Matzav

Israel’s Tax Authority is renewing its push to eliminate the country’s 200-shekel banknote, arguing that restricting cash transactions could generate tens of billions of shekels in additional tax revenue annually and spare Israelis from substantial tax increases in the coming years.

Speaking Monday at the annual conference of tax advisers in Eilat, Israel Tax Authority Director Shay Aharonovich warned that the government faces an increasingly severe financial situation, with enormous defense expenditures and continued military operations threatening to force painful economic measures in 2027 and 2028.

According to a report by Ynet, Aharonovich said that eliminating cash transactions altogether could bring the government an additional 20 billion to 30 billion shekels annually in tax collections by combating unreported income and illegal financial activity.

“I am stating here in the clearest possible terms that if we eliminate the use of cash in Israel tomorrow, it could generate an additional 20 to 30 billion shekels in annual tax revenue and prevent other painful measures,” Aharonovich declared. “But the Bank of Israel opposes it.”

The proposal to discontinue the 200-shekel note, Israel’s highest-denomination banknote, has previously generated considerable controversy. Aharonovich nevertheless maintained that reducing the availability of cash is essential to addressing widespread tax evasion and financial misconduct.

He pointed to recent police investigations, including cases involving local municipalities, as evidence of the problems associated with large cash payments.

“We will have to eliminate some cash payments, which have already been restricted recently,” he said. “The Bank of Israel opposes eliminating the 200-shekel note, but we have seen in police investigations what happens with cash payments, including very recently in local authorities.”

Aharonovich also issued a stark warning about the government’s financial outlook, predicting that the next two national budgets will be particularly difficult.

“The budgets in 2027 and 2028 will be brutal,” he said. “Unfortunately, we do not see extraordinary economic growth coming next year, and we continue to fight on seven fronts.”

He estimated that Israel’s annual defense budget could reach approximately 200 billion shekels, with the extraordinary spending levels potentially continuing through both 2027 and 2028.

The Tax Authority chief expressed skepticism about political assurances that taxes would not increase, arguing that the next government will have little choice but to introduce significant fiscal measures unless alternative revenue sources can be identified.

“We will have to demand and implement difficult measures, from eliminating the 200-shekel note to eventually eliminating all cash,” he said.

Aharonovich disclosed that a special team within the Finance Ministry is already preparing proposals for the next government aimed at increasing revenue without immediately resorting to broad tax increases.

He also criticized what he described as excessive military reserve mobilization expenditures, suggesting that defense spending has expanded without sufficient scrutiny.

“There is a complete lack of restraint when it comes to calling up reservists, and nobody challenges the defense establishment,” he said. “It is already clear that an annual defense budget of 200 billion shekels will force the next government to raise taxes.”

Rather than immediately increasing the value-added tax or personal income tax rates, Aharonovich urged policymakers to pursue more targeted measures.

Among the possibilities under consideration is tightening legislation governing retained corporate profits, a move intended to increase government revenue from funds accumulated within companies.

He argued that such measures would be preferable to across-the-board tax increases that would directly affect consumers and wage earners.

“It would be better to take intelligent steps to finance the expensive defense budget than to seek easy solutions, such as immediately raising VAT by one percentage point and increasing income tax rates by one percentage point,” he said.

Aharonovich also criticized an earlier decision to abolish Israel’s property tax, suggesting that special interests had succeeded in eliminating a valuable government revenue source.

“A group of interested parties eliminated a good tax at the time,” he said. “If we do not come up with good, creative solutions, we will find ourselves facing a dead end, and then we will have to raise VAT and income taxes, which would be a bad solution.”

The proposal to eliminate the 200-shekel banknote is not new. In 2024, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu directed officials to examine advancing the measure as part of a broader campaign against the underground economy and the extensive use of cash in unreported transactions.

Under the proposal discussed at the time, the 200-shekel note would gradually be withdrawn from circulation before eventually being discontinued altogether.

The Bank of Israel has opposed eliminating the denomination, and no final decision has been announced to remove the banknote from circulation.

Meanwhile, Yaron Gindi, president of Israel’s Chamber of Tax Consultants, agreed during the conference that tax increases appear unavoidable, but urged the government to distribute the burden more strategically.

Gindi proposed several changes to the tax system, including eliminating the existing tax exemption on residential rental income and requiring landlords to pay taxes beginning with the first shekel earned.

He also advocated taxing capital income from the first shekel while simultaneously reducing taxes on employment income, arguing that the tax burden should shift away from workers.

Another proposal would require all Israeli citizens to submit annual income reports, a change that would substantially expand the government’s ability to monitor earnings and enforce tax compliance.

{Matzav.com}

A controversial auction of a Sefer Torah parchment desecrated by Nazi soldiers during the Holocaust was stopped at the last moment in Norway after intense diplomatic pressure from Israel prompted the auction house to purchase the sacred artifact itself, preventing it from being sold to a private collector.

The extraordinary development unfolded Monday at Valkyrie Historical Auctions in Oslo, where a section of a Sefer Torah that had been looted from Jews during World War II was scheduled to go under the hammer. Just ten minutes before bidding was set to begin, the auction house submitted its own substantial bid to secure the parchment and keep it from entering the private collectibles market.

According to the Norwegian news outlet Verdinytt, the auction house ultimately acquired the item for a technical sale price of $10,625, equivalent to approximately 100,000 Norwegian kroner. That amount included the purchase price and a 25 percent auction commission.

Rather than retaining the parchment for commercial purposes, the company intends to donate it to a Holocaust remembrance organization in San Diego, California, where it can be preserved and used to educate future generations about the destruction of European Jewry.

The parchment, containing passages from Sefer Devarim, carries a particularly horrifying history. Originally part of a Sefer Torah, the sheet was stolen from Jews during the Holocaust and apparently damaged in a fire.

Its subsequent treatment by the Nazis added another layer of desecration. A German SS soldier used the holy parchment as ordinary wrapping material to package an item being mailed to Germany.

The original markings from that shipment remain visible on the parchment. Written in pen directly on the sacred text are details identifying the military field unit from which the package was sent, along with the recipient’s address.

The artifact therefore bears physical evidence of both the Nazi persecution of European Jewry and the deliberate degradation of Jewish religious objects.

In its original auction listing, the parchment was described as “a sad and powerful symbol of the destruction of European Jewry and its culture and tradition.”

The planned sale sparked outrage after Israel’s Foreign Ministry publicly condemned the decision to auction a Sefer Torah fragment that had been stolen and desecrated during the Holocaust.

On Sunday, the ministry issued a sharply worded statement on X, describing the proposed transaction as “a moral atrocity” and demanding that Norwegian authorities intervene to prevent the sacred item from being sold.

The criticism placed considerable pressure on the Oslo auction house, which said it had advertised the item for approximately six weeks without receiving objections.

Representatives of the company maintained that the Israeli intervention came only shortly before the auction was scheduled to begin, leaving insufficient time to withdraw the item through the usual procedures.

Faced with the prospect of the parchment being acquired by a private buyer, the auction house devised an unusual solution: it entered the bidding process itself and submitted an offer high enough to ensure that the artifact would remain under its control.

The last-minute purchase effectively halted the planned private sale while allowing the company to arrange for the parchment’s transfer to an institution dedicated to Holocaust education and remembrance.

“We are now working with organizations in the United States that preserve objects for educational purposes. Such an institution is a much more appropriate place for this piece than a private sale,” a company spokesman said in a statement translated from Hebrew.

The controversy also brought renewed attention to Norway’s approach to Holocaust remembrance, particularly reports that the Norwegian government intends to discontinue financial assistance for educational trips by Norwegian students to former Nazi extermination camps.

Israeli officials sharply criticized the apparent contradiction between permitting the commercial sale of sacred Jewish artifacts stolen during the Holocaust and reducing support for programs intended to educate young people about Nazi atrocities.

In its public statement, Israel’s Foreign Ministry summarized the situation with a pointed comparison: “Auctions of sacred texts looted by the Nazis – IN. Visits to extermination camps – OUT.”

The ministry demanded immediate intervention by the Norwegian government, describing the planned sale as a “moral disgrace.”

The auction catalog itself had offered the parchment as an unusual Holocaust-related collectible, despite its origins as part of a Sefer Torah that had apparently been stolen from a Jewish community in Nazi-occupied Poland.

Additional reporting indicated that the auction included other Holocaust-era Jewish possessions, among them tefillin reportedly stolen by the Nazis and clothing bearing the yellow star that Jews were forced to wear under Nazi persecution.

The catalog also featured Nazi memorabilia, including military insignia, propaganda material, and photographs of senior Nazi officials.

The controversy prompted Gideon Taylor, president of the World Jewish Restitution Organization, to condemn the commercialization of Jewish religious property taken during the Holocaust.

Taylor argued that sacred objects stolen from Jewish communities should be returned to the Jewish people rather than treated as ordinary merchandise available to private collectors.

He called upon Norwegian authorities to establish the identities of those involved in the sale and ensure that the parchment would be restored to an appropriate Jewish institution.

The organization also pointed to international principles concerning Nazi-looted cultural property, including recommendations endorsed by Norway in 2024 calling for such objects to be returned to their original owners, successor institutions, or organizations representing the Jewish people.

Those principles recognize that religious and cultural possessions stolen during the Holocaust carry significance far beyond their financial value and should be treated as part of the historical heritage of the communities from which they were taken.

