Feed aggregator

Chareidi comedian and social media personality Avi Lukov, who became known for his biting criticism of the chareidi establishment, has publicly expressed regret over his past remarks against Gedolei Yisroel and is now urging voters to support United Torah Judaism in Tuesday’s Knesset elections.

In an interview with Moshe Mans on Kikar HaShabbat’s Davar Rishon program, Lukov described a personal reassessment of his conduct, including an emotional visit to his father’s kever, where he sat and cried during tefillah. He said he had come to recognize the responsibility that accompanies public influence and the serious consequences of speaking disrespectfully about Torah leaders.

Lukov’s reversal has attracted considerable attention because of his reputation as one of the chareidi community’s more outspoken and sarcastic social media commentators. For years, his criticism has focused on problems within chareidi society, including economic hardship, employment opportunities, the educational system, and the conduct of communal and political leaders.

Now, with the election approaching, he has begun openly encouraging his followers to vote for UTJ, represented by the letter gimmel on Israeli election ballots.

The announcement prompted an immediate backlash from some of his followers, who accused him of abandoning the positions that had made him popular. Others went further, alleging that he had received money from the UTJ election campaign in exchange for his endorsement.

Lukov firmly denied the allegations, maintaining that his decision was motivated by a genuine change in perspective rather than any financial arrangement.

During the interview, he acknowledged that he had gone too far in his previous statements about Gedolei Torah. Although he continues to stand behind his criticism of problems within the chareidi community, he said he now understands that there is a fundamental difference between challenging communal shortcomings and showing disrespect toward the Torah leadership.

He explained that his reassessment was connected to a growing awareness of the influence he had developed through his public commentary.

As his audience expanded, Lukov began questioning whether his words were having consequences beyond the specific issues he intended to address.

He said he feared becoming a “chotei u’machti es harabbim” — someone who sins and causes others to sin.

That concern became especially significant during an emotional visit to his father’s kever. Lukov recounted sitting there and crying as he reflected on his conduct and the responsibility he bore toward those who followed his commentary.

The experience contributed to his decision to change the way he speaks about Gedolei Yisroel.

Lukov emphasized that his change of heart should not be confused with an endorsement of every aspect of the chareidi establishment.

He remains critical of the economic difficulties facing chareidi families, the challenges of earning a parnassah, and problems within the cheder system.

He also continues to believe that legitimate criticism is necessary to address those issues.

What he now rejects, however, is the idea that such criticism provides justification for undermining the authority of Gedolei Torah.

The distinction has become central to his explanation of why he intends to vote for United Torah Judaism despite his dissatisfaction with individual politicians.

Lukov described the upcoming election as a difficult choice in which voters must decide which principles are most important to them.

He made clear that his support for UTJ should not be interpreted as a personal endorsement of politicians such as Yitzchok Goldknopf or Yaakov Asher.

Rather, he explained, voting for UTJ represents an expression of loyalty to Yiddishkeit, Shabbos, and Gedolei Yisroel.

In particularly sharp language, Lukov described supporting alternative political parties as an “etzba ba’ayin l’Gedolei Yisroel” — a finger in the eye of Gedolei Yisroel.

He also characterized such a vote as an act of chillul Hashem, arguing that the consequences of rejecting the direction of the Torah leadership extend beyond ordinary political disagreements.

His remarks come amid an increasingly contentious election campaign in which some chareidi voters have expressed dissatisfaction with the established parties and considered supporting new political movements.

The debate has centered partly on whether the traditional chareidi representatives have adequately addressed the needs of their constituents, particularly regarding education, employment, economic pressures, and the ongoing military draft controversy.

Lukov acknowledged the frustration behind some of those complaints. Indeed, many of those concerns are the same issues he has highlighted in his own commentary.

Nevertheless, he argued that the election should not be reduced to a referendum on the performance of individual Knesset members.

For him, the overriding consideration is the relationship between the chareidi public and its Torah leadership.

That position represents a significant departure from the public persona that helped Lukov gain attention on social media.

His commentary has frequently employed pointed humor and cynicism to expose what he considers failures within chareidi society. His willingness to criticize influential figures made him popular with some audiences while drawing objections from others.

His latest statements have therefore generated criticism from people who viewed his earlier positions as an expression of independence from the established political leadership.

Some have accused him of a political sellout, while others have questioned the sincerity of his sudden support for UTJ.

Lukov has rejected those accusations and insisted that his decision followed serious personal reflection.

The Vizhnitzer Rebbe of Bnei Brak, Rav Mendel Hager, has taken the extraordinary step of temporarily expelling five avreichim from his chassidus following an incident in which they allegedly harassed the Strikover Rebbe at a wedding last week, declaring that violence and disrespect toward other admorim have no place in Vizhnitz.

The decision was announced on Motzoei Shabbos, when the Vizhnitzer Rebbe assembled his chassidim and delivered a forceful address condemning the incident and warning against behavior that violates the longstanding principles of the Vizhnitzer dynasty.

The controversy began last week during the wedding of a daughter of the Leipniker Rebbe, when several avreichim associated with Vizhnitz allegedly confronted and mistreated the Strikover Rebbe.

The incident generated considerable outrage within chassidic circles, particularly because it involved conduct directed against an admor during a public simcha.

