Feed aggregator

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that Katie Zacharia, his newly selected White House press secretary, officially begins her duties today, October 12, and will make her first appearance before reporters at a White House news conference Tuesday morning.

Zacharia, an attorney and communications professional who has worked for the Trump administration, the president’s political campaigns and Trump Media & Technology Group, succeeds Karoline Leavitt, who left the position at the end of August to devote more time to her family.

Trump confirmed the schedule in a social media announcement Sunday, specifying that Zacharia’s introductory briefing will take place in the White House Press Briefing Room at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday.

“I am pleased to announce that Katie Zacharia will be beginning her term as Press Secretary tomorrow, Columbus Day, and will be doing an introductory News Conference on Tuesday at 9:30 A.M. from the Press Briefing Room in the White House,” Trump wrote.

The president also expressed confidence in Zacharia’s ability to represent his administration and communicate its policies to the American public.

He added, “Katie has been with me, in spirit, from the very beginning, and will do a fantastic job!”

Sunday’s announcement followed Trump’s formal selection of Zacharia on Friday, when he revealed that she would be taking over one of the administration’s most visible communications positions.

In introducing his new press secretary, Trump emphasized her legal training, government communications experience, television appearances and participation in his presidential campaigns. He also praised her longstanding loyalty to his political agenda.

“It is my Great Honor to have just appointed, as Press Secretary, Katie Zacharia. Katie currently serves as Senior Communications Advisor to Truth Social (Trump Media & Technology Group), where she has been outstanding! A native of California, Katie previously served as Spokesperson and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. Katie is a distinguished Graduate of Pepperdine University, and the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, an attorney, and a frequent Commentator on outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax. She was previously involved in my Campaigns, assisting in key Swing States, where we won 7 out of 7. She has an unblemished record of support, and has been a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning. She is, likewise, a devoted fan and member of MAGA! I am confident that Katie will deliver strong results for our Country as the next White House Press Secretary, as she has the respect of, and will work fantastically with, the Media, the American People, and my Administration. Katie is replacing the fabulous Karoline Leavitt, who did a fantastic job as Press Secretary. Good luck Katie!”

Before accepting the White House position, Zacharia served as a senior communications adviser to Truth Social, the social media platform owned by Trump Media & Technology Group. Her responsibilities placed her within the communications operation of a company closely associated with the president.

Originally from California, Zacharia earned degrees from Pepperdine University and its Caruso School of Law and is a practicing attorney. She has also established a public profile through appearances as a political analyst and commentator on Fox News and Newsmax.

Her previous government experience includes serving as a spokesperson and deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. She departed that agency in March before subsequently taking on her communications role with Trump Media.

Zacharia also worked on Trump’s presidential election efforts, including activities in politically competitive battleground states. Trump credited her with contributing to campaign operations in the seven swing states that he carried.

Her appointment marks another transition in the White House communications office following Leavitt’s departure, which Trump first disclosed in August.

At the time, Trump announced that Leavitt would be leaving her position at the end of that month, explaining that she wanted to spend additional time with her children and family.

The president spoke warmly of his departing spokeswoman, describing her as “one of my most trusted aides”, and saying she “will be departing her role at the end of the month so she can spend more time with her beautiful young children and family, a decision I totally understand and respect!”

Leavitt is now expected to move into television commentary, with plans to begin appearing as an on-air contributor for Fox News Channel on November 1.

{Matzav.com}

Iran has declared that Washington’s response to its seven conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz falls short of its demands, raising fresh doubts about prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough as President Donald Trump considers the possibility of renewed military action against Tehran.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Sunday that the United States had agreed to certain Iranian demands but had failed to provide satisfactory answers on others. His comments, carried by Iranian state media, came as Qatar continued facilitating indirect communications between the two countries.

The disagreement centers on a proposal Tehran presented during the United Nations General Assembly in September. Under that proposal, Iran offered to restore normal maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, provided Washington agreed to seven conditions established by the Iranian government.

The United States subsequently communicated its position through Qatari intermediaries, but Iranian officials say the response left several important questions unresolved.

Rezaei insisted that Iran would maintain its restrictions on American access to the strategically important waterway until its requirements were fulfilled.

“We presented seven conditions to the Americans and clearly stated that the Strait of Hormuz would not be opened to them, and no negotiations would take place, until these conditions are met.”

According to Rezaei, the next diplomatic move must come from Washington, with Tehran awaiting clarification rather than preparing another round of proposals.

Iran is “no longer in the process of responding to the Americans”, Rezaei said.