Valkyrie Historical Auctions, which specializes in World War II and Holocaust-era artifacts, is headed by historian Norbert Podlesny, whose grandfather was imprisoned in the Majdanek concentration camp.

The company has defended its work as an effort to preserve historical objects, but the sale of the Sefer Torah parchment raised serious questions about the distinction between historical preservation and the commercial trading of sacred objects looted from Holocaust victims.

With the auction house now arranging for the parchment’s transfer to a Holocaust memorial organization in the United States, the immediate danger of the sacred artifact passing into private hands appears to have been averted.

The planned donation will allow the desecrated parchment, which survived Nazi persecution only to be used as packaging material by an SS soldier, to be preserved as testimony to the destruction of European Jewry and the extraordinary suffering inflicted upon its communities.

{Matzav.com}

Dear Matzav Inbox,

I watched the scenes from Kiryas Yoel yesterday and I have one question: Have we completely lost our minds?

Thousands upon thousands of Satmar schoolgirls were assembled to welcome Governor Kathy Hochul as though the queen of England had arrived. There was singing, cheering, and all the pomp and ceremony that apparently accompanies the arrival of a politician whose endorsement is considered sufficiently valuable to turn an ordinary school day into a political rally.

And then there were the men. Yes, the men. At a gathering of thousands of girls, in a community that prides itself on its extraordinary standards of tznius, men were present as part of the governor’s reception. I would love to hear the explanation for that one. All year long, we hear about tznius. We hear about this and that. We hear about the dangers of compromising standards, even slightly. Every detail matters. Every precaution matters. And then the governor comes to town and suddenly the rules seem to have developed a remarkable degree of flexibility.

Apparently, tznius is very important. Unless there’s a politician to impress.

I am not suggesting that the girls themselves did anything wrong. They were brought to an event arranged by adults. My question is directed at the people who arranged it, the people who approved it, and the people who apparently saw nothing incongruous about turning a girls’ school into a campaign spectacle.

The girls were chanting. And the men were standing on stage. Really? That’s appropriate?

And Satmar was not the only stop on this extraordinary royal tour. Hochul also visited the chassidishe communities of Rockland County, including a visit to the Skverer Rebbe in New Square. The whole day seemed designed to convey one message: This governor is a great friend of our communities, deserving of honor, admiration, and public gratitude.

Really? Kathy Hochul? The same Kathy Hochul who endorsed Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York City?

The same governor who has failed to forcefully confront the mayor over his outrageous rhetoric about Israel, including his disgraceful statement on the third anniversary of October 7, when he used the occasion to accuse Israel of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes?

Consider the timing. Just days before this grand reception, Mamdani issued a statement commemorating the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. He acknowledged the atrocities committed by Hamas, but then proceeded to devote much of his statement to a sweeping attack on Israel. Jewish leaders were outraged. Others publicly denounced his remarks.

And what did Hochul do? She spoke about the horror of October 7 and said the day should not be diminished. But where was the unmistakable public rebuke of Mamdani that his remarks deserved? Where was the demand that the mayor of the city with the largest Jewish population outside Eretz Yisroel stop using the anniversary of a Jewish massacre as an opportunity to attack Israel?

There are legitimate questions about her political embrace of Mamdani and her unwillingness to confront him as directly as many Jewish New Yorkers believe she should.

And this is the woman we are celebrating?

I would be remiss not to mention, as an aside, that Hochul strongly supports same-gender marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, calling marriage equality a “fundamental right.” Hochul has consistently championed LGBTQ+ rights, celebrating marriage equality milestones and supporting federal and state protections like the Respect for Marriage Act. She publicly condemned and pushed back against local officials or judges attempting to deny or refuse same-gender marriage services in New York, such as criticizing a Syracuse city court judge who refused to officiate a same-gender wedding in late 2024.

What a hero! Let’s parade her out in front of thousands of Bais Yaakov girls and make them chant for her. Good idea.

There is a world of difference between maintaining a working relationship with a politician and treating that politician like a conquering hero.

There is a difference between expressing appreciation for a particular policy and staging a massive demonstration of personal admiration.

And there is certainly a difference between shtadlanus and surrendering our judgment.

The governor’s visit to Kiryas Yoel was reportedly organized in part to express appreciation for her support of religious education and a federal education tax credit. Fine. Say thank you. Send a letter. Arrange a meeting. Nobody objects to gratitude.

But why must gratitude become adulation? Why must children become political props? Why must a community that is so careful about its public image and religious standards suddenly abandon all restraint when an elected official appears?

We have been taught from childhood that Torah principles are not negotiable. We have been taught that tznius is not dependent on convenience.

So what exactly are we teaching our children when the same adults who insist upon uncompromising standards appear willing to make exceptions for a politician?

What message does a girl take home from an event like this? That the rules are absolute until somebody important walks through the door? That political influence creates its own exemptions? That there is one standard for ordinary life and another for people who control government budgets?

That thousands of girls can chant in front of chassidishe men as long as the governor is present?

We constantly invoke the importance of daas Torah. We speak about the independence of our mosdos. We pride ourselves on refusing to bend to the pressures of the outside world.

Where is that independence when politicians come calling?

There is a Chazal that every child knows: Ein adam nogeia b’muchan l’chaveiro. What is meant for a person will come to him. We are also taught that a person’s parnassah is determined by the Ribbono Shel Olam. Of course, we must make a proper hishtadlus. But hishtadlus is not a license to compromise our values, and it certainly does not require us to lose our dignity.

I am not naïve. I know how the world works. I know that politicians court voting blocs and that communal leaders negotiate for the needs of their constituents. But surely there must be some line between necessary political engagement and embarrassing public flattery.

Our communities have survived far greater challenges than an unfavorable state budget. Generations of Yidden sacrificed livelihoods, comfort, and sometimes their lives rather than compromise their convictions. Are we now supposed to believe that the price of maintaining a relationship with Albany is assembling thousands of schoolgirls to chant in front of men for the governor?

Politicians are public servants. They are supposed to serve their constituents. When they do something beneficial, we can thank them. When they do something harmful, we should criticize them. We owe them neither blind loyalty nor royal receptions.

The saddest part of this entire episode is the impression it creates. It makes the standards we preach appear negotiable. It makes our political endorsements look transactional. And it makes communities that have worked so hard to preserve their dignity appear desperate for the approval of people whose primary interest, especially two weeks before an election, is obtaining their votes.

If the governor wanted to meet the leadership of Satmar or Skver, let her meet them. If she wanted to discuss educational funding, let them discuss funding. If she wanted to understand the needs of chassidishe families, let her listen to those needs.

But why the circus? Why the cheering crowds? Why the transformation of a school into a political stage?

And why the conspicuous silence about the serious concerns surrounding the governor’s political judgment?

We should be able to appreciate a politician’s assistance without canonizing the politician. We should be able to advocate for our schools without turning our children into campaign scenery. And we should be able to maintain relationships in Albany without forgetting what we claim to stand for.

If our principles are truly principles, they ought to survive a visit from the governor.

And if they cannot, then perhaps the problem is considerably bigger than Kathy Hochul.

A Disgusted Observer

Brooklyn, NY

To submit a letter to appear on Matzav.com, email MatzavInbox@gmail.com

DON’T MISS OUT! Join the Matzav Status by CLICKING HERE. Join the Matzav WhatsApp Groups by CLICKING HERE.

The opinions expressed in letters on Matzav.com do not necessarily reflect the stance of the Matzav Media Network.

[Video below.] Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has launched another sharp attack on Israel, declaring that the Jewish state should not be regarded as an American ally and accusing it of exploiting U.S. financial support while drawing the United States into military conflicts.

The comments, made during an interview with ABC News on Monday, represent the latest escalation in El-Sayed’s increasingly hostile rhetoric toward Israel, which has become a central issue in his campaign for the U.S. Senate.

“An ally that takes your money to push you into wars you shouldn’t be fighting is not an ally,” he charged.

El-Sayed went on to portray the longstanding relationship between Washington and Yerushalayim as one in which the United States is being taken advantage of, using an analogy involving a child and an unreliable friend.

“If your kid has a friend who keeps bumming off their money, talks about them behind their back, and gets them into fights with other friends, what would you tell your kid? You’d probably tell them maybe it’s not actually your friend,” he added.

The remarks come amid continuing debate over American military assistance to Israel and growing divisions within the Democratic Party over its relationship with the Jewish state.

El-Sayed, who won Michigan’s Democratic Senate nomination in August after narrowly defeating Congresswoman Haley Stevens, a supporter of the U.S.-Israel alliance, has repeatedly made Israel a target of his campaign rhetoric.

His criticism has gone well beyond objections to particular Israeli military policies, with the Democratic nominee making sweeping accusations against Israel’s government and questioning the legitimacy of continued American support.

During a recent appearance on MS NOW, El-Sayed characterized Israeli military operations as “bloodthirsty” and accused the country’s leadership of perpetrating genocide.

In another interview, conducted by journalist Jim Acosta, El-Sayed acknowledged that Hamas had committed war crimes but continued to level accusations against Israel’s government over its conduct during the war.

He has also called for an end to unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel and has faced criticism for repeatedly avoiding a straightforward response when questioned about Israel’s right to exist.

During an earlier campaign interview, El-Sayed described Israel’s leadership as “as evil as Hamas,” drawing further attention to his positions on the Jewish state.

His statements have raised concerns among Jewish Democrats in Michigan, a state with a substantial Arab-American population where Israel has become an especially contentious political issue.

