explained, authorities are able to take personal enforcement steps using tools available to the military, including arrests at border crossings and coordinated enforcement and arrest operations in civilian areas, subject to coordination with Israel Police.
According to updated data cited in the filing, implementation of the army’s enforcement plan and what she described as unprecedented outreach efforts have led to an increase in the number of chareidi recruits compared to the corresponding third of the previous recruitment year. Military officials estimate that during the first third of the 2025 recruitment year (July–October 2025), approximately 1,100 chareidi recruits enlisted.
However, the Attorney General stressed that the upward trend remains far from meeting the army’s operational needs or satisfying the value of equality. She therefore underscored the importance of expanding the measures that led to the increase, including strengthening and refining enforcement tools, with particular emphasis on personal enforcement steps.
She further wrote that the government must, without delay, formulate an effective enforcement policy that fully utilizes available tools and economic sanctions, including revocation of personal financial benefits. According to professional officials in the Finance Ministry, such measures are expected to have a particularly significant impact on enlistment numbers. These officials assess that combining enforcement actions with economic sanctions would increase incentives to enlist, enhance deterrence against draft evasion, and lead to further growth in recruitment figures.
In addition, Baharav-Miara stated that, in the view of government professionals, the expectation within the chareidi sector that legislation will be passed effectively granting exemptions from service and canceling criminal and disciplinary proceedings against those declared evaders currently serves as a negative incentive for enlistment. Absent such expectations, she argued, enforcement efforts would likely yield even higher results.
She also highlighted the significance of the IDF Chief of Staff’s July 2025 decision to issue blanket summons orders to all draft-eligible members of the chareidi public and to shorten the time frame for declaring an individual a draft evader.
According to assessments by professional officials in the army and various government ministries, the use of personal sanctions—such as detention and arrest at border crossings—is a vital tool in strengthening the standing army and combating draft evasion. These measures, she wrote, have a substantial deterrent effect and prompt eligible recruits to regularize their status.
She explained that only after a draft-eligible individual is formally declared an evader—following exhaustion of all summons procedures—can authorities initiate proactive enforcement actions or pursue disciplinary or criminal proceedings, depending on the circumstances. With the broad issuance of summons orders and adjustments made to the enlistment process that shortened the timeline to evader designation, those personal sanctions now apply to a larger group of draft-eligible individuals, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of draft enforcement.
{Matzav.com}
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that Iran is eager to reach an agreement with the United States but continues to stop short of explicitly renouncing its pursuit of nuclear weapons, a sticking point he highlighted just hours before delivering his State of the Union address.
The President made the remarks during a meeting at the White House with television anchors from several major networks, where he discussed themes expected to feature prominently in his speech.
“Iran wants to make a deal more than I do, but they just say the sacred phrase, we won’t build nuclear weapons,” the President told the anchors, as quoted in The Hill.
A day earlier, Trump dismissed media reports claiming that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine had cautioned him against proceeding with a potential strike on Iran. The President pushed back on the characterization and rejected suggestions that he was facing internal resistance over military options.
In a separate post on Truth Social, Trump also denied reports that he was weighing limited strikes against Iranian targets. At the same time, he reiterated his warning to Tehran that failure to reach an agreement would carry serious consequences, stating that if a deal is not made, “it will be a very bad day” for them.
As tensions continue to simmer, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, cautioned that any military action against his country would have far-reaching effects.
“We call upon all nations committed to peace and justice to take meaningful steps to prevent further escalation,” Gharibabadi said during a speech at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.
He further warned that an attack would not remain confined to the targeted state, stressing that those who initiate or back such measures would ultimately be held accountable for the fallout.
{Matzav.com}
President Trump will address a joint session of Congress tonight for his first State of the Union address since returning to the White House just over one year ago. It’s an opportunity for the president to tout his agenda and shape his party’s messaging ahead of this year’s midterm elections.
The president is expected to begin at 9 p.m. ET., and if history is any indication, prepare for a long night. Last year, in what was technically not a State of the Union speech, Trump addressed Congress for over 90 minutes, breaking records as the longest joint address in at least 60 years.
WATCH LIVE:
The State of the Union is tonight, and President Donald Trump is scheduled to give his diagnosis on how the country is doing one year into his second term.
The nation’s attention will be on the president, but the audience may be where the action happens.
Not too long ago, members were expected to watch the speech respectfully. They could clap or stand to express approval, but otherwise had to be quiet. Increasingly, members of Congress are using the speech as a platform for their own political stances and making themselves the main characters of the night.
When one Republican, Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, shouted “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during a 2009 address before a joint session of Congress, it was a national scandal. The House voted to formally reprimand Wilson in a bipartisan move.
In 2006, Beverly Young, the wife of then-Rep. Bill Young of Florida, was ejected from the House chamber ahead of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union for wearing a T-shirt supporting the Iraq War. Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war protester, was arrested at the same speech for wearing a T-shirt protesting the war.
Not for yelling. Not for interrupting. For a T-shirt. (The U.S. Capitol Police chief said later that he regretted removing the women from the chamber.)