“In their response, they have accepted some of our conditions, while others remain unclear,” he added.

The White House did not immediately provide a comment when contacted by Reuters regarding the Iranian official’s statements.

The latest developments follow Tehran’s disclosure in late September that it had received an American reply concerning efforts to restore the Gulf ceasefire that had previously collapsed.

That acknowledgment came only days after Trump publicly announced that he had turned down Iran’s proposed arrangement, underscoring the substantial differences that continue to separate the two governments.

Qatar, working alongside other regional mediators, has remained involved in transmitting proposals and responses between Washington and Tehran. Those diplomatic efforts are intended to establish a framework for ending the conflict and restoring shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for international energy shipments.

Despite the ongoing exchanges, neither government has announced an agreement, and the dispute over Iran’s conditions remains unresolved.

At the same time, the Trump administration is weighing its military options while continuing to leave room for a negotiated resolution.

On Thursday, Trump announced that American forces would refrain from launching additional attacks against Iran ahead of the November 3 congressional midterm elections, providing a temporary period for diplomatic efforts to continue.

“We are having productive discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The president nevertheless portrayed the Iranian government as being under considerable economic and military strain, making clear that the United States would maintain pressure on Tehran as negotiations continued.

Trump returned to the subject during an appearance at the White House on Friday, expressing confidence that the conflict would conclude in the near future.

He suggested that Washington possessed the means to bring the confrontation to an end either through a diplomatic agreement or through additional military action.

He added, “We can do it either way, but it’s very simple – one way or another it’s gonna be over soon.”

The president’s decision to hold off on further strikes until after the midterm elections has not prevented American defense officials from preparing for the possibility that negotiations will fail.

According to a report published Thursday by The New York Times, Pentagon planners have developed military options for another major offensive targeting Iranian military capabilities and infrastructure.

The potential targets reportedly include missile facilities, drone installations, energy infrastructure and other strategically significant sites connected to Iran’s military operations.

Individuals familiar with the planning said the proposals contemplate a concentrated offensive extending over approximately three days.

The reported preparations indicate that Washington is preserving the option of a substantial military response even as regional intermediaries continue their efforts to resolve the confrontation through negotiations.

A historic chapter in the Skverer community of New Square is drawing to a close, as the chassidus has formally sold its old main beis medrash in a special halachic ceremony ahead of its demolition, clearing the way for a massive new building project made possible by a $7.2 million pledge from prominent Lakewood philanthropist Mr. Nachum Rokeach.

The unusual sale took place on Friday at the home of Rav Yosef Yisrael Eisenberger, a dayan of the Skverer community, following extensive consultations among the community’s rabbonim and dayanim regarding the proper halachic procedure for demolishing a building that had served as a makom tefillah for generations.

The decision comes approximately two months after a portion of the old beis medrash collapsed, prompting an extensive structural investigation that ultimately determined that the aging building could no longer be safely occupied and would have to be demolished.

The building, which stood for decades at the heart of New Square, had been one of the most significant centers of Skverer communal life, hosting countless tefillos, simchos, and gatherings throughout the years.

The community had already completed its enormous new main beis medrash, which now accommodates the central tefillos and major events of the chassidus. The older structure, situated alongside the new building, continued to serve smaller minyanim, shtieblach, and brissim even after the primary activities were transferred to the newer facility.

However, the future of the historic building changed dramatically in early August, when a large section of its ceiling suddenly gave way. The collapse occurred in an area associated with the older ezras nashim and minyanim rooms, sending debris crashing onto the benches below.

B’chasdei Hashem, despite the seriousness of the collapse, nobody was injured. Hatzolah volunteers responded to the scene and conducted searches to ensure that no one had been trapped or hurt.

The building was immediately closed, and access was prohibited pending a thorough assessment of its structural condition.

Several weeks later, on August 24, architects, engineers, and structural specialists completed an extensive inspection and concluded that the building suffered from serious stability problems. Their findings left the community with no practical alternative to demolishing the entire structure.

Before the collapse, community leaders had contemplated converting the old beis medrash into a dedicated heichal hatishen, where the Skverer Rebbe would conduct his weekly tishen and other major gatherings. The structural findings forced those plans to be abandoned.

The project has since taken on a new direction, with plans for a large, purpose-built heichal hashulchanos designed to accommodate the thousands of chassidim who gather in New Square for Shabbos, Yom Tov, and major occasions in the Rebbe’s court.