Sources within Vizhnitz described those responsible as individuals on the fringes of the community and emphasized that their actions did not represent the values or teachings of the chassidus.

The matter was treated with particular seriousness by the Vizhnitzer Rebbe, who moved to address the incident publicly and take disciplinary action against those involved.

Already on Thursday, Rav Yisroel Greenberger, a prominent Vizhnitzer dayan, delivered a strongly worded address in the main Vizhnitzer bais medrash, denouncing acts of violence and the mistreatment of others.

Rav Greenberger placed particular emphasis on the obligation to honor rabbonim and admorim, stressing that the foundations of chassidus are rooted in ahavas Yisroel, respect for others, and adherence to the teachings of the great admorim of previous generations.

He made clear that acts of intimidation and humiliation are incompatible with those principles, regardless of the circumstances or the motivations of those involved.

The Vizhnitzer Rebbe also met with Rav Yehuda Silman, a prominent dayan, to discuss the appropriate response to the incident.

During their meeting, the two considered what steps should be taken to express the seriousness of the misconduct and ensure that similar incidents would not occur again.

The involvement of senior rabbonim reflected the importance being placed on the matter within the Vizhnitzer leadership.

On Motzoei Shabbos, the Vizhnitzer Rebbe personally addressed the controversy during a gathering of his chassidim.

Speaking about the incident involving the Strikover Rebbe, he expressed his unequivocal condemnation of the conduct and emphasized that such behavior is entirely foreign to the traditions of Vizhnitz.

The Rebbe stressed that the approach handed down by the admorim of Vizhnitz throughout the generations has always emphasized proper middos, respect for others, and reverence for Torah scholars and chassidic leaders.

He warned that individuals who engage in aggressive behavior, even while believing that they are defending the honor of their own chassidus, are actually causing harm.

The Rebbe made clear that invoking the honor of Vizhnitz cannot justify conduct that contradicts the principles upon which the chassidus was established.

As a concrete expression of his condemnation, the Rebbe ordered that the five avreichim identified as having participated in the harassment of the Strikover Rebbe be barred from the Vizhnitzer court for a period of time.

The incident also prompted a notable gesture of support for the Strikover Rebbe from Rav Dov Landau.

A day after the confrontation, Rav Landau personally visited the Strikover Rebbe at his residence to offer chizuk following the ordeal.

{Matzav.com}

Moshe Feiglin, chairman of Israel’s Zehut party, has sought to clarify his position on Shabbos observance in Israel after declaring that he would vote against legislation prohibiting public transportation on Shabbos, a statement that raised questions about his approach to preserving the Jewish character of the state.

In a clarification issued Sunday, Feiglin emphasized that major state institutions, including Ben Gurion Airport and Israel’s public broadcasting corporation, Kan 11, should operate in a manner that respects the sanctity of Shabbos as Israel’s national day of rest.

At the same time, he reiterated his opposition to legislation that would impose religious observance through government coercion, arguing that decisions affecting individual communities should be made by local residents rather than dictated by national politicians.

The controversy emerged following an interview Feiglin gave to the publication Olam Katan, in which he stated that he would oppose a proposed law banning public transportation on Shabbos.

His remarks prompted renewed discussion about the position of Zehut, which advocates preserving Israel’s Jewish identity while limiting government intervention in religious matters.

Feiglin subsequently explained that his position distinguishes between national institutions representing the State of Israel and public spaces within individual cities and neighborhoods.

According to Feiglin, institutions such as Ben Gurion Airport and the Kan 11 public broadcasting network should reflect Israel’s Jewish identity and respect Shabbos as the country’s national day of rest.

However, he argued that questions involving transportation and other activities within local communities should be resolved by the residents themselves.

Feiglin sharply criticized previous attempts to strengthen Shabbos observance through legislation, claiming that such measures have often produced the opposite of their intended effect.

“For thirty years, futile coercive laws have not brought a single person closer to Shabbos. On the contrary, they have ignited unnecessary disputes and invited judicial rulings that have harmed tradition,” Feiglin said.

He argued that attempts to impose religious standards through political legislation have contributed to tensions between different segments of Israeli society and encouraged court intervention in matters involving Jewish tradition.

“Shabbos and Judaism are founded on choice, connection, and mutual respect, not political populism,” Feiglin said.

“Questions concerning the local communal sphere must be returned to the residents and communities themselves, without turning the sacred values of the Jewish people into weapons used against one another.”

The Zehut chairman maintained that protecting the Jewish character of national institutions is consistent with allowing communities greater authority over their own affairs.

Under the distinction outlined by the party, state institutions would be expected to uphold the Jewish identity of the country, while local communities would determine arrangements governing their own public spaces.

Zehut officials stressed that the party’s opposition to coercive religious legislation should not be interpreted as opposition to Shabbos observance or to preserving Israel’s Jewish character.

Rather, the party maintains that reducing government coercion could help strengthen public trust and improve relations between religious and secular Israelis.

{Matzav.com}

Jewish-American billionaire investor Bill Ackman, one of Israel’s most prominent supporters in the United States, has publicly urged Israeli voters and political leaders to consider forming the country’s next government without National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, arguing that their exclusion would help restore Israel’s international standing and strengthen its relationship with the American public.

Ackman, the founder and CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, made the remarks Sunday in a post on X, just two days before Israelis head to the polls for the October 27 Knesset elections.