El-Sayed also encountered criticism earlier this year over his reaction to a violent attack against Temple Israel, a Jewish congregation in West Bloomfield Township outside Detroit.

In March, authorities said Ayman Ghazali, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Lebanon, drove an explosives-laden vehicle into the synagogue, setting off a fire. Ghazali died during the incident.

Reports subsequently indicated that several of Ghazali’s relatives had been killed approximately one week earlier in an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon.

Although El-Sayed publicly condemned the attack and antisemitism, his explanation of the circumstances surrounding the incident drew objections from Jewish community members.

In discussing the attack, El-Sayed remarked that “violence is a cycle” and that “hurt people hurt people.”

Critics argued that the language risked portraying the attack on a Jewish house of worship as an understandable consequence of events in the Middle East, rather than focusing unequivocally on the responsibility of the attacker.

The controversy eventually led El-Sayed to apologize to the Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus in late August.

El-Sayed’s latest comments come less than two weeks before the November 3 election, in which he faces Republican Mike Rogers, a former congressman, in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate contests.

The candidates have already clashed repeatedly over Israel. During an October 8 debate, El-Sayed declined to identify Iran as a greater threat to the United States than Israel, instead arguing that both countries had posed dangers in different ways.

He also accused Israel of pushing the United States into war with Iran and questioned whether American involvement had improved national security.

The controversy has created divisions among Michigan’s Jewish Democrats. Some have continued to support El-Sayed despite disagreeing with his positions on Israel, while others have publicly expressed reservations about voting for him.

El-Sayed has rejected allegations that his criticism of Israel reflects hostility toward Jews, maintaining that opposition to Israeli government policies should be distinguished from antisemitism.

Nevertheless, his repeated statements about Israel, including Monday’s declaration that the Jewish state is not an American ally, have kept the issue at the forefront of a closely contested race that could help determine control of the U.S. Senate.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance said that he will not endorse Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel’s upcoming Knesset election, distancing himself from President Donald Trump’s public backing of the Israeli leader while insisting that his decision should not be viewed as opposition to Netanyahu.

During an interview with Mark Halperin on the program “2WAY Tonight,” Vance explained that he has no intention of becoming involved in the Israeli election scheduled for October 27, saying his political attention remains focused on the American midterm elections.

“The President has the most effective endorsement in American or international political history. I endorse American candidates, and that’s what I’m focused on is the midterm. So I’m not getting involved in the Israeli election,” Vance said when asked whether he would follow Trump’s example.

When Halperin pressed him further, Vance reiterated that he was choosing to stay out of the contest altogether rather than take a position for or against the prime minister.

“I’m not anti-endorsing him. I’m not pro-endorsing him. I’m not getting involved in Israeli elections.”

The vice president’s decision comes against the backdrop of reported differences between Vance and Netanyahu concerning the Trump administration’s handling of Iran, particularly its diplomatic efforts and military strategy.

Those differences became public over the summer after Vance appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and alleged that elements within the Israeli government had funded efforts intended to interfere with American diplomatic initiatives aimed at reaching an agreement with Tehran and potentially securing a ceasefire.

According to a subsequent report by Axios, Netanyahu raised the allegations directly with Vance during a meeting at Blair House in Washington, D.C., while the Israeli prime minister was visiting the United States.

Vance later disputed reports portraying the encounter as a confrontation, maintaining that the discussion had been constructive despite differences between the two leaders.

“He didn’t confront me. We had a nice and frank conversation,” he said in August.

The vice president acknowledged at the time that even close allies can disagree on major policy questions, emphasizing that such disagreements do not undermine the broader relationship between Washington and Yerushalayim.

“As I’ve said repeatedly, Israel has been a great partner. They’re an ally of the United States of America. But like France or Britain or any other ally of the United States of America, we sometimes have differences of opinion,” Vance explained.

Describing the tone of his exchange with Netanyahu, Vance called it “a pleasant but direct conversation. I didn’t feel confronted.”

The question of Iran also featured prominently in Monday’s interview, as speculation continues over whether President Trump will order additional American strikes against the Iranian regime.

Vance defended the administration’s handling of the conflict, arguing that Washington cannot simply walk away from its objectives if doing so would allow Iran to gain unacceptable leverage over the international oil market.

“Look, this could be over very quickly if the President of the United States decided to give up and allow the Iranians to control the world oil supply. I don’t think any American would actually want him to do that.”

When questioned about why the confrontation had continued beyond the timetable he had previously suggested, the vice president maintained that military and diplomatic campaigns frequently develop through multiple stages.

“There are always phases to these things.”

His latest comments follow an interview with Reuters earlier this month in which Vance discussed the administration’s requirements for bringing the seven-month conflict with Iran to an end.

According to Vance, any agreement must be accompanied by verifiable Iranian steps to curtail its nuclear enrichment activities. He indicated that the administration would not accept verbal assurances from Tehran as a substitute for concrete changes to its nuclear program.

“We’re not going to trade words for actions,” he stressed.

Vance nevertheless made clear that the United States has not ruled out a diplomatic resolution. He said the administration remains prepared to pursue an agreement if Iran demonstrates a genuine willingness to make meaningful concessions regarding its nuclear activities.

The contrasting positions of Trump and Vance have attracted attention because the president’s endorsement of Netanyahu was unusually explicit. In a statement issued Sunday, Trump praised the prime minister’s leadership during the confrontation with Iran and offered his support just nine days before Israelis head to the polls.

Trump’s endorsement came after months in which he had avoided formally backing Netanyahu, despite their longstanding political relationship. The president’s eventual decision was widely viewed as an effort to strengthen Netanyahu’s position in a closely contested election.

The vice president’s explanation has also drawn scrutiny because he previously became involved in another country’s election, traveling to Hungary earlier this year to support Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who ultimately lost his reelection bid.

Vance made his latest remarks while traveling to North Carolina to campaign for Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley, underscoring his stated emphasis on the November 3 American midterm elections.

The Israeli election is shaping up as a major test for Netanyahu, whose governing coalition faces an uncertain future. Recent polling has suggested that his current political bloc may fall short of the 61 Knesset seats needed to form a government, although opposition parties could also face difficulties assembling a majority.

{Matzav.com}

The NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force has launched an investigation after anti-Israel vandals smashed a window and spray-painted threatening slogans at a Capital One bank on Manhattan’s Upper East Side early Monday morning. The attack was subsequently claimed by Palestine Action, an extremist anti-Israel organization that has been designated a terrorist group in Britain.

The vandalism occurred at approximately 7:50 a.m. at the Capital One branch on East 86th Street near Second Avenue. Authorities said someone hurled a brick through one of the bank’s windows, shattering the glass, while red spray paint was used to deface the building and its entrance with the messages “Pal Action” and “Drop Elbit.”

The slogans referred to Palestine Action and Elbit Systems, the Israeli defense manufacturer that has repeatedly been targeted by anti-Israel activists. Palestine Action has accused Capital One of maintaining financial ties with Elbit and has previously singled out the bank over its alleged involvement in financing the company’s operations.

In a statement taking responsibility for the attack, the organization claimed that Capital One had extended more than $500 million in loans to Elbit Systems, which it accused of supplying weapons used by Israel.

“We will no longer allow this country, and the companies that plague it, to be involved in the genocide of the Palestinian people without answering for their crimes,” the organization said in a statement quoted by ABC New York.

The incident prompted an immediate response from New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin, who is Jewish and represents the Upper East Side district where the bank was attacked. Menin urged police to determine whether the vandalism should be prosecuted as an antisemitic hate crime.

“The vandalism and destruction at the Capital One branch on 86th Street is deeply disturbing and unacceptable. I have been in contact with the NYPD regarding this incident and have urged an immediate investigation, including whether this is a potential antisemitic hate crime. There is no place for hate, intimidation or violence in New York City,” Menin wrote on social media, accompanying her statement with a photograph showing the damage.

Other elected officials in the area also spoke out against the destruction, as the incident added to growing concerns about the increasingly aggressive tactics employed by anti-Israel groups in New York.

The vandalism occurred on the same day that Jewish communal leaders gathered elsewhere in Manhattan for a ceremony recognizing the work of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, known as JCRC.

At Second Avenue and East 47th Street, approximately two miles from the damaged bank, officials held a street-renaming ceremony honoring the organization, which has long worked to defend Jewish interests and combat antisemitism throughout New York City.

Speaking at the gathering, JCRC CEO Mark Treyger addressed the continuing threats confronting the Jewish community and emphasized the determination of New Yorkers to resist intimidation.

“Hate can shatter glass, but it will never shatter the spirit of the Jewish people and of New Yorkers. New Yorkers were built tough, were built different, and we’re going to get through this like we always have,” Treyger said.

Police reported that nobody was injured in the attack on the bank. As of Monday, no suspects had been taken into custody, and detectives were reviewing the surrounding area for security camera recordings that might help establish who carried out the vandalism.

The investigation comes against the backdrop of troubling statistics showing that Jewish New Yorkers continue to account for a disproportionately large share of reported hate-crime victims in the city.

Figures released by the NYPD earlier this month showed that 245 of the 463 confirmed hate crimes recorded citywide during the first nine months of 2026 were directed against Jews. That means antisemitic incidents represented approximately 53 percent of all confirmed hate crimes during that period.

The total was slightly higher than during the corresponding nine months of 2025, when police recorded 242 anti-Jewish hate crimes, representing an increase of approximately 1.2 percent.