A major breakthrough came on Simchas Torah, when Mr. Nachum Rokeach of Lakewood stunned the assembled chassidim by pledging $7.2 million toward construction of the new facility.

The extraordinary commitment was announced publicly in the packed Skverer beis medrash after Rokeach was called to the Torah for Chassan Maftir.

Following his aliyah, the gabbai, R’ Dovid Berger, recited a Mi Shebeirach and announced the enormous donation in the presence of the Skverer Rebbe and thousands of chassidim.

Earlier that Yom Tov, before hakafos, Rokeach had entered the Rebbe’s private room together with members of his family and R’ Shalom Ber Fishl, one of the leading communal askanim, to inform the Rebbe of his intention to undertake the extraordinary commitment.

The Rebbe warmly blessed the philanthropist and expressed his appreciation for the tremendous undertaking, which will enable the community to proceed with a project that had been under consideration as part of its long-term expansion plans.

Rokeach has been a major supporter of Skverer institutions and projects in communities around the world. Earlier this year, a new Skverer beis medrash building bearing his name was inaugurated in Beit Shemesh, with the participation of Rav Aharon Mendel Twersky, the eldest son of the Skverer Rebbe.

With funding for the New Square project now secured, attention turned to the complex halachic questions surrounding the removal of the existing building.

Unlike an ordinary structure, a beis medrash possesses a special kedushah under halacha, and its demolition requires careful consideration of the relevant provisions of Shulchan Aruch and the rulings of the poskim.

The Skverer Beis Din Tzedek therefore issued a special halachic letter explaining the need to arrange a formal sale of the building and its contents to an outside purchaser, as part of the process of removing its sanctified status before demolition.

The sale was arranged for Erev Shabbos Parshas Bereishis and was to be conducted in the presence of seven respected members of the community, along with residents who wished to witness the proceedings.

In preparation for the ceremony, Rav Eisenberger reviewed the matter with the community’s other rabbonim and dayanim to ensure that every aspect of the transaction would be carried out in accordance with halacha.

On Friday, the sale was formally conducted at Rav Eisenberger’s home, completing a significant halachic step toward the planned demolition.

The transaction was intended to address the special status of the building as a place designated for Torah and tefillah. The halachic requirements governing the sale and subsequent treatment of a beis medrash differ from those applicable to ordinary communal property, making the involvement of the community’s beis din particularly important.

Although the old structure is slated for removal, one historically significant portion of the site is expected to be preserved. Community askanim previously indicated that the private tefillah room used by the previous Skverer Rebbe, which has stood at the location for more than six decades, would not be affected by the demolition.

That room holds particular historical and spiritual importance for the chassidus, connecting the present generation with the earlier years of the Skverer community’s development in America.

The planned heichal hashulchanos is expected to provide substantially expanded accommodations for the Rebbe’s tishen, major communal gatherings, and simchos, reflecting the enormous growth of the chassidus and the increasing number of visitors who travel to New Square to spend Shabbosos and Yomim Tovim in the Rebbe’s presence.

According to the initial reports, construction of the new facility is expected to be completed within approximately one year, although the precise demolition and construction schedule has not yet been publicly confirmed.

For the thousands of Skverer chassidim who spent years davening and participating in gatherings within the old building, its impending demolition marks the end of a familiar landmark in the center of their community. The special sale ceremony now brings the community one step closer to replacing the aging structure with a new facility intended to serve the expanding chassidus for generations to come.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

New York City’s controversial tax on luxury second homes is facing mounting legal and financial challenges after more than half of the 10,000 property owners who have applied for exemptions received approval, raising serious questions about whether Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration can collect the more than $500 million in annual revenue it originally projected.

Figures provided by the city’s Department of Finance show that, as of Friday morning, approximately 5,700 exemption applications had been approved. The number represents 57% of the applications submitted, although it does not establish that every remaining application has been denied, since some may still be awaiting a decision.

The development comes as property owners continue to challenge the new surcharge in court and submit applications to have their properties excluded from the tax.

When Mamdani and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul unveiled the measure, they presented it as a significant new source of revenue for the city. The tax targets luxury properties that are not used as their owners’ primary residences, including qualifying co-op apartments valued at more than $1 million and houses worth over $5 million.

City officials estimated that the measure would produce upwards of $500 million annually, money the administration has said would help finance municipal services and public priorities.

However, attorneys representing property owners argue that the city’s initial calculations may have substantially overstated the number of residences actually subject to the tax.

“I think the bigger fiscal question is whether the city’s $500 million revenue estimate was realistic in the first place,” said Ben Williams, an attorney with Rosenberg & Ellis who represents plaintiffs challenging the surcharge.