The billionaire, who has been an outspoken defender of Israel since the October 7 Hamas attacks, emphasized that he was not attempting to dictate who should serve as Israel’s next prime minister. Instead, he said he wanted to offer an American perspective on the damage he believes the two ministers have caused to Israel’s reputation abroad.

“Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have caused enormous reputational damage to Israel through their statements and actions,” Ackman wrote.

According to Ackman, the international media frequently portrays Ben-Gvir and Smotrich as representatives of the views and aspirations of the entire Israeli population, creating an impression of the country that he believes is both damaging and misleading.

He argued that their continued presence in a governing coalition could make it more difficult for Israel to rebuild its standing among Americans, particularly at a time when support for Israel has become an increasingly contentious political issue.

Ackman stressed that the question of who should lead Israel belongs exclusively to Israeli citizens and that he was not endorsing any particular candidate for prime minister.

Nevertheless, he maintained that Israelis should consider how the composition of their next government will affect the country’s relationships with its closest allies.

The investor suggested that excluding Ben-Gvir and Smotrich from the next coalition would allow Israel to signal a fresh start to the international community, potentially reversing some of the reputational damage he believes has accumulated in recent years.

Such a decision, he argued, could help Israel rebuild credibility in Washington and improve its standing with both major American political parties.

Ackman specifically pointed to Democrats, Republicans, and the broader American public, arguing that Israel’s long-term interests would be better served by strengthening support across the political spectrum rather than allowing the country to become identified with controversial political figures.

He also suggested that a government without the two ministers would improve Israel’s prospects for expanding the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements launched during President Donald Trump’s first administration.

Those agreements established formal diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and have remained a major component of American efforts to expand regional cooperation.

Ackman believes that removing Ben-Gvir and Smotrich from the governing coalition would make it easier for additional countries to pursue normalization with Israel.

His comments amount to an unusual public intervention in Israeli coalition politics by a major American investor who has demonstrated significant financial and political support for the Jewish state.

Since the outbreak of the war following the October 7 attacks, Ackman has become increasingly involved in efforts to defend Israel internationally, particularly in American public discourse.

He has repeatedly spoken out against antisemitism and anti-Israel activism, including on American college campuses, and has used his public platform to challenge institutions and public figures over their responses to the war.

His support for Israel has also extended beyond public statements.

In January 2024, while Israel was engaged in fighting against Hamas, Ackman and his wife, Neri Oxman, acquired a stake of approximately 5% in the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

The investment was widely viewed as a significant expression of confidence in Israel’s economy during a period of considerable uncertainty.

The purchase drew attention because it came at a time when the war was placing substantial pressure on Israeli businesses, financial markets, and international investment sentiment.

Ackman’s latest comments therefore come from someone who has backed Israel not only through public advocacy but also through a major financial investment.

At the same time, his position places him at odds with two prominent figures on Israel’s political right who have been influential members of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

Ben-Gvir, who leads the Otzma Yehudit party, and Smotrich, who heads Religious Zionism, have both taken strongly nationalist positions on security and Palestinian issues, attracting criticism from foreign governments and international organizations.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday that President Donald Trump could face another impeachment effort if Democrats regain control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections, raising the possibility of a third impeachment battle involving the president.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Schiff indicated that impeachment remains a possibility under a Democratic-controlled Congress, although the party has not committed to pursuing such proceedings.

The remarks come just days before the November 3 midterm elections, when voters will determine which party controls the House of Representatives and Senate for the remainder of Trump’s term.

Schiff, who played a leading role in Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, has remained one of the president’s most prominent Democratic critics. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, he helped lead the investigation into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and subsequently served as a House impeachment manager during the Senate trial.

Trump was impeached by the Democratic-controlled House in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him in February 2020.

The president was impeached a second time in January 2021, following the January 6 Capitol riot, on a charge of incitement of insurrection. The Senate again voted to acquit him.

A new impeachment effort would therefore mark the third time the House has sought to impeach Trump, an unprecedented development in American presidential history.

During Sunday’s interview, NBC moderator Kristen Welker pressed Schiff directly on whether he believed Trump had already committed impeachable offenses.

“Let me ask you about a big debate right now inside the Democratic party,” Welker said. “If Democrats do win back control of Congress, it’s about impeachment. You, of course, led the first impeachment of President Trump back in 2019. As we sit here today, Senator, do you believe that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses?”

Schiff declined to reach a conclusion before congressional investigations had taken place.

“I feel the same way I did early in the Russia investigation, which is you don’t prejudge the outcome before you even do the oversight,” Schiff responded.

He said Democrats should concentrate initially on economic issues and investigating what he described as corruption within the administration.

“Our primary focus needs to be on bringing costs down,” Schiff said, adding that congressional oversight should examine alleged corruption contributing to higher costs.

He then explicitly left the door open to impeachment.

“If that corruption leads in the direction of impeachment, it will lead wherever it leads,” Schiff said.

“But we should put our overriding emphasis not on impeachment, but on bringing the cost down for the American people, on our affirmative agenda, on our oversight agenda, yes, our investigative agenda. But it should be with an eye to improving the quality of life for the American people.”

Schiff’s comments reflect a broader debate among Democrats over how the party should exercise congressional power if it wins the midterm elections.