The disparity is especially striking given the size of New York City’s Jewish population. According to NYPD estimates, Jews constitute approximately 10 percent of the city’s residents, yet they were the targets of more than half of all confirmed hate crimes.

Based on those proportions, Jewish residents were targeted at approximately ten times the rate that would be expected if hate crimes were distributed evenly across population groups.

The statistics have been accompanied by a series of disturbing attacks on visibly Jewish individuals and Jewish institutions across the city.

In September, police arrested a 48-year-old Bronx man following an incident in Brooklyn in which he allegedly pursued a Jewish man while brandishing a knife and shouting Nazi slogans.

During the confrontation, the suspect allegedly yelled, “Heil f—ing Hitler.” He was subsequently charged with a hate crime.

In August, an incident at Manhattan’s Central Synagogue during Shabbos services resulted in injuries to a mispallel and damage to the property, adding to concerns about security at Jewish houses of worship.

That same month, six youths were accused of assaulting a chareidi man in Boro Park and pelting him with eggs, in another incident involving a visibly Orthodox Jewish victim.

A month earlier, on Tisha B’Av, a Jewish man was stabbed outside a shul in New York City, further intensifying concerns about the safety of Jewish residents attending religious services.

The latest attack on the Upper East Side has brought renewed attention to the challenges facing law enforcement as anti-Israel activism increasingly spills over into vandalism and intimidation.

In another development announced Monday, Queens prosecutors brought hate-crime charges against a 22-year-old man accused of repeatedly vandalizing a Jewish-owned kosher bagel shop displaying Israeli flags. The charges were added to a separate criminal case involving a fatal hit-and-run collision.

Meanwhile, the NYPD’s latest citywide figures show that although major crimes, including shootings and murders, have declined considerably during 2026, antisemitic hate crimes remain a persistent concern for Jewish communities throughout the five boroughs.

Police have not yet announced whether the Capital One vandalism will formally be classified as an antisemitic hate crime. The investigation remains ongoing, with authorities seeking evidence that could identify those responsible for the destruction.

{Matzav.com}

Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman declared Monday that he will refuse to join any government that includes the chareidi parties, insisting that Shas and United Torah Judaism must spend at least two full Knesset terms outside the coalition. He also vowed to block the formation of any government that does not impose compulsory military service on all Jewish and Arab citizens, without exemptions for yeshiva bochurim and avreichim.

With just eight days remaining before Israel’s October 27 elections, Lieberman outlined his political demands in an extensive interview with Yishai Cohen of Kikar HaShabbat, presenting a sweeping agenda that includes major changes to the Chief Rabbinate, the introduction of public transportation on Shabbos, changes to kashrus and geirus, and the elimination of the existing system for selecting chief rabbis.

Lieberman also ruled out supporting a minority government dependent on Arab Knesset members, even if refusing such an arrangement would leave Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in office during an extended caretaker period.

Addressing the military draft controversy, Lieberman insisted that his demand for universal conscription remains an absolute condition for joining the next government.

“I stand behind that demand today even more strongly! You saw that just yesterday there were reports of truly record levels of draft evasion. You see the rampaging, and it is no longer just the fringes, no longer just the Yerushalmi faction. When a former chief rabbi of Israel says, ‘You receive a draft notice? Tear it up, throw it into the toilet!’ All the screaming of ‘We will die rather than enlist’… We will not compromise on this. There simply will be no government.”

The interviewer pointed out that chareidi party leaders, including Aryeh Deri, Yitzchok Goldknopf, Yaakov Asher, and Meir Porush, had themselves declared in previous Kikar HaShabbat interviews that they would refuse to enter any coalition without legislation protecting the status of yeshiva students.

Lieberman dismissed the possibility of reaching an accommodation with them.

“I am telling you in advance: I will not sit in a coalition with Goldknopf and Deri. Period.”

He went further, arguing that the chareidi parties should be excluded from power for an extended period.

“They simply must, just as Moshe Rabbeinu took the Jewish people into the wilderness for 40 years, they need to spend at least two terms in the wilderness!”

Lieberman’s remarks made clear that his opposition extends beyond the current dispute over the draft law. He presented a comprehensive program to restructure the relationship between religion and the state, beginning with the Chief Rabbinate.

“A dramatic change in the Rabbinate — no more two chief rabbis! There will be one chief rabbi in the State of Israel, one chief rabbi for every city, for every local authority. We do not need two rabbis.”

He also proposed abolishing the electoral body currently responsible for choosing Israel’s chief rabbis, replacing it with an appointment process resembling that used for senior government officials.

“There will no longer be an electoral body that chooses the chief rabbis… Like any government employee. You know, like the head of the Shin Bet is appointed… The prime minister will recommend a candidate, he will go to the Grunis Committee, and from there it goes back to the government.”

Under Lieberman’s proposal, military service would become a mandatory qualification for anyone seeking to serve as chief rabbi, effectively disqualifying rabbonim who had not served in the IDF.

“Only on condition… One of the criteria: military service. There simply will not be [a chief rabbi who did not serve in the IDF].”

Lieberman also reiterated his support for public transportation on Shabbos, arguing that the current situation unfairly disadvantages people who cannot afford private vehicles or taxis.

“Absolutely! This is hypocrisy: There is public transportation on Shabbos — private cars travel, taxis operate, in Haifa you have public transportation on Shabbos. So what happens is that only someone who has no money cannot travel. Someone who cannot buy a car or cannot order a taxi cannot go out.”

Turning to kashrus, Lieberman called for eliminating the Rabbinate’s exclusive control over certification, saying he would introduce a system allowing competing providers to operate.

“There is no monopoly on kashrus!… It will be free, there will be no more monopolies.”

On geirus, Lieberman said he would demand implementation of the recommendations advanced by former Justice Minister Moshe Nissim, whose proposals sought to reorganize Israel’s conversion system.

“We demand the Nissim framework, the full Nissim report on conversion. He submitted a report, and it is difficult to accuse Moshe Nissim of being an enemy of the Jewish people or of not understanding Judaism.”

Lieberman devoted another portion of the interview to explaining why he would oppose any minority government dependent on the support or abstention of Arab Knesset members.

He argued that such a government would be unacceptable both morally and politically, particularly in light of statements made by certain Arab lawmakers following the October 7 attacks.

“To rely on Knesset members who said even after October 7 that Hamas is a charitable organization, or who accuse IDF soldiers of murder and crimes against humanity — not Hamas, but IDF soldiers! From a moral standpoint, I see no possibility of relying on those Knesset members, whether in Ra’am or the Joint List, including Ofer Cassif…”

Lieberman also warned that a minority government would be vulnerable to constant political pressure from individual lawmakers and could ultimately strengthen Netanyahu and the chareidi parties in a subsequent election.

“On the practical level, a minority government is a very unstable government. Every individual Knesset member can extort, can drive everyone crazy, can threaten the coalition… After such a caretaker government, you return to elections, and then Goldknopf, Deri, and Bibi together will already reach 70 seats!… The moment you return to elections, you boost them… the draft-dodgers’ bloc.”

Despite opinion polls indicating uncertainty over whether the opposition could secure a parliamentary majority, Lieberman expressed confidence that the four parties he identifies as the “serving bloc” would win enough seats to form a government.

“I know what is happening on the ground. The four parties, the serving bloc — we will bring a solid majority. All this talk about a minority government projects weakness and defeatism.”

Lieberman also urged opposition voters to avoid supporting smaller parties that polling suggests might fail to cross the electoral threshold, warning that votes cast for such parties could ultimately benefit Netanyahu’s bloc.

“I say not to vote for any atmosphere party: not for Yoaz Hendel, not for Ofer Winter. Vote only for one of the four parties. Period.”

Asked specifically about former senior IDF officer Ofer Winter, who previously served as his military secretary, Lieberman said the two had not spoken recently and that Winter was responsible for his own political decisions.

“The last time I spoke with Ofer Winter was a year and a half ago. He is a grown man, he knows what he is doing. A person’s wishes deserve respect.”

Lieberman was similarly dismissive of Benny Gantz, who had raised allegations about internal understandings and political arrangements among the opposition parties.

“Listen, you do not judge a person in his time of distress. I look at Benny Gantz, and truly, it is pitiful, a matter of compassion for living creatures. Leave him alone, he is no longer relevant… There were no deals, no internal axes within the bloc, within the serving bloc.”

Addressing the absence of a single agreed-upon candidate for prime minister among the opposition parties, Lieberman argued that the lack of a unified candidate was an advantage rather than a weakness.

“In 2021, we ran in the elections as five parties without one candidate for prime minister, and we won! We ran in 2022 with one candidate for prime minister… and we lost… It is much better right now to run as four parties. Each has a different electorate, and each must maximize its own electorate.”

Lieberman also outlined what he said would be the first parliamentary move by a new coalition, predicting that it would be able to remove the current Knesset speaker.

“We will certainly be able to replace the speaker of the Knesset. I am already hearing from within the coalition… at least a third of the coalition will vote against him, and at that moment… that opens up all the possibilities.”

The interview also addressed President Donald Trump’s public expressions of support for Netanyahu, which have become a prominent issue in the final days of the election campaign.

Lieberman said he respects Trump but insisted that the choice of Israel’s next prime minister belongs exclusively to Israeli voters. He also suggested that Netanyahu’s relationship with the American president makes it easier for Washington to influence Israeli policy.