Those norms are changing. In recent years, there have been a variety of theatrics that make calling the president a liar look positively quaint. Jeers and boos are the norm. Former representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) caused President Joe Biden to pause his speech in 2024 by shouting the name of nursing student Laken Riley, who had been killed by an undocumented immigrant.
In 2023, she repeatedly screamed “liar” during his address when he said some Republican lawmakers wanted to sunset Social Security, and she was hardly the only one. Reps. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) and Eli Crane (R-Arizona) joined her on their feet, and a chorus of Republicans booed the president in an attempt to drown him out.
Democrats have also used the speech to express disapproval in ways that have become more visible over time. During his first address to Congress as president in 2017, Democratic congresswomen wore white in homage to the women’s suffrage movement and in rebuke of Trump’s sexist comments. Dozens of Democratic congresswomen have continued to wear white since.
Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi dramatically tore up Trump’s speech in 2020 from the dais, later telling reporters it was “a manifesto of mistruths.” During last year’s speech, several Democrats simply left the chamber.
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was removed from the House floor last year for yelling “you have no mandate to cut Medicaid” while waving his cane, after which he was censured, with 10 Democrats joining all Republicans.
Many Democrats are uneasy with the outbursts like Green’s, fearing they distract from the party’s more measured formal rebuttal after the speech (this year given by Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger). House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told his fellow Democrats this year to either be quiet or don’t come.
“The two options that are in front of us, in our House, is either attend with silent defiance, or to not attend, and send a message to Donald Trump in that fashion, which will include participation in a variety of different alternate programming,” Jeffries said during a news conference last week.
Several Democratic lawmakers are planning to speak at a “People’s State of the Union,” organized by left-leaning advocacy groups on the National Mall.
For reporters who sit in the chamber, watching the audience is often the biggest part of the job. Where we sit, high up behind the dais, we can’t see (and often can’t hear) the president but have a clear view of almost every seat on the floor. Not everything we notice is dramatic enough to make the headlines, but members’ behavior does give us an insight into where they stand on policy.
It’ll be interesting to watch how pro-free-trade Republicans react to Trump’s rhetoric on tariffs, a topic he’s almost certain to bring up tonight following the Supreme Court’s ruling last week that shot down much of his trade policy.
Trump is also weighing a strike on Iran, building up the U.S. military presence near the country. If he engages in an extended operation in Iran, he would be going back on a major promise made in his campaign: that he wouldn’t engage in new wars or nation building. We’ve already seen a scattering of Republicans voice opposition to an attack on Iran. Will more refuse to clap tonight?
Expect tonight’s speech to be long – Trump said it would be “because we have so much to talk about.” In case you missed it, Amber Phillips of The 5-Minute Fix newsletter (you can sign up here) wrote about what’s on Trump’s mind ahead of tonight’s speech. Be sure to follow our team’s coverage from the chamber tonight.
(c) 2026, The Washington Post
A veteran former State Department official said Tuesday that President Donald Trump may use his State of the Union address to reveal the start of US military action against Iran, an unprecedented move that would mark a dramatic escalation in tensions.
Aaron David Miller, a longtime diplomat who is now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, raised the possibility in a post on X hours before the president’s scheduled speech.
“Rubio briefing Congress hours before SOTU, delaying his trip to Israel from Saturday to Monday, wouldn’t surprise if Trump announces beginning of strikes against Iran in speech,” Miller wrote on X today (Tuesday).
He added, “No President has ever announced the start of military conflict in a SOTU. Why would they? That’s reason enough for Trump to do it,”
Miller previously served as an adviser on Arab-Israeli negotiations to six Secretaries of State between 1988 and 2003.
President Trump is set to address a joint session of Congress at 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday night.
The speculation follows Trump’s forceful rejection on Monday of media reports claiming that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine had cautioned him against launching a strike on Iran.
In a message posted on Truth Social, Trump also pushed back against reports suggesting he was weighing limited military action against the Islamic Republic. He reiterated that Tehran faces severe consequences if it fails to reach an agreement with Washington.
“Numerous stories from the Fake News Media have been circulating stating that General Daniel Caine, sometimes referred to as Razin, is against us going to War with Iran. The story does not attribute this vast wealth of knowledge to anyone, and is 100% incorrect,” wrote Trump.
He continued, “General Caine, like all of us, would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won. He knows Iran well in that he was in charge of Midnight Hammer, the attack on the Iranian Nuclear Development. It is a Development no longer, but rather, was blown to smithereens by our Great B-2 Bombers. Razin Caine is a Great Fighter, and represents the Most Powerful Military anywhere in the World. He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack.”
Trump also dismissed broader coverage of a possible confrontation as inaccurate and politically motivated.
“Everything that has been written about a potential War with Iran has been written incorrectly, and purposefully so. I am the one that makes the decision, I would rather have a Deal than not but, if we don’t make a Deal, it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them,” stated Trump.
{Matzav.com}