Some Democrats have openly advocated another impeachment effort, while others have argued that the party should prioritize investigations, government spending, and economic issues rather than immediately launching impeachment proceedings.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) recently argued that another impeachment could establish standards for presidential conduct, citing concerns about executive authority, military action, and potential conflicts of interest.

Other senior Democrats have taken a more cautious approach.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has suggested that an immediate impeachment push could play into Trump’s political strategy by allowing the president to rally his supporters against congressional Democrats.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, has similarly argued that impeachment should remain available while congressional investigations focus on the administration’s conduct.

Republicans, meanwhile, have warned that a Democratic takeover of the House could result in a wave of investigations targeting Trump, members of his administration, and his family.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has argued that Democrats would use their congressional authority to pursue political opponents rather than conduct legitimate oversight.

Trump himself has previously criticized the prospect of a third impeachment, describing such an effort as unfair.

Even if Democrats regain control of the House, impeachment would not automatically result in Trump’s removal from office.

Under the Constitution, the House can impeach a president by a simple majority vote, but removal requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate following a trial. That threshold would present a substantial obstacle without significant Republican support.

For now, Schiff’s remarks stop short of calling for immediate impeachment proceedings. Instead, he is signaling that a Democratic-controlled Congress could undertake investigations that might ultimately produce grounds for another impeachment effort.

With the midterm elections approaching, the possibility of renewed impeachment proceedings has become another point of contention between the parties, raising questions about how Democrats would use congressional oversight powers during the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

{Matzav.com}

More than 20,000 Israeli police officers will be deployed throughout the country on Tuesday as Israel holds elections for the 26th Knesset, with authorities preparing an extensive security operation designed to protect voters, maintain public order, and safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.

The massive deployment was announced Sunday evening following a meeting between Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, chairman of the Central Elections Committee, and Israel Police Commissioner Danny Levy, during which senior police officials presented their operational preparations for Election Day.

The meeting focused on security arrangements at polling stations and other locations across the country, measures to prevent election-related disturbances, and efforts to ensure that voting proceeds without interference.

Joining Levy at the meeting was Brig. Gen. Eli Pinto, the senior police official responsible for overseeing election preparations. Also participating was attorney Dean Livne, acting director-general of the Central Elections Committee.

Police officials outlined the extensive preparations undertaken in recent months, including the planned deployment of officers, security personnel, and volunteers throughout Israel.

Following the briefing, Sohlberg expressed satisfaction with the police preparations and praised the close coordination between law enforcement authorities and the Central Elections Committee.

“The police are prepared in the best possible manner. This high level of preparedness is the result of the close cooperation between the police and the Elections Committee throughout the entire process,” Sohlberg said.

The committee chairman emphasized that the deployment of more than 20,000 officers would provide a substantial security presence throughout the country and allow police to respond to incidents that could arise during the voting process.

“The more than 20,000 police officers who will be deployed in the field on Election Day are expected to provide an appropriate response. The police preparations ensure the integrity of the elections,” he said.

Commissioner Levy pledged that the Israel Police would take all necessary steps to protect the electoral process and ensure that citizens could exercise their right to vote.

“The Israel Police will do everything to ensure the integrity of the elections,” Levy declared.

He explained that police commanders have spent recent months conducting comprehensive preparations for the nationwide operation, coordinating the deployment of officers, security forces, and volunteers who will be stationed across the country.

The operation is intended to maintain public order and provide security throughout Election Day, with police resources positioned to address disturbances or other incidents that could interfere with voting.

The preparations also involve close cooperation between the police and election officials, allowing authorities to coordinate responses to problems that may arise at polling locations.

Livne praised the working relationship between the Central Elections Committee and the police, describing the level of cooperation as among the strongest seen in recent years.

He said the planned police presence represents an unprecedented deployment, reflecting the extensive preparations undertaken ahead of Tuesday’s elections.

According to Livne, the security operation will continue beyond the closing of polling stations, with police maintaining their deployment until the election results are published.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that the United States would not launch a military strike against Iran that day, backing away from remarks made just 24 hours earlier suggesting that another American attack could take place as soon as Sunday. The announcement came as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned that Iran or its proxies might attempt to disrupt Tuesday’s Knesset elections with an attack on Israel.

The developments unfolded amid heightened military preparations in Israel, continuing tensions in the Persian Gulf, and reports that Washington and Tehran remain in indirect contact despite their public threats and disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House before departing for a campaign rally in Michigan, Trump was asked whether he intended to order another strike against Iran.

The president initially declined to discuss military plans in advance, but then offered a definitive answer regarding the possibility of an attack that day.

“No. There will be no attack today,” Trump said.

His comments represented a change in tone from Saturday, when he raised the possibility of renewed American military action against Iran while speaking with reporters after casting his ballot in early voting for the November midterm elections.

Asked about the prospect of another strike, Trump responded sarcastically that such an operation was under consideration and could potentially take place the following day.

During the same exchange, Trump also suggested that a diplomatic agreement with Tehran remained possible, although he expressed skepticism about whether Iranian leaders would honor any commitments they made.

The conflicting statements have added to uncertainty surrounding Washington’s immediate intentions, particularly as American military forces continue operating in the Persian Gulf and indirect diplomatic communications with Iran remain active.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu issued a sharp warning to Tehran on Sunday during a visit to an Israeli Arrow missile defense battery.