“I greatly appreciate and respect the president of the United States… At the same time, the decision belongs to the citizens of Israel. This is our internal matter. I can understand Donald Trump — it is very convenient for him with Bibi, a puppet, you know, it makes it easy for him to manage things here… I am certain that any future prime minister will know how to conduct a constructive dialogue with the president of the United States.”

Finally, Lieberman addressed the Iranian threat and the possibility of renewed military confrontation during the politically sensitive period surrounding the elections.

He argued that decisions about a major war involving Iran would ultimately be made in Washington rather than Yerushalayim, and warned that Israel could find itself in the middle of coalition negotiations while facing a new round of missile attacks.

“A decision on the question of war is made in the White House, not here. And everything we are hearing from the United States is that Trump has decided that there will be a war only after the midterm elections in the United States… And it could be that we will be in the middle of coalition negotiations while missiles are flying in every direction! So let us not develop delusions of grandeur. We are indeed a strong and great country, but we are still not a global superpower.”

{Matzav.com}

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett launched a fierce personal attack against Shas chairman Aryeh Deri, declaring that Deri has “no G-d” and accusing him of abandoning a fundamental Torah obligation by opposing the military draft of yeshiva bochurim.

The extraordinary remarks came during a heated interview with Yishai Cohen of Kikar HaShabbat, just one week before Israel’s Knesset elections. Bennett, who heads the Beyachad party, accused Deri of promoting a religious outlook that, in Bennett’s view, contradicts the Torah’s obligations concerning the defense of Eretz Yisroel.

The exchange became particularly heated when the discussion turned to the refusal of chareidi political leaders to support compulsory military service for bnei yeshiva.

Bennett, who identifies as religious, argued that the chareidi leadership’s position was incompatible with the responsibility to protect fellow Jews during wartime.

“Deri has no G-d, I’m saying it! And I’ll tell you why I’m saying it: Because it is a disgrace and a shame! Your brothers went out to war, and he told the chareidi public that they must not dare help those soldiers who are falling! That is exactly what he said!”

Bennett continued his attack, invoking the Torah obligation to defend Eretz Yisroel and citing the halachic principle that during a milchemes mitzvah, even those ordinarily exempt from military service are called upon to participate.

“Arkyeh Deri has no G-d. This is not religious, this is not Zionist, this is not in the Torah! Everyone fought! No! He does not observe the mitzvah of protecting Eretz Yisroel, he does not observe it! Isn’t that observance of mitzvos?! The most basic mitzvah: to go out and fight and defend Eretz Yisroel against enemies in a milchemes mitzvah, when ‘even a groom from his chamber and a bride from her wedding canopy’ go out — he does not observe that mitzvah! This is a chillul Hashem and it is not religious! This is the invention of a new religion that is not Judaism! Because Judaism commands us to protect Eretz Yisroel against enemies who want to slaughter you, and me, and everyone! So he is not religious, I am more religious than he is!”

Bennett’s remarks reflect the sharp disagreement between his position on military service and that of the chareidi parties, which have insisted that the continued learning of Torah by yeshiva bochurim and avreichim must be protected through legislation regulating their military status.

His invocation of milchemes mitzvah also places a halachic argument at the center of the political dispute. Chareidi rabbonim and political representatives have maintained a fundamentally different position regarding the draft of full-time yeshiva students, emphasizing the importance of preserving the yeshiva world and the role of limud haTorah in protecting Klal Yisroel.

The confrontation was part of a longer interview conducted at Kikar HaShabbat’s studios. The news outlet released the heated exchange as an advance excerpt, with the complete interview scheduled to be broadcast Tuesday.

{Matzav.com}

Yated Ne’eman editor Yisroel Friedman issued a warning ahead of Israel’s upcoming Knesset elections, accusing those pushing for the military conscription of yeshiva bochurim of seeking to change the religious identity of the chareidi community rather than simply addressing the IDF’s manpower needs.

In an interview with Gudi Silman on Kol Chai Radio’s Tzav HaSha’ah program, Friedman also criticized Religious Zionism chairman Bezalel Smotrich over remarks concerning leading chareidi gedolim, warned against growing complacency among chareidi voters, and emphasized that the mission of the chareidi press is to faithfully convey the directives of the gedolei Yisroel.

Friedman, who was close to Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman zt”l, described the atmosphere surrounding the current elections as unprecedented in its hostility toward the chareidi community.

“There has never been such a phenomenon,” Friedman said, referring to the political and public rhetoric directed at chareidim.

He warned that the intensity of the current campaign, coupled with what he described as an alarming lack of urgency within parts of the chareidi community, has created a particularly dangerous situation.

“This is a very, very dangerous reality,” he said, adding that some of the rhetoric being heard today reminded him of dark periods in European history.

Friedman invoked the teachings of Rav Shteinman regarding the dangers of complacency, recalling the account of King Yehoyakim, who disregarded the warnings of Yirmiyahu Hanavi because he believed his own position was secure.

He stressed that the chareidi community must not approach the elections through the conventional political divisions of right and left, but rather through its obligation to follow the guidance of the gedolei haTorah.

“We have neither left nor right, we have no bloc, and we have nothing,” Friedman declared.

Turning to the role of the chareidi media, Friedman rejected the notion that newspapers serving the Torah community should operate as independent institutions setting their own ideological direction.

“A chareidi newspaper is not a newspaper edited by a chareidi person. A chareidi newspaper is one whose editor is prepared to say openly: We are a shofar, we are not independent. We are a shofar, and someone else blows that shofar.”

Friedman explained that the responsibility of a chareidi newspaper is to transmit the positions and instructions of the gedolei Yisroel to the public, rather than establish its own political or religious agenda.

Asked about media outlets that devote attention to internal disputes and divisions within the chareidi community, particularly during the election campaign, Friedman said such an approach fails to fulfill the fundamental responsibility of chareidi journalism.

He maintained that at a time when the community faces serious challenges from outside, the media should be concentrating on conveying the guidance of the gedolim and strengthening communal unity.

Friedman also addressed his recent criticism of Bezalel Smotrich, the chairman of the Religious Zionism party, following statements attributed to him concerning leading chareidi rabbonim, including Maran Rav Dov Landau.

“It is unacceptable for a person to express himself in such a manner about the gedolei Yisroel,” Friedman said.

He argued that Smotrich’s comments reflected a broader failure to respect the authority of the Torah leadership on matters affecting the yeshiva world.

Friedman further contended that even Smotrich had acknowledged that the IDF’s shortage of personnel was not the central motivation behind the campaign to draft chareidim.

“They are not looking for people to fill the positions. They are looking for chareidim to enlist in order to reeducate us,” Friedman charged.

According to Friedman, the military draft controversy cannot be understood solely as a debate over manpower or the distribution of national responsibilities.

He alleged that ideological agendas operating within the military are aimed at influencing the religious character of chareidi recruits and, ultimately, reshaping the broader chareidi community.

In his view, the demand for the enlistment of yeshiva bochurim represents a challenge to the continued independence of chareidi religious life and the ability of bnei Torah to maintain their traditional way of living.

Friedman also discussed developments within the chareidi community itself, expressing concern about movements and political initiatives that he believes undermine the authority of Daas Torah.

He recalled Rav Shteinman’s opposition to the establishment of separate political parties over disagreements that did not warrant dividing the Torah community.

To illustrate the point, Friedman referenced a well-known analogy involving a white tablecloth and a pink tablecloth on the Shabbos table.

He explained that Rav Shteinman had used the example to demonstrate that even when legitimate differences exist over religious customs and halachic practices, those disagreements do not automatically justify creating separate political organizations.

Friedman emphasized the importance of maintaining allegiance to the guidance of the gedolim and avoiding unnecessary divisions at a time when the chareidi community faces mounting political pressure.

Concluding his remarks, Friedman warned that the current confrontation extends far beyond the immediate questions of military service and election results.

“We are in the midst of a battle, a battle for the Torah, a battle for our identity, a battle for our very existence.”

{Matzav.com}

A wave of sensational but unverified reports concerning the fate of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has spread across social media, with claims that the 42-year-old leader suffered a severe brain hemorrhage, was secretly transported to China for emergency medical treatment, and subsequently fell into a coma. Some accounts have gone even further, alleging that Kim has died, although no credible evidence has emerged to substantiate any of the claims.

The rumors, which gained widespread attention Monday, have raised questions about the condition of one of the world’s most secretive rulers and the possibility of a leadership crisis in nuclear-armed North Korea.

Britain’s The Sun reported on the speculation, including allegations that Kim had been flown to Peking Union Medical College Hospital in Beijing after North Korean medical personnel were reportedly unable to provide the specialized treatment his condition required.

The claims have since been repeated by other international media outlets, although the reports have emphasized that the information remains unconfirmed and that there has been no independent verification of Kim’s alleged hospitalization.

Among those circulating the allegations is Wangjun Xie, a Chinese opposition activist living in the United States, who posted on X that the North Korean leader had suffered a brain hemorrhage and lapsed into a coma.

Xie subsequently escalated his claims, alleging that Chinese physicians had attempted unsuccessfully to save Kim’s life and that the dictator had died. According to his account, Kim’s body was then secretly transported back to North Korea.

There has been no independent confirmation of those assertions, and neither Chinese nor North Korean authorities have issued statements supporting the allegations.

Xie also claimed that Beijing had deployed approximately 9,000 Chinese troops to Pyongyang to maintain stability and facilitate a transfer of power to Kim’s daughter, Kim Ju Ae.