“Once primary residences are removed and overstated market values are challenged, we may find that the amount actually collectible is significantly less than projected,” he said.

The exemption figures are particularly significant because the tax is intended to apply to second homes rather than primary residences. Property owners who can establish that their homes qualify for an exemption may be able to avoid the surcharge altogether.

The administration is also confronting a series of lawsuits challenging the way the tax was introduced and questioning whether certain property owners are being treated unfairly.

One of the most consequential cases was brought on Staten Island by Randy Mastro, an attorney who previously served as first deputy mayor under Eric Adams.

The lawsuit challenged the city’s procedures for implementing the tax, including the notices sent to thousands of homeowners informing them that their properties could be subject to the new assessment.

A little more than a week ago, state Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi ruled in Mastro’s favor, determining that the city would have to restart the implementation process.

The decision represented a potentially significant setback for the administration, which had already begun notifying property owners and processing applications under the new system.

According to the ruling, the city had prematurely mailed notices to approximately 17,000 homeowners who were initially identified as potentially subject to the surcharge.

City officials have since revised that estimate downward, indicating that the number of affected property owners is now believed to be between approximately 10,000 and 13,000.

The reduction has added to questions about the reliability of the administration’s original revenue projections, although the number of properties ultimately subject to the tax and the amount owed by each owner remain to be determined.

City Hall immediately appealed Ozzi’s ruling and obtained a stay of the order, allowing the administration to continue implementing and collecting the surcharge while the appeal proceeds.

As a result, the tax remains in effect for now, despite the lower court’s ruling against the city’s rollout procedures.

The legal challenges extend beyond the Staten Island case. Two additional lawsuits pending in Long Island courts argue that the surcharge unfairly discriminates against property owners who maintain their primary residences outside New York City.

Among the prominent property owners challenging the measure are casino billionaire Steve Wynn and former U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who have joined litigation questioning the constitutionality of the tax.

Another group of plaintiffs includes property owners who contend that the surcharge reaches beyond the extraordinarily wealthy individuals whom city officials originally identified as its intended targets.

Some homeowners have complained that they face substantial additional tax bills despite owning apartments that they purchased years ago or use only part of the year.

One plaintiff, Scott Golden, was reportedly assessed an additional $48,949 when selling his Upper West Side condominium. Another, Kent Barwick, faces more than $83,000 in additional taxes on a cooperative apartment he retains for part-time use.

The lawsuits also challenge the retroactive application of the surcharge to January 2026, even though the legislation authorizing the tax was enacted in May.

Real estate attorney Joshua Wurtzel, a partner at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, warned that the litigation could have consequences far beyond the exemption applications currently being processed.

“If the court’s decision ends up being upheld on appeal, which I think there’s probably at least a decent chance [of] that, then all of this kind of goes out the window,” Wurtzel said.

The financial uncertainty surrounding the tax was evident even before the latest wave of exemption approvals.

An April analysis by New York City Comptroller Mark Levine’s office concluded that the surcharge could potentially generate as much as $510 million annually. However, the report also cautioned that uncertainties involving the design and implementation of the tax could reduce collections to between $340 million and $380 million.

Those estimates preceded the latest exemption figures and legal developments, which have intensified questions about the amount the city can ultimately collect.

Despite the mounting challenges, the Mamdani administration has continued to defend both the surcharge and its original revenue expectations.

“We continue to be confident in that assessment of what the annual revenue will look like,” an administration representative told reporters at an unrelated August press conference.

The Finance Department has also maintained that the tax is intended to ensure that owners of expensive secondary residences help pay for essential city services.

A department representative said the surcharge requires such owners to “contribute their fair share toward schools, safer streets, and the services New Yorkers rely on. “

Officials have repeatedly extended the deadline for property owners to seek exemptions as litigation and questions about the program’s implementation have continued.

The deadline, previously set for October 6, has now been moved to October 13, marking the third extension.

“These meritless lawsuits have created a lot of unnecessary confusion,” a Finance Department representative said. “Nevertheless, the Administration remains fully committed to ensuring that New Yorkers have the time and information they need to apply, so we are extending the deadline for exemption applications to October 13.

“While this legal process moves forward, we will continue administering the surcharge fairly, efficiently and in full compliance with the law, as we have done from day one,” the representative said.

{Matzav.com}

A ZAKA representative in Ukraine has issued a detailed clarification concerning the mysterious death of R’ Yitzchok Elmakias z”l in Uman, stressing that he never determined the deceased was murdered and has no authoritative information establishing the cause of death.