The prime minister said Israeli intelligence had identified the possibility that Iran or Iranian-backed organizations could attempt to launch an attack in the days leading up to Tuesday’s elections, potentially seeking to interfere with the voting process.

“Do not test us. You will suffer blows out of all proportion,” Netanyahu warned.

He emphasized that the IDF was prepared both to defend Israel against incoming attacks and to carry out offensive operations across multiple fronts if necessary.

The warning came as Israeli security officials increased their readiness ahead of the October 27 elections, amid concerns that Iran could attempt to exploit the politically sensitive period.

Israeli officials have reportedly assessed that Israel is unlikely to initiate a large-scale military operation against Iran before Election Day. Nevertheless, security officials remain concerned that Tehran could misinterpret Israeli military preparations and decide to launch a preemptive attack.

On October 14, Ynet reported that an Israeli security official did not anticipate an Israeli-initiated strike before the elections. The same report warned that a mistaken assessment by either side could lead to an unintended escalation.

The latest intelligence concerns have placed Israel’s defense establishment on heightened alert as the country prepares for an election taking place under the shadow of a possible confrontation with Iran.

Despite the increasingly forceful military rhetoric, Iranian officials continue to insist that a diplomatic settlement with Washington remains possible.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Sunday that Tehran had not closed the door to renewed negotiations with the United States and that messages were continuing to pass between the two governments through intermediaries.

In an interview with German media, Baghaei accused Washington of maintaining unilateral demands, including what he characterized as a demand for Iran’s complete surrender.

He said Tehran would not accept such conditions, although the Iranian government remained willing to pursue discussions if the American position changed.

The comments indicate that diplomatic channels have not been completely severed, even as the two countries continue to exchange threats and maintain substantial military deployments in the region.

Negotiations have been largely stalled in recent weeks, with major disagreements centered on the Strait of Hormuz and the American blockade of Iranian ports.

The strategically vital waterway, through which significant quantities of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies normally pass, has become a central point of contention in the confrontation.

Over the weekend, reports emerged that Tehran had submitted a new proposal through Pakistan offering to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the removal of the American blockade.

Iranian sources subsequently denied that a new proposal had been delivered, although they maintained that the possibility of reaching a diplomatic arrangement had not been eliminated.

The conflicting reports have made it difficult to determine whether meaningful progress is being made behind the scenes or whether the communications represent preliminary exchanges that have yet to produce a basis for negotiations.

American military activity in the region has continued alongside those diplomatic efforts.

According to the Associated Press, Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, flew over the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday as American forces continued operations intended to safeguard commercial shipping.

CENTCOM also reported that more than 3,000 commercial vessels had traveled through the strait with American military assistance over the previous six months.

The figure underscores the extensive American involvement in protecting maritime traffic through one of the world’s most important energy transportation routes.

Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have affected international energy markets, shipping companies, and maritime insurers, increasing the economic consequences of the confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

The continued military presence has also made the waterway a potential flashpoint, with any new incident involving Iranian and American forces carrying the risk of a broader escalation.

The unfolding crisis comes at a particularly sensitive political moment for both Israel and the United States.

Israel is scheduled to hold its Knesset elections on Tuesday, October 27, while American voters will head to the polls one week later, on November 3, for midterm elections that will determine control of the House of Representatives and a portion of the Senate.

In the United States, the war with Iran and its effects on energy prices have become major campaign issues.

Trump has faced criticism over rising costs, particularly fuel prices, while also confronting pressure to demonstrate diplomatic progress that could reduce American military involvement in the Middle East.

The administration must balance those domestic political considerations against its stated security objectives and the continuing threat posed by Iran.

In Israel, security officials are primarily focused on preventing an attack that could interfere with the electoral process or force widespread emergency measures in the days surrounding the vote.

Netanyahu’s warning Sunday made clear that Israel intends to respond forcefully to any Iranian attempt to exploit the election period.

At the same time, Trump’s announcement that no American strike would take place Sunday leaves open the possibility of renewed military action in the coming days.

The immediate question is whether the president’s decision reflects a temporary postponement of military operations or a willingness to allow additional time for diplomatic efforts.

Washington is expected to continue closely monitoring Iranian military activity in the Persian Gulf, while Tehran assesses whether the latest American statements signal a genuine opening for negotiations.

With Israeli elections just two days away and American midterm elections approaching, the coming days could prove decisive in determining whether the confrontation moves toward renewed diplomacy or another round of military escalation.

{Matzav.com}

With less than two days remaining before Israel’s Knesset elections, political tensions within the chareidi community are intensifying, with police called to investigate the distribution of thousands of election-related posters in Bnei Brak, senior poskim issuing unusually forceful warnings against a breakaway chareidi party, and prominent Sephardic rabbonim undertaking last-minute efforts to prevent votes from being diverted away from established parties.

The developments, reported by Bavel’s Meiriv news program, reflect the increasingly contentious atmosphere surrounding Tuesday’s election, as competing factions attempt to influence chareidi voters and opponents of electoral participation prepare additional protest activities.

One of the more unusual incidents occurred shortly before Shabbos in Bnei Brak, where residents reported a vehicle driving through the city while its occupants scattered large quantities of politically charged pashkevilim throughout public areas.

Police were summoned following complaints about the vehicle and the extensive distribution of the posters.