According to the activist’s account, the alleged deployment was intended to prevent a struggle for control of the North Korean government following Kim’s supposed death.

Those claims, too, remain entirely unsubstantiated. No reliable evidence has been presented showing that Chinese forces entered North Korea or that any leadership transition is underway.

The speculation has been fueled by the extraordinary secrecy surrounding North Korea’s leadership, where information about Kim’s medical condition is tightly controlled and even brief absences from public view can trigger international rumors.

Before the latest reports surfaced, Kim had appeared in official North Korean coverage in mid-October during a visit to a military museum, accompanied by his wife and daughter.

However, a significant new development has emerged: North Korean state media have now published photographs reportedly showing Kim visiting a clothing and footwear exhibition with his daughter on Monday. The images show him examining merchandise and interacting with officials, directly challenging the claims that he had died. The precise timing of the photographs has not been independently established.

The latest rumors also recall a similar episode in April 2020, when Kim disappeared from public view for several weeks, prompting widespread speculation that he had undergone a serious medical procedure or died. He eventually reappeared, disproving the death reports.

South Korea’s intelligence service has previously expressed concern about Kim’s weight and possible cardiovascular risks. In a briefing to lawmakers on September 30, intelligence officials reportedly estimated his weight at approximately 309 pounds but said they had detected no significant indications of serious illness.

Kim’s daughter, Kim Ju Ae, has increasingly appeared alongside her father at official events, prompting speculation that she may eventually succeed him. His influential sister, Kim Yo Jong, has also been mentioned in discussions about a possible future leadership transition.

For now, however, neither North Korea nor China has confirmed that Kim suffered a medical emergency, and there is no independently verified evidence that he was hospitalized, fell into a coma, or died. The newly released photographs further cast doubt on the sensational claims circulating online.

{Matzav.com}

WATCH:

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Rav Yisroel Meir Kagan zt”l, rosh yeshiva and cofounder of Yeshiva Toras Chaim of Denver, Colorado, whose decades of extraordinary dedication to harbotzas haTorah helped establish one of the most prominent Torah institutions in the American West and produced generations of bnei Torah, rabbonim, mechanchim, and devoted ovdei Hashem.

Rav Kagan was among the distinguished talmidim of Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l who carried their rebbi‘s vision of uncompromising Torah learning beyond the established yeshiva centers of the East Coast.

Together with his longtime colleague, Rav Yitzchok Wasserman, he established a makom Torah in Denver in 1967, at a time when the idea of building a major yeshiva so far from New York and Lakewood was an ambitious undertaking.

For nearly six decades, Rav Kagan devoted himself to the growth of Yeshiva Toras Chaim and the development of its talmidim. His influence extended far beyond the walls of the yeshiva, helping transform Denver into a recognized Torah community and demonstrating that the ideals of the great yeshivos could take root and flourish even in a city far removed from the traditional centers of American Torah life.

Rav Kagan was a prominent talmid of Rav Aharon Kotler at Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, where he absorbed the derech halimud, hashkafah, and commitment to Torah that would guide his life’s work. During his years in Lakewood, he was involved in giving chaburos, reflecting his stature as a serious ben Torah and his ability to transmit Torah to others.

The founding of Yeshiva Toras Chaim grew out of an initiative by members of Denver’s Jewish community who recognized the need for a yeshiva that would provide young men in the western United States with an authentic Torah education.

In 1966, a delegation from Denver traveled to Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood to seek leadership for the proposed institution. Their efforts ultimately led to the arrival of Rav Yitzchok Wasserman, Rav Chaim Kahan, and Rav Yisroel Meir Kagan, who came with their families to Denver for the opening of the 1967 school year.

Rav Wasserman and Rav Kagan brought with them the mesorah of Rav Aharon Kotler and the conviction that a yeshiva must be built upon unwavering dedication to Torah, regardless of its geographic location.

Rav Kagan’s involvement was particularly important in ensuring that the new institution would maintain a strong and continuous presence in the bais medrash. While the establishment of a yeshiva required extensive administrative work, recruitment, and fundraising, the founders understood that the heart of the institution had to remain its learning. Rav Kagan, who had already distinguished himself in Lakewood, was recruited to help provide that essential leadership.

The yeshiva opened at 1400 Quitman Street in Denver in the fall of 1967. Its location made it an unusual institution in the American yeshiva world, which was then overwhelmingly concentrated in the northeastern United States.

For families in western cities, the establishment of Yeshiva Toras Chaim represented an important new opportunity. Bochurim who previously would have had to travel considerable distances to attend a serious yeshiva could now pursue their learning in an environment closer to their home communities.

The yeshiva soon attracted talmidim from Seattle, Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, St. Louis, Vancouver, and other cities, as well as from New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, and established Torah communities along the East Coast.

Under the leadership of Rav Kagan and Rav Wasserman, Yeshiva Toras Chaim developed a reputation for combining serious learning with an exceptional degree of personal attention to each talmid.

The roshei yeshiva understood that their responsibility extended beyond delivering shiurim and overseeing the daily seder hayeshiva. They sought to develop complete bnei Torah, young men whose commitment to learning would be accompanied by refined middos, yiras Shomayim, and a lifelong attachment to Torah values.

This approach became one of the defining characteristics of the Denver Yeshiva. The institution emphasizes the individual development of every bochur, recognizing that each talmid possessed his own abilities, challenges, and potential.

Rav Kagan and Rav Wasserman were known for maintaining close relationships with their talmidim, relationships that often continued long after those young men left the yeshiva and established homes and careers of their own.

That enduring connection became a hallmark of Rav Kagan’s decades of harbotzas haTorah, as generations of talmidim continued to look toward Denver and their rosh yeshiva as sources of guidance and inspiration.

The yeshiva steadily expanded during its early years. In 1968, it acquired a new dormitory facility at the Lake Apartment House near Colfax and Perry Streets. Three years later, in 1971, the yeshiva celebrated the graduation of its first class of 20 talmidim.

In 1973, Yeshiva Toras Chaim received accreditation from the Colorado State Board of Education, another milestone in the development of what had begun as a pioneering effort to establish a yeshiva in the American West.

The influence of the mosad eventually extended into broader communal activities and efforts to strengthen Jewish observance.

By 1977, bochurim from the yeshiva were participating in Operation Seed, an initiative through which yeshiva students traveled to communities to introduce less-affiliated Jews to Torah learning and Jewish tradition.

In 1979, following the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the yeshiva assumed responsibility before the United States State Department for seven Iranian students, reflecting its willingness to assist Jewish young men facing extraordinary circumstances.

The following years brought further expansion of Torah life in Denver.

In 1981, the yeshiva established Denver’s first kollel, providing a framework for advanced Torah learning and strengthening the city’s developing Torah community.

The establishment of the kollel marked another important stage in the growth of Denver as a Torah center, extending the influence of Yeshiva Toras Chaim beyond its student body and into the broader community.

Rav Kagan also played a role in developing the city’s kashrus infrastructure. He was among the rabbonim involved in the early years of the Vaad Hakashrus of Denver, later known as Scroll K, which was established in January 1978.

From 1978 through 1988, Rav Kagan served on the organization’s rabbinical staff alongside Rav Meir Schwab, the dean of Bais Yaakov of Denver, and Rav Moshe Kahn.

His participation in this communal undertaking reflected the broader responsibilities that fell upon the founders of Torah institutions in developing communities. Establishing a yeshiva was only one part of the task. The continued growth of Torah life also required dependable communal institutions, kashrus supervision, educational opportunities, and rabbinical guidance.

As the decades passed, Yeshiva Toras Chaim became a fixture of the American Torah landscape, with its mesivta and bais medrash drawing bochurim from across the United States and beyond.

The yeshiva‘s continued development included the opening of additional facilities and the expansion of programs designed to strengthen Torah life in Denver. In 2008, Merkaz Torah V’Chesed opened on the city’s east side, further extending the institution’s communal reach.

In 2016, the yeshiva marked its fiftieth anniversary period with the completion of its Legacy Dormitory, another milestone in the remarkable growth of an institution that had begun with a small group of talmidim in 1967.

Through these developments, Rav Kagan remained identified with the original vision that had brought him to Denver: establishing a yeshiva devoted to authentic Torah learning and raising generations of bnei Torah in the spirit of Rav Aharon Kotler.

The rosh yeshiva‘s dedication to the development of each talmid was matched by his commitment to the broader Torah community. Rav Kagan and Rav Wasserman were regarded as senior Torah authorities in Denver, and their guidance was sought by individuals and families throughout the community.

Their leadership helped establish an environment in which Torah learning and adherence to the mesorah became central features of communal life. For generations of families who made their homes in Denver, the presence of Yeshiva Toras Chaim and its roshei yeshiva provided a source of stability and direction.

Rav Kagan’s influence was also felt beyond Colorado. He maintained connections with Torah institutions elsewhere in the country and was invited to address talmidim in other yeshivos.

In recent years, Yeshiva Toras Chaim began implementing a carefully planned transition to a new generation of leadership, ensuring that the institution established by Rav Kagan and Rav Wasserman would continue its mission. During the summer of 2025, Rav Dovid Nussbaum and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky assumed leadership of the yeshiva as its next generation of roshei yeshiva, carrying forward the derech and ideals established by the founders.