Nachman Dickstein, ZAKA’s representative in Ukraine, released the statement following widespread discussion of a halachic ruling issued by Rav Chaim Yosef Dovid Weiss concerning whether the burial could be delayed to allow the circumstances surrounding Elmakias’ death to be investigated.

The case has generated considerable attention in Uman and beyond, particularly after reports suggested that the death was being treated as a possible murder and that rabbinic guidance had been sought to permit delaying the burial for a criminal investigation.

Dickstein said those reports had created a misleading impression of both his involvement and the nature of the halachic question presented to Rav Weiss.

According to Dickstein, the family had received information raising concerns that Elmakias might not have died of natural causes. Seeking to establish what had happened, the family retained an attorney and requested that the circumstances of the death be examined.

“Following information brought to the attention of the deceased’s family indicating concern that the death may not have been natural, the family requested clarification of the circumstances and retained the services of an attorney,” Dickstein explained.

He emphasized that the possibility of an unnatural death does not, by itself, establish that a murder occurred.

“An unnatural death does not necessarily indicate murder, and there are various possibilities about which no conclusions should be drawn before the professional examination is completed,” he said.

The clarification follows the publication of a halachic correspondence involving Rav Weiss, which prompted discussion about the permissibility of postponing burial when questions remain about the circumstances of a person’s death.

Under ordinary circumstances, halacha places great importance on bringing a deceased person to burial without unnecessary delay. However, unusual situations involving the need to establish the cause of death can raise complex questions requiring the guidance of a qualified halachic authority.

Dickstein explained that the question submitted to Rav Weiss concerned the halachic permissibility of delaying the burial at the family’s request so that the circumstances could be clarified.

It was not submitted on the assumption that a crime had definitely occurred, nor was it based on any established identification of a perpetrator.

“The honorable Rav’s response was given within the framework of the halachic discussion, and this clarification is in no way intended to change his words or challenge his ruling,” Dickstein stated.

He expressed regret that some of the coverage had presented the matter as though murder had already been established or suggested that he personally was conducting a criminal investigation.

Dickstein stressed that neither characterization was accurate.

With the family having obtained legal representation, he explained, responsibility for determining the circumstances of the death now rests exclusively with the appropriate authorities and the attorneys acting on the family’s behalf.

“I am not an investigative, medical, or legal authority, and I am not involved in managing the investigation. Our role is limited to assisting in preserving the dignity of the deceased and helping his family,” he said.

The case dates back to Rosh Hashanah, when ZAKA volunteers responded to a wooded area in Uman where a Jewish man had been found lifeless. The discovery prompted concern within the community, particularly given the large number of Jewish visitors who travel to Uman for Rosh Hashanah.

As questions surrounding the death emerged, the family sought to determine whether further examination was necessary before burial could proceed.

The subsequent halachic ruling attracted attention because of the sensitive balance between the obligation to arrange a timely Jewish burial and the family’s desire to obtain reliable answers about the circumstances of the death.

Dickstein made clear that ZAKA’s role remains focused on assisting the deceased and his relatives, rather than determining criminal responsibility or drawing medical conclusions.

He said that once the required procedures are completed and the body is legally released, ZAKA personnel and other volunteers will be available to help the family arrange burial in accordance with halacha, wherever the family chooses.

The ZAKA representative concluded by appealing to news organizations and the public to exercise restraint when discussing the case, particularly while the circumstances remain unresolved.

He urged the media not to present suspicions as established facts or attribute conclusions to individuals who have not made them.

Dickstein also emphasized the importance of preserving the dignity of R’ Yitzchok Elmakias z”l and respecting his family’s right to receive clear, authoritative answers regarding his passing.

{Matzav.com}

A remarkable statement attributed to the Chazon Ish zt”l, that the tremendous ameilus baTorah of Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz zt”l and Rav Shimon Shkop zt”l prevented Hitler, yemach shemo, from conquering Lithuania during their lifetimes, was shared by Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein during a wedding in which descendants of Rav Boruch Ber were celebrating a simcha.

Rav Zilberstein, rov of the Ramat Elchanan neighborhood of Bnei Brak and a member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, related the extraordinary account during the chuppah of the daughter of Rav Yisroel Meir Druck, rosh yeshiva of the Tiferes Yisroel yeshivos.

The wedding, held Thursday, celebrated the marriage of Rav Druck’s daughter to the chosson, Rav Yehoshua Malin, a grandson of Rav Isser Yehuda Malin, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Zichron Meir.