According to the report, the material being distributed did not promote the established chareidi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism. Instead, the posters carried messages associated with several competing political groups and anti-election campaigns.

Among the materials were posters expressing support for Moti Leitner and his Chareidi Public party, advertisements promoting Chaim Miller’s Black Color party, and notices associated with Satmar’s campaign urging chareidim to refrain entirely from participating in the elections.

The fact that materials representing several different political movements were allegedly being distributed from the same vehicle raised questions about who was behind the operation and whether the activity was coordinated.

The report characterized the incident as an attempt to disrupt the established chareidi political framework, although it did not identify those responsible for organizing the distribution or establish that the various groups whose names appeared on the posters were involved in the operation.

Meanwhile, a separate political confrontation has erupted over Moti Leitner’s Chareidi Public party, which is attempting to attract voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi political leadership.

Two prominent poskim, Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl and Rav Asher Weiss, have issued strongly worded letters opposing support for the party.

According to Bavel, the letters represent an unusually forceful intervention by the rabbonim, whose associates and talmidim reportedly could not recall similar involvement in previous election campaigns.

The rabbonim warned that the party’s political and ideological direction poses a threat to the traditional chareidi way of life.

In particular, they expressed concern that Leitner’s movement seeks to encourage greater integration between the chareidi and general Israeli populations, rather than strengthening the independence of chareidi institutions and communities.

The warnings also focused on the potential consequences for the education of children in families supporting the party.

According to the report, the rabbonim maintained that voting for Leitner could ultimately undermine the educational values and religious framework that chareidi families seek to preserve.

Their intervention follows growing concern among established chareidi political leaders that smaller parties could attract enough votes to weaken the electoral strength of the larger chareidi factions without themselves securing representation in the Knesset.

Under Israel’s electoral system, a party must receive at least 3.25% of the valid national vote to enter the Knesset. Votes cast for parties that fail to reach that threshold do not translate into parliamentary seats.

That concern has prompted an intensive campaign to discourage voters from supporting smaller lists that are not expected to cross the electoral threshold.

In the Sephardic chareidi community, a particularly significant development unfolded over the weekend as Rav Avrohom Salim, a rosh yeshiva and member of the Shas Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, undertook a late-night series of visits to prominent rabbonim who have traditionally opposed participation in Knesset elections.

According to the report, Rav Salim traveled from one rabbinic home to another in an effort to secure statements that could encourage greater electoral participation and reduce the number of votes lost to abstention or competing parties.

The meetings reportedly produced several significant statements, although the article did not provide their full wording.

The initiative comes amid concern within Shas over the possibility that opposition to the military draft and dissatisfaction with the political establishment could lead some Sephardic chareidi voters to stay home or support alternative parties.

In another development, Rav Chida Abergel, leader of the Achi Yisrael movement, withdrew his party from the race for the 26th Knesset following efforts by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former Sephardic Chief Rav Shlomo Moshe Amar to persuade him not to run.

Rav Abergel subsequently announced on Sunday evening that he would support Otzma Yehudit, the party headed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

His decision removes another small party from the ballot and eliminates the possibility that votes cast for Achi Yisrael would fail to count toward Knesset representation because the party did not reach the electoral threshold.

The withdrawal represents a significant development in the final days of the campaign, as political leaders continue efforts to consolidate votes among parties that are more likely to secure parliamentary representation.

At the same time, Bavel reported receiving internal information suggesting that extremist factions opposed to the established chareidi parties are preparing a broader campaign to disrupt election-day activity.

According to the report, the planned efforts involve two parallel tracks.

The first centers on encouraging protest votes for smaller parties that are not expected to reach the electoral threshold, including Chaim Miller’s Black Color party and Leitner’s Chareidi Public party.

The reported objective is to draw votes away from the established chareidi parties, thereby reducing their potential representation in the next Knesset.

The second track reportedly involves efforts to interfere with normal election-day activity and discourage chareidi participation in voting.

The report did not provide specific operational details about the anticipated disruptions, and the allegations concerning the plans have not been independently confirmed.

The developments come amid an election campaign marked by deep divisions within the chareidi community over military recruitment, political representation, and the effectiveness of participation in Israel’s governing institutions.

While the established chareidi parties are working to preserve their electoral support, rival movements are attempting to capitalize on dissatisfaction with the political leadership, and groups ideologically opposed to Knesset participation continue to campaign for abstention.

With Tuesday’s election approaching, the competing campaigns have moved beyond political speeches and advertisements, drawing senior rabbonim into the debate and prompting police involvement following the Bnei Brak poster incident.

The final days of the campaign are expected to bring continued efforts by the various factions to influence voters, as the question of chareidi political representation remains one of the major issues surrounding the election.

{Matzav.com}

A handwritten letter issued by Rav Moshe Maya, the senior member of Shas’s Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, has introduced a significant new development in the controversy surrounding the position of Rav Moshe Tzadkah, Rosh Yeshivas Porat Yosef, regarding participation in Tuesday’s Israeli elections.

The letter, released Sunday amid efforts by competing factions to secure the support of leading Sephardic rabbonim, addresses the longstanding position of Rav Yehuda Tzadkah zt”l, the Rosh Yeshivas Porat Yosef, who personally refrained from voting in Knesset elections.

Rav Maya, who was a talmid of Rav Yehuda Tzadkah, wrote that he believes his rebbi would have urged people to vote under today’s circumstances, particularly in light of what he described as the public humiliation of talmidei chachomim.

The development comes as Shas officials seek to prevent the personal voting practices of Rav Moshe Tzadkah, son of Rav Yehuda Tzadkah, from being portrayed as an endorsement of efforts to discourage Sephardic chareidim from voting for the party.

On Sunday afternoon, Rav Benayahu Shmueli, the noted mekubal, returned to the home of Rav Moshe Tzadkah in another attempt to obtain his signature on a public declaration opposing a vote for Shas.

The visit followed a meeting last night between Rav Tzadkah and two senior Sephardic Torah leaders, Rav Yitzchok Yosef, president of the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, and Rav Moshe Maya.

During that meeting, Rav Tzadkah reportedly explained that although he and his father, Rav Yehuda Tzadkah, did not personally participate in Knesset elections, their practice should not be interpreted as opposition to Shas.

According to the account of the meeting, Rav Tzadkah indicated that those who do participate in elections should vote for Shas in order to help protect the Olam HaTorah.

The discussions have taken place against a backdrop of mounting tensions within the Sephardic chareidi community, where the question of whether to participate in the elections has become a contentious issue.

During Sunday’s visit to Rav Tzadkah’s home, a disturbance reportedly broke out as efforts continued to secure a public statement concerning the elections.

Against that background, Rav Moshe Maya took the unusual step of publishing a handwritten gilui daas clarifying his understanding of the position held by his rebbi, Rav Yehuda Tzadkah.

The letter was written in response to a question posed by Rav Yaish Davda, who had sought clarification regarding the voting practices of the rabbonim associated with Yeshivas Porat Yosef.

Rav Maya wrote:

“I had the privilege of learning in Porat Yosef, and most of the rabbonim voted in both Knesset and municipal elections, with the exception of those who followed the practice of my rebbi, Rav Yehuda Tzadkah zt”l.”

Rav Maya then offered his assessment of how Rav Yehuda Tzadkah would have responded to the circumstances facing the Torah community today.

“And I believe, having had the privilege of learning under our rebbi, the gaon Rav Yehuda zt”l, that if he were here today, when talmidei chachomim are being humiliated, he would say to run and vote in order to protest emphatically.”

The statement is particularly significant because Rav Maya’s position is based on his personal experience as a talmid of Rav Yehuda Tzadkah, whose approach to elections has become a central point of contention in the current dispute.

His letter distinguishes between the personal practice of refraining from voting and the question of whether that practice should be understood as opposition to participation by others.

According to the report, Rav Yaish Davda is expected to respond favorably to Rav Maya’s letter and, for the first time, publicly express support for voting for Shas. Such an announcement had not yet been confirmed at this time.

{Matzav.com}

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Mr. Mordechai (Mark) Shem Tov z”l of Flatbush, Brooklyn, a prominent machzik Torah and generous supporter of yeshivos and kollelim throughout the world, who passed away on Sunday at the age of 65 following a difficult illness.

Mr. Shem Tov was widely recognized for his extraordinary dedication to supporting Torah institutions and talmidei chachomim, devoting considerable resources and personal effort to strengthening the Olam HaTorah both in America and Eretz Yisroel.

Born to his parents, R’ Meir Shem Tov z”l and Mrs. Sarah Nina Shem Tov a”h, he grew up with a deep appreciation for Torah and the importance of supporting those who dedicate their lives to its study.

Upon reaching marriageable age, he married his wife, Elka, nee Zaks, a daughter of Rav Yisroel Meir and Mrs. Bebshie Zaks, a granddaughter of Rav Mendel Zaks zt”l, and a great-granddaughter of the Chofetz Chaim zt”l.

The Shem Tov home in Flatbush became known as a bais vaad lachachomim, a gathering place for rabbonim, talmidei chachomim, and individuals involved in supporting and spreading Torah.

Mr. Shem Tov maintained a daily schedule centered around Torah and tefillah. He regularly davened Shacharis early and devoted time to learning immediately afterward.

It was during the morning hours that meshulachim and representatives of Torah institutions would frequently come seeking assistance for their yeshivos, kollelim, and charitable endeavors.

Through trusted gabbaei tzedakah, Mr. Shem Tov distributed substantial sums to Torah institutions, helping sustain the learning of avreichim and bochurim.

His generosity extended well beyond individual contributions. He was actively involved in efforts to establish new yeshivos and kollelim, assisting those working to expand Torah learning in communities around the world.

Those familiar with him described a man who combined extraordinary generosity with a genuine personal commitment to Torah learning.

Despite his involvement in business and financial matters, Mr. Shem Tov approached his daily life with the attitude of Toraso keva u’melachto arai, making Torah his primary occupation and worldly affairs secondary.

He was himself an accomplished ben Torah, deeply engaged in learning and known for his enthusiasm and delight in discussing divrei Torah.

He possessed a remarkable ability to express Torah thoughts and was described as a peh mapik margoliyos, someone whose words were filled with Torah insights and wisdom.

His respect for talmidei chachomim was evident in the manner in which he welcomed, honored, and supported them, treating those immersed in Torah learning with exceptional warmth and admiration.

Mr. Shem Tov maintained especially close ties with Torah institutions in Eretz Yisroel, where he owned an apartment and visited numerous times throughout the year.