The transition represented the continuation of a legacy that began with the decision of several talmidim of Rav Aharon Kotler to leave the established Torah centers of the East Coast and build something enduring in the American West.

Nearly sixty years after Rav Kagan arrived in Denver, Yeshiva Toras Chaim stands as a testament to that undertaking. What began as a pioneering yeshiva has developed into an institution whose alumni are found in Torah communities throughout the United States and beyond.

Rav Kagan’s legacy is reflected in the generations of talmidim who passed through the yeshiva, the families they established, the Torah institutions in which many of them serve, and the continued growth of Torah life in Denver.

His petirah marks the loss of a distinguished member of the generation of talmidim of Rav Aharon Kotler who devoted their lives to transplanting the mesorah of the great yeshivos into new communities across America.

Throughout his years as rosh yeshiva, Rav Kagan was supported by his devoted rebbetzin, Rebbetzin Leah Kagan a”h, who passed away in 2016.

Rebbetzin Kagan was a daughter of the Mattersdorfer Rov, Rav Shmuel Ehrenfeld zt”l, the founder of Yeshivas Chasan Sofer in New York and the Mattersdorf neighborhood of Yerushalayim. She was a descendant of the Chasam Sofer through his daughter Hindel, who married Rav Dovid Tzvi Ehrenfeld.

Her distinguished family included numerous prominent gedolei Torah. Among her sisters were the wives of Rav Shmuel Binyomin Fisher, Rav Binyomin Paler, and Rav Eliyahu Simcha Schustal.

Together, Rav Kagan and his rebbetzin raised a family deeply involved in Torah learning and harbotzas haTorah, continuing the mesorah of their illustrious forebears. Their sons are Rav Chaim Ozer Kagan, Rav Dovid Kagan, and Rav Aharon Boruch Kagan. Their daughters are Mrs. Miriam Kamenetsky, wife of Rav Shalom Kamenetsky, rosh yeshiva of the Philadelphia Yeshiva; Mrs. Gitty Lipschutz, wife of Rav Avrohom Lipschutz, mashgiach of Telshe Yeshiva in Chicago; and Mrs. Chavie Furman, wife of Rav Yaakov Furman, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Vyelipol in Flatbush.

The levayah will be held at Yeshiva Toras Chaim, located at 1555 Stuart Street in Denver.  Final details will be posted when available. The aron will then be flown to Eretz Yisroel for kevurah there.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

Noam party chairman Avi Maoz declared that his party will be essential to securing a right-wing majority in Israel’s upcoming elections, rejecting demands that he withdraw from the race and announcing that he intends to seek the Education Ministry in the next government. He also pledged to introduce sweeping changes to school funding that would guarantee equal government support for chareidi students and teachers.

In an extensive interview with Yossi Sargovsky of Kikar HaShabbat, Maoz, a former deputy minister, insisted that Noam would remain loyal to the right-wing bloc but would refuse to join any coalition that includes Gadi Eisenkot, even if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decides to bring him into the government.

Maoz dismissed concerns about opinion polls showing his party struggling to cross the electoral threshold, claiming that Noam’s internal surveys indicate steady growth in support as Election Day approaches.

He pointed to the party’s extensive volunteer operation as evidence of its organizational strength, describing thousands of activists working without compensation out of ideological commitment.

According to Maoz, following a major campaign gathering at Binyanei HaUma in Yerushalayim, Noam volunteers made approximately 50,000 telephone calls to eligible voters in a single day last Thursday.

The effort, he explained, was designed to identify committed supporters and establish a coordinated election-day operation capable of bringing approximately 200,000 voters to polling stations.

Maoz argued that Noam’s ability to mobilize voters who are otherwise disillusioned with the political system makes the party an important component of the right-wing bloc.

During the interview, Sargovsky asked Maoz about the growing expressions of support he has received from rabbonim and other figures within the chareidi community.

Maoz attributed that support to his record during four years in the Knesset, saying he had consistently defended chareidi interests on major legislative and communal issues.

Among the examples he cited was his involvement in addressing the electricity crisis in Modiin Illit, as well as his efforts concerning communications legislation and the protection of Shabbos.

He also emphasized his opposition to coercive measures and financial or other sanctions against yeshiva bochurim and avreichim in connection with the military draft.

Maoz recalled that he had been the only non-chareidi member of the Knesset to participate in the massive chareidi rally held at the entrance to Yerushalayim, describing his attendance as an expression of solidarity with the Torah community.

Addressing the continuing controversy over the draft of bnei yeshiva, Maoz maintained that any workable arrangement must emerge through dialogue and with the agreement of the gedolei haTorah.

He insisted that those engaged in full-time Torah learning must be permitted to continue their studies without interference.

For chareidim who choose to enter military service, Maoz said the IDF must provide appropriate frameworks that fully accommodate their religious requirements and ensure that they can maintain their chareidi way of life throughout their service.

A major portion of the interview focused on Maoz’s plans for the Education Ministry, which he formally identified as the portfolio he intends to demand in coalition negotiations.

Maoz presented a proposal that would fundamentally change the distribution of government education funding, calling for equal financial support for every student in Israel regardless of the educational system in which the child is enrolled.

Under his plan, students attending chareidi schools and Talmud Torahs would receive the same level of public funding as children in state and state-religious schools.

Maoz argued that government funding should not discriminate between schools based on whether they emphasize the standard secular core curriculum or devote additional instructional time to Torah and religious studies.

He said his approach would guarantee equal educational opportunities while allowing different communities to preserve their distinctive educational philosophies.

The proposal would also address longstanding disparities in teachers’ salaries.

Maoz pledged to increase the base salaries of educators and establish equal pay conditions for teachers employed in chareidi, religious Zionist, and general state schools.

Beyond the financial changes, Maoz said he intends to overhaul the content and oversight of Israel’s public education system.

Drawing on his experience as a deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Maoz alleged that outside organizations had been introducing radical left-wing ideological material into state schools without sufficient parental knowledge or transparency.

He promised to require greater disclosure of educational programs and instructional materials so parents would know what their children were being taught.

Maoz also called for strengthening instruction in Jewish heritage and tradition throughout the public school system, including greater emphasis on Jewish holidays, tefillah, and mitzvos.

At the same time, he pledged to prevent the introduction of progressive ideological content that he believes is inappropriate for Israeli schools.

The Noam chairman devoted the final portion of the interview to growing pressure from other right-wing figures who have urged him to withdraw from the election to avoid wasting votes if his party fails to cross the electoral threshold.

Maoz rejected those demands, arguing that removing Noam from the race would damage the right-wing camp rather than strengthen it.

He maintained that his party appeals to voters who are dissatisfied with the existing right-wing parties and might otherwise stay home on Election Day.

According to Maoz, those voters could provide the additional support necessary for the right-wing bloc to secure 61 Knesset seats and form a governing majority.

He urged Netanyahu and other leaders of the right-wing camp to direct disappointed voters toward Noam instead of attempting to pressure the party into abandoning its campaign.

Maoz insisted that withdrawing would be irresponsible because, in his assessment, Noam represents a unique opportunity to bring additional voters into the right-wing camp.

He concluded by reaffirming his party’s commitment to a right-wing government while establishing a firm political condition: Noam will not participate in a coalition with Gadi Eisenkot under any circumstances, even if Netanyahu himself seeks to include Eisenkot in the next government.

Approximately 64,000 chareidi young men in Eretz Yisroel are now classified by the IDF as draft evaders, with thousands potentially facing criminal indictments and prison sentences of three to six months as the military prepares to significantly intensify enforcement of its conscription orders.

The alarming development was revealed Monday by Yediot Achronot journalist Shilo Fried, who disclosed newly obtained military figures during an interview on Kikar HaShabbat’s Davar Rishon program, hosted by Moshe Mans and Shuki Salomon. The information points to a potentially dramatic escalation in the ongoing confrontation between the Israeli military establishment and the chareidi community over the forced conscription of yeshiva bochurim.

According to the figures, obtained from the IDF through a Freedom of Information request submitted by the organizations Israel Hofsheet and the Movement for Freedom of Information, between 80,000 and 90,000 chareidi young men have received military summonses since July 2024, following the Supreme Court ruling that effectively ended the longstanding arrangement allowing full-time yeshiva students to defer military service.

Of those who received summonses, approximately 64,000 failed to report after receiving three separate orders and are now classified by military authorities as draft evaders.

Until recently, yeshiva bochurim arrested for failing to comply with military summonses generally faced relatively brief periods of detention, often lasting approximately two weeks. However, that situation is expected to change significantly as increasing numbers of young men become eligible for criminal prosecution under existing military regulations.

The critical legal threshold is 540 days from the date of the initial draft summons. Once that period has passed without the individual reporting for service, military prosecutors can pursue formal criminal charges rather than relying on the shorter disciplinary detention procedures used in many previous cases.

Those prosecuted under the more serious framework could face prison terms ranging from three to six months, according to the report.

Because the first large wave of draft orders was issued in the summer of 2024, many of the young men who received those summonses are now reaching the point at which criminal prosecution becomes possible. This means the coming weeks could see a substantial increase in the number of chareidi bochurim exposed to lengthy incarceration.

The IDF has also discussed reducing the waiting period for criminal prosecution from 540 days to 365 days, a change that would bring thousands of additional young men within the scope of potential indictments. However, that proposed reduction has not yet been implemented.

Additional military figures published by Yediot Achronot reveal the enormous disparity between the number of young men classified as draft evaders and the relatively small number actually arrested.