The chosson is also a brother of Rav Chaim Malin, a grandson and close confidant of Rav Zilberstein.

During his remarks beneath the chuppah, Rav Zilberstein focused on the family’s distinguished lineage, noting that the chosson and his family are descendants of Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz, the legendary rosh yeshiva of Kamenitz and author of the Birkas Shmuel.

Rav Zilberstein then shared a statement he said he had heard directly from his brother-in-law, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, who had received it from the Chazon Ish.

“I want to tell everyone here something very, very important,” Rav Zilberstein began. “My brother-in-law, the Sar HaTorah, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, told me something, and I ask everyone to listen carefully to what I am about to relate.”

He then revealed the extraordinary statement.

“The Chazon Ish told him that as long as Rav Boruch Ber and Rav Shimon Shkop were alive, Hitler, yemach shemo, was unable to conquer Lithuania because of their ameilus baTorah.”

The account attributed to the Chazon Ish highlights the extraordinary spiritual power ascribed to the Torah learning of these two giants, whose dedication to Torah was considered a source of protection for the Jewish people.

Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz, one of the most prominent roshei yeshiva of prewar Europe, was renowned for his extraordinary depth in learning and his lifelong dedication to developing generations of talmidei chachomim. Rav Shimon Shkop, the famed rosh yeshiva of Grodno and author of Shaarei Yosher, was likewise among the towering Torah personalities of his generation.

Both passed away in 1939, before Nazi Germany invaded Lithuania in 1941.

Rav Zilberstein continued by connecting the statement of the Chazon Ish to the simcha taking place beneath the chuppah.

“This is something astonishing,” he declared. “Why? Because according to the tradition accepted by everyone, grandparents come to the weddings of their grandchildren.”

He explained that, according to this understanding, the presence of Rav Boruch Ber was particularly significant at the wedding of his descendants.

“If so, according to what is accepted, Rav Boruch Ber is here with us right now. The very same Rav Boruch Ber whose ameilus baTorah prevented Hitler from conquering Lithuania during his lifetime.”

Rav Zilberstein urged those gathered to appreciate the exceptional opportunity presented by the occasion and to draw spiritual strength from the presence of such a towering Torah personality.

“I want to tell everyone that we can receive something from him! All of us can receive something right now, and we can do something with it. He is here, and we can ask that HaKadosh Boruch Hu help us, that the tzaddikim who are here protect us, that no one should be able to conquer us, and that the kallah and chosson should have happy lives. Ve’nomar amen!”

{Matzav.com}

United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher has issued an unequivocal ultimatum to Israel’s political leadership, declaring that his party will neither join nor support any future government unless legislation formally regulating the status of yeshiva bochurim is actually passed into law.

In his first interview since assuming the chairmanship of United Torah Judaism, Asher told Kikar Hashabbat that the party will no longer accept coalition promises or political commitments concerning the draft law. Instead, he insisted that the legislation must be enacted before UTJ agrees to participate in or support a government.

“We, United Torah Judaism, will not enter a government that does not actually pass the law regulating the status of yeshiva students, known as the draft law. Period!” Asher declared during the interview.

He emphasized that the condition applies equally to joining a coalition and supporting one from outside, leaving no room for an arrangement in which UTJ provides parliamentary backing in exchange for promises of future legislation.

“There is no other way to interpret this: We will neither join nor support a government that does not first pass the draft law,” he stated.

The declaration comes amid the continuing political and legal controversy surrounding the status of yeshiva bochurim and the efforts to establish a legislative framework that would enable those dedicated to full-time Torah learning to continue their studies without being subject to military conscription.

Asher’s remarks represent a firm position by UTJ that the passage of legislation protecting yeshiva students must be a prerequisite for the party’s participation in any future government, rather than an obligation to be fulfilled at some later stage of a coalition’s term.

The UTJ chairman also addressed the substance of the proposed legislation, making clear that the party’s demands extend beyond simply passing a law bearing the title of a draft arrangement.

According to Asher, any acceptable legislation must protect those whose lives are dedicated to Torah learning and must not impose penalties on bochurim and avreichim who remain in yeshiva or kollel.

“The correct law is one that addresses someone who sits and learns, whose Torah is his profession. Someone who sits and learns should not face sanctions. That is our position!” Asher declared.

His comments directly address one of the central disputes surrounding the draft legislation: whether financial or other sanctions should be imposed on yeshiva students who do not enlist.

Asher made clear that UTJ’s position is that those engaged in full-time Torah study should not be subjected to such penalties.

The ultimatum places the draft law at the center of any future coalition negotiations and signals that UTJ intends to make the protection of the yeshiva world a nonnegotiable condition for its political support.

Asher’s full interview with Kikar Hashabbat is scheduled to be released Monday.

{Matzav.com}

All are asked to be mispallel for the refuah sheleimah of Rav Mordechai Wolmark, rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Shaarei Torah in Monsey, New York, who has been admitted to the hospital.

News of the rosh yeshiva‘s hospitalization has prompted a call for tefillos on his behalf, with talmidim, alumni, and members of the wider community being urged to have him in mind during davening and the recitation of Tehillim.

All are asked to daven for Rav Mordechai Gimpel ben Chaya Avigail.

{Matzav.com}

Naftali Bennett sparked an uproar among Israel’s anti-Netanyahu political parties on Sunday after suggesting that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could serve as a minister in a future government led by Bennett, prompting furious objections from opposition leaders and forcing Bennett to clarify that he would not join Netanyahu under any circumstances.

Bennett, chairman of the Beyachad party, made the controversial remarks during an election conference hosted by the newspaper Hador, where he was asked about the possibility of Netanyahu participating in a government under his leadership.

Rather than categorically ruling out such an arrangement, Bennett initially suggested that Netanyahu could be offered a ministerial position if he agreed to the fundamental principles of Bennett’s proposed government.

“As long as we agree on the fundamental principles, I have no problem with Netanyahu being a minister in our government,” Bennett said.

He went on to praise Netanyahu’s previous performance as finance minister, recalling his tenure in the position more than two decades ago.

“In 2003, Netanyahu, and I say this to his credit, was one of the best finance ministers the State of Israel has ever had. I don’t know whether a Jew approaching 80 still has the energy for this, but if he accepts all our central principles, which include an immediate state commission of inquiry, universal military service, and a constitution for Israel, let him pick up the phone,” Bennett said.

The comments immediately generated controversy among parties opposed to Netanyahu, whose leaders have repeatedly insisted that they would refuse to participate in any government that includes the prime minister.

Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party and a former IDF chief of staff, was among the first to reject Bennett’s suggestion.

“I do not accept this. Anyone who held a position on October 7 is unfit to serve in positions of command and leadership, including as finance minister,” Eisenkot declared.

Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Lieberman went further, publicly demanding that Bennett retract his remarks and calling on the parties in the anti-Netanyahu camp to reaffirm their commitment to excluding the prime minister from any future coalition.

“I call on my colleagues in the Zionist bloc to make it absolutely clear: The world can turn upside down, but we will not sit with Netanyahu. In the next government, Netanyahu will not be able to serve even as minister for regional cooperation,” Lieberman said.

Yair Golan, chairman of the Democrats party, also issued an emphatic rejection, declaring that his party would never agree to Netanyahu holding any position in a government it supports.

“Netanyahu will not sit in any government as long as it depends on the Democrats. Not as finance minister, not as water minister, and not as a minister without portfolio,” Golan said.

Golan accused Netanyahu of bearing responsibility for the failures surrounding the October 7 massacre and criticized his government’s policies concerning military service and judicial reform.

“The man responsible for the October 7 failure, who led a government that promoted mass draft evasion during wartime and the judicial overhaul, will receive no approval from us to return to power. We will not sit with Netanyahu and his partners. Period,” Golan declared.

The swift and unusually forceful reactions highlighted the divisions within the political camp seeking to replace Netanyahu, particularly over whether any circumstances could justify cooperation with the current prime minister.

Bennett, who has sought to position himself as a central figure in efforts to form an alternative government, soon moved to contain the controversy.

Following the backlash, he published a statement on social media insisting that his original comments had been misunderstood and that he had no intention of serving alongside Netanyahu in any coalition arrangement.

“I suggest everyone calm down. I have said a thousand times that Netanyahu bears direct and personal responsibility for the October 7 massacre and therefore must go home. We will not sit with him under any circumstances,” Bennett wrote.

He maintained that his earlier remarks were intended to demonstrate the impossibility of Netanyahu accepting the conditions he had outlined, rather than to suggest a genuine willingness to offer him a ministerial position.

“Anyone who saw my remarks today understood that they were intended to illustrate the absurdity, since Netanyahu opposes universal military service, opposes a state commission of inquiry, and opposes a constitution for Israel,” Bennett explained.

An Israeli district court has rejected Sara Netanyahu’s attempt to have a multimillion-shekel defamation lawsuit filed against her by opposition politician Yair Golan dismissed, ruling that the prime minister’s wife cannot avoid potential responsibility for statements she made during a televised interview simply because a television station broadcast them.

The lawsuit, filed by Golan, chairman of Israel’s Democrats party and a retired IDF major general, seeks 2.55 million shekels, approximately $800,000, in damages over remarks Netanyahu made during an interview with Channel 14 concerning the October 7 Hamas massacre.

In its decision, the court rejected Netanyahu’s arguments for dismissing the case at the preliminary stage and ordered her to pay Golan 2,000 shekels in legal expenses.

The ruling allows the lawsuit to proceed but does not determine whether Netanyahu’s statements were defamatory or whether Golan is entitled to compensation.

At the center of the dispute are comments Netanyahu made during a Channel 14 interview that Golan alleges insinuated he had advance knowledge of the October 7 attack.

During the interview, Netanyahu stated, “Yair Golan was dressed and ready on the morning of October 7 when the prime minister did not know.”

Golan maintains that the remark suggested he possessed information about the impending Hamas assault before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or other Israeli officials were aware of what was unfolding.

His attorneys argue that the insinuation was false and seriously damaging to his reputation, particularly given the sensitivity surrounding the events of October 7.

The lawsuit was filed through attorneys Giora Erdinast, Almog Gil-Or, and Yarden Shochat of the EBN law firm after Netanyahu allegedly refused to apologize for her statements or retract them.

In seeking dismissal, Netanyahu argued that she had merely participated in an interview and that legal responsibility for publishing and distributing her remarks rested with third parties, including Channel 14, which aired the interview.

Her attorneys sought to distinguish between the individual who makes a statement during an interview and the media organization responsible for transmitting that statement to the public.

The district court rejected that distinction.

The judge determined that Netanyahu had agreed to be interviewed with the knowledge and understanding that her statements would be broadcast to a broad audience. Under those circumstances, the court found no basis for treating the interviewee’s participation and the broadcaster’s transmission as entirely separate acts for purposes of dismissing the lawsuit.

“There is no justification for an artificial separation between the aspect of ‘publication’ by the interviewee and the ‘publication’ by the interviewing and broadcasting body. These are two sides of the same coin and constitute a single publication,” the judge wrote in the decision.

The ruling addresses an important legal question concerning responsibility for statements made in media interviews. It establishes, at this preliminary stage, that an interviewee cannot obtain dismissal of a defamation claim solely by arguing that the broadcaster, rather than the speaker, was responsible for making the remarks public.

However, the court did not decide whether the specific statements attributed to Netanyahu meet the legal definition of defamation. That issue, along with the question of any damages, remains to be examined as the proceedings continue.

The lawsuit also extends beyond the allegations of defamation.

Golan is seeking civil compensation based on an additional claim involving an alleged violation of the criminal-law provision dealing with incitement to violence.

His legal team argues that Netanyahu’s statements should be examined in the context of their potential consequences and the public atmosphere surrounding the accusations.

The lawsuit further alleges that one of Netanyahu’s advisers viewed the Channel 14 interview before it was broadcast. Golan’s attorneys intend to rely on that allegation as part of their arguments concerning the circumstances in which the remarks were published.

Those assertions remain allegations presented by the plaintiffs. The court has not established that Netanyahu committed defamation or incitement, nor has it made findings concerning the alleged advance review of the interview.

Following the decision, Golan issued a sharply worded statement welcoming the rejection of Netanyahu’s dismissal request.

“Once again, it has been proven that the poison machine will stop at nothing — neither lies about the heroes of October 7 nor attempts to undermine public confidence in the judicial system. Today’s ruling is further proof that truth will triumph over lies. Those who incite violence and spread false accusations will not succeed in escaping responsibility. We will continue until justice is fully pursued in court, and we will defend the fighters for Israeli democracy with our own bodies,” Golan said.

Learn practical, Torah-based parenting strategies from Dr. David Lieberman in his powerful online parenting course!

Parent Testimonial:
“It’s clear, insightful, and totally aligned with Torah hashkafa. I wish I had this years ago.”
— Yitzy F., Flatbush

• Over 3 hours of insightful video content
• Powerful tools grounded in psychology, Torah values, and real-world experience
• A personal conversation with Nachi Gordon of Meaningful Minute
• Lifetime access to revisit at your own pace

30-day money-back guarantee.

60% OFF — ONLY $39 (REG. $99)!

Use Code: MP

CLICK HERE