Among the Torah leaders and institutions he supported was the yeshiva of his wife’s uncle, Rav Hillel Zaks zt”l, Rosh Yeshivas Knesses Hagedolah in Modiin Illit, with whom he maintained a particularly strong connection.

He was also a major supporter of the kollel associated with Bais Medrash Aliyas Bais Chananya in the Sanhedria neighborhood of Yerushalayim.

In Flatbush, he was particularly close to Rav Eliezer Ginsburg, rov of Agudas Yisroel Snif Zichron Shmuel, rosh kollel of Mirrer Yeshiva, and rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Gedolah Zichron Leyma of Union, NJ.

His involvement with these institutions reflected his broader commitment to ensuring that bnei Torah could devote themselves to learning without being overwhelmed by financial concerns.

Beyond his financial generosity, Mr. Shem Tov was remembered for his personal warmth, cheerful disposition, and deep sensitivity toward others.

Those who knew him described a man whose face was consistently illuminated by a smile, even as he carried his own difficulties privately.

He devoted himself to helping others and encouraging the growth of Torah institutions, combining his financial contributions with active efforts to inspire additional support.

During his final illness, Mr. Shem Tov endured considerable suffering. Those close to him recalled that he accepted his yissurim b’ahavah, maintaining his emunah and continually expressing gratitude and praise to the Ribono Shel Olam despite the pain he experienced.

His passing leaves a profound void among the many rabbonim, roshei yeshiva, avreichim, and Torah institutions that benefited from his generosity and personal involvement.

The first levayah is being held Sunday in Flatbush, Brooklyn.

His aron will then be flown to Eretz Yisroel, where a second levayah is scheduled for Monday, October 26, departing from Bais Medrash Aliyas Bais Chananya, located at 40 Shaul Hamelech Street in the Sanhedria neighborhood of Yerushalayim.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

The chareidi Achi party has officially withdrawn from Tuesday’s Knesset elections, with Israel’s Central Elections Committee confirming that the party will no longer participate in the race and warning that any votes cast for its list will be disqualified.

The development comes just days before Israelis head to the polls and represents another shakeup among the smaller political movements that had sought to attract voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi parties.

According to the Central Elections Committee, the withdrawal became official after all candidates appearing on the Achi party’s Knesset list submitted their resignations, leaving the party without candidates eligible to stand for election.

As a result, the party’s ballot slips, bearing the Hebrew letters צבי, will not be distributed to polling stations for Tuesday’s vote.

Election officials emphasized that any such ballots discovered during the counting process will be considered invalid, even if they were cast before the party’s withdrawal was formally completed.

The ruling also applies to ballots already submitted through early-voting arrangements, where applicable.

The announcement is particularly relevant to voters who had been considering supporting Achi as an alternative to United Torah Judaism and Shas.

Those voters will now need to select another party if they wish to cast a valid ballot in Tuesday’s election.

The party’s withdrawal follows a political effort to prevent votes from being lost to smaller right-wing and religious parties that were considered unlikely to cross the electoral threshold.

Achi, formally known as the Achi Movement of Rav Yoram Abergel zt”l, was established by followers of the late Rav Yoram Abergel. The movement is associated with his son, Rav Chaim Yosef Dovid Abergel, who played a central role in the party’s decision to withdraw.

The party announced its intention to leave the race on Friday, October 23, following discussions involving senior political and rabbinic figures.

Among those involved in efforts to secure its withdrawal were former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Rav Shlomo Amar, Knesset member Almog Cohen, local government officials, and representatives acting on behalf of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

The discussions centered on concerns that votes cast for Achi could be wasted if the party failed to secure the minimum 3.25% of the national vote required for Knesset representation.

Following those discussions, Rav Abergel issued a letter announcing that Achi had achieved its objectives and would not contest the upcoming election.

He also said that commitments had been received from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding several issues of concern to the movement.

Those included advancing legislation concerning the military draft, assistance for economically disadvantaged families, improvements to early childhood education and daycare, support for senior citizens, and strengthening Israel’s Jewish identity and educational institutions.

The party’s decision to withdraw was subsequently followed by another significant political development.

On Sunday, Rav Chaim Yosef Dovid Abergel publicly endorsed National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and his Otzma Yehudit party, calling on supporters of Achi to vote for the party represented by the Hebrew letter bet.

“Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is G-d-fearing and respects talmidei chachomim, and it is incumbent upon all of us to vote for the letter bet for Otzma Yehudit,” Rav Abergel declared.

The endorsement comes as Ben-Gvir has intensified efforts to attract chareidi voters who are dissatisfied with the established parties or who had been considering smaller political lists.

Meanwhile, the Central Elections Committee has issued detailed instructions to polling station officials concerning Achi’s withdrawal.

Officials have been ordered to ensure that ballot slips bearing the letters צבי are removed from polling booths and are not made available to voters.

In addition, the party’s ballot will be marked with an X on official election posters and notices displaying the approved political lists, making clear that Achi is no longer participating.

The instructions apply to polling stations throughout Israel, including military voting locations.

The committee also clarified that any Achi ballot discovered during the counting process must be disqualified, regardless of whether it was an officially printed slip or a handwritten ballot.

The same rule applies to votes already submitted by Israeli soldiers and personnel stationed at diplomatic missions overseas.

That provision is particularly