In 2023, approximately 7,000 individuals were classified as draft evaders, and 674 arrests were carried out. The following year, the number of draft evaders increased to 14,467, while arrests declined to 490.

The gap widened dramatically in 2025, when the number of individuals classified as draft evaders reached 55,594, but only 519 arrests were recorded throughout the year.

The latest figures for 2026 show that the number has climbed to 76,809 draft evaders nationwide, while just 437 arrests have been carried out since the beginning of the year.

Military data indicates that approximately 83 percent of those classified as draft evaders are chareidim. Nevertheless, only about 12 percent of the individuals indicted for draft evasion in 2026 have been members of the chareidi community.

The relatively small proportion of chareidi defendants is attributed in part to the 540-day requirement, which has prevented prosecutors from bringing criminal charges against many of the young men who first received draft notices following the 2024 Supreme Court decision.

According to the military figures, 360 indictments for draft evasion have been filed so far in 2026, compared with 442 during all of 2025.

The newly disclosed information comes amid increasing pressure on the IDF from legal authorities and organizations advocating expanded military conscription.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara demanded that the military intensify enforcement against chareidi draft evaders, including the resumption of proactive arrest operations.

During a review of enforcement activities, officials disclosed that 212 draft evaders and individuals accused of avoiding military service had been detained at border crossings between September 1 and September 22. Approximately 163 of those arrested were believed to be chareidim.

Most of the detainees were subjected to disciplinary proceedings rather than criminal prosecution.

The arrests took place primarily at Ben Gurion Airport, the Allenby crossing, and the Taba crossing into Egypt. Authorities also acknowledged that 64 individuals subject to military restrictions had managed to leave Israel and were arrested only upon returning, raising questions about enforcement of travel restrictions.

Military officials subsequently indicated that proactive enforcement operations, which had largely been suspended during the preceding period, would resume during October in coordination with the police.

The prospect of more aggressive enforcement and substantially longer prison sentences is expected to deepen tensions in the chareidi community, where the arrest of yeshiva bochurim has repeatedly triggered large demonstrations and widespread opposition.

Organizations providing assistance to detained bochurim, including Kav Aleph, are preparing for the possibility of a growing number of cases requiring legal representation and support for affected families.

The latest developments also come against the backdrop of Israel’s approaching Knesset elections, with the draft crisis remaining one of the most contentious issues confronting the country’s political leadership.

Chareidi representatives have repeatedly warned that efforts to forcibly draft yeshiva students threaten the continued existence of the yeshiva world and have insisted that the status of those devoted to full-time Torah learning must be protected.

Meanwhile, organizations advocating broader military conscription have accused the government and military authorities of failing to enforce existing laws, particularly as the IDF continues to face personnel shortages.

Uri Keidar, executive director of Israel Hofsheet, sharply criticized what he described as selective enforcement, accusing the government and military of retreating in the face of opposition to the draft.

With tens of thousands of chareidi young men now classified as draft evaders and many approaching the legal threshold for criminal prosecution, the coming weeks could mark a significant turning point in the struggle over yeshiva conscription, as the IDF moves toward a system under which failure to report for military service could result in months behind bars rather than a brief period of detention.

{Matzav.com}

Elyakim Stark, the newly announced United Torah Judaism candidate representing Belz chassidus, apologized Monday for controversial remarks in which he compared the difficulties currently facing chareidim in Eretz Yisroel over the military draft to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust.

In an interview with i24NEWS, Stark acknowledged that his comparison had been inappropriate, explaining that he had intended the comments sarcastically but understood why they had generated widespread criticism.

“Anyone who saw the full context understood that I said it sarcastically and ironically, but I have learned from this. I am not ashamed to say that I made a mistake,” Stark said.

During the same interview, Stark also drew attention for his surprisingly favorable comments about former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, indicating that United Torah Judaism could potentially cooperate with him following the upcoming Knesset elections.

“Eisenkot has many accomplishments to his credit. He is someone we can work with, someone who knows how to deliver solutions,” Stark said.

Stark further revealed that Eisenkot had effectively given his party a “blank sheet of paper” regarding the contentious military draft issue, suggesting that there could be room for negotiations over an arrangement addressing the status of yeshiva bochurim and avreichim.

The controversy began following remarks Stark delivered at an election gathering organized by the chassidishe campaign headquarters in Beit Shemesh.

Addressing the ongoing battle over the draft law and the restrictions being imposed on yeshiva bochurim who have not reported for military service, Stark described the difficulties that families are experiencing, particularly when attempting to arrange shidduchim involving prospective spouses living overseas.

Among the measures affecting those classified by the military as draft evaders are restrictions on leaving Eretz Yisroel, which have complicated travel for bochurim and avreichim.

“When people want to arrange a shidduch with someone from overseas, they have to come here because they cannot leave,” Stark told the gathering.

He then invoked the Holocaust, explaining that he had previously made a personal commitment to refrain from discussing Holocaust stories during the early years, before drawing a comparison between those historical experiences and the current circumstances of the chareidi community.

“I took it upon myself not to speak about Holocaust stories in the early years, but I find myself feeling that our situation is close to what happened during the Holocaust, and there is no other way to describe it. Our situation reminds me of the stories our grandparents told us about the Holocaust,” Stark said.

Those comments quickly sparked controversy, with the comparison drawing criticism because of the enormous difference between the systematic murder of European Jewry during the Holocaust and the current dispute over military conscription.

In his subsequent interview, Stark sought to clarify that he had not intended a literal comparison and conceded that his choice of words had been mistaken.

His remarks come as United Torah Judaism and the broader chareidi political leadership confront difficult questions ahead of the elections, with the draft crisis remaining one of the central issues affecting the community.

The possibility of cooperation with Eisenkot is particularly noteworthy given the continuing uncertainty surrounding the composition of the next government and the ability of chareidi representatives to secure legislation protecting the status of bnei yeshiva.

{Matzav.com}

The Bobover Rebbe has instituted a new takanah in the Bobover Bais Medrash, eliminating the longstanding practice of selling the shishi aliyah on Shabbos morning in an effort to strengthen the kedushah of the bais medrash and prevent unnecessary talking before Krias HaTorah.

The new takanah, which took effect on Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, completes an earlier initiative by the Rebbe to discontinue the sale of aliyos before Krias HaTorah. Until now, one exception had remained: the sale of shishi, the aliyah customarily received by the Rebbe himself.

The Rebbe explained that even the brief interruption required for selling that aliyah could lead to sichas chullin, idle conversation, which might continue as the tzibbur prepares for Krias HaTorah. By eliminating the sale entirely, the Rebbe hopes to preserve the atmosphere of kedushah and koved rosh throughout the davening.

For many years, the Bobover Bais Medrash had followed the practice of auctioning aliyos before Krias HaTorah, as is customary in numerous shuls. The Rebbe previously discontinued that practice out of concern that the proceedings created an unnecessary hefsek and encouraged conversation at a time when the tzibbur should be preparing for the reading of the Torah.

The one remaining exception was shishi, which is traditionally given to the Rebbe. The privilege of purchasing that aliyah was offered to the highest bidder, with bidding beginning at $3,600. The proceeds helped cover the considerable expenses involved in maintaining the Bais Medrash.

Following his aliyah, the Rebbe would also recite a special Mi Shebeirach for the individual who purchased the honor.

On Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, however, the Rebbe announced that this final exception would also be discontinued. Although the auction generally lasted only a few moments, and the aliyah was frequently arranged in advance anyway, the Rebbe felt that even those few moments should no longer interrupt the proceedings.

The Rebbe addressed the matter during his regular weekly shiur in the sefer Divrei Chaim, delivered before davening on Shabbos morning.

In his remarks, the Rebbe explained that the short period during which the aliyah was sold could provide an opening for unnecessary conversation. Once people begin speaking, he observed, it can be difficult to bring those conversations to an immediate halt when the time arrives for Atah Hareisa and Krias HaTorah.

The Rebbe emphasized that considerable efforts have already been invested in strengthening the kavod of the Bais Medrash and the seriousness with which tefillah is approached. He encouraged every member of the tzibbur to build upon those efforts by undertaking additional personal kabbalos concerning the kedushah of the bais haknesses.

In particular, the Rebbe urged the chassidim to maintain an atmosphere of koved rosh throughout their time in the Bais Medrash, recognizing that the sanctity of the place demands care and restraint even during moments when davening is not actively taking place.

Later, immediately before Krias HaTorah, the Rebbe again addressed the assembled tzibbur and formally announced that the sale of aliyos would be eliminated altogether.

He then went a step further, calling upon the mispallelim to undertake a kabbalah not to speak even bein gavra l’gavra, between one aliyah and the next.

The Rebbe pointed out that the Bais Medrash had already adopted the practice of shortening the Mi Shebeirachs recited during Krias HaTorah. As a result, the interval between one brachah and the next generally lasts less than 45 seconds.

Such a brief period, the Rebbe explained, is certainly something every person can manage without speaking. By exercising restraint for those few moments, each individual can contribute to maintaining the proper atmosphere during Krias HaTorah and further elevating the kedushah of the Bais Medrash.

The new takanah thus removes the last remaining auction from the Shabbos morning Krias HaTorah proceedings, while the Rebbe’s appeal for silence between aliyos places renewed emphasis on the responsibility of every mispallel to preserve the kavod and kedushah of the Bais Medrash.

{Matzav.com}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{Matzav.com}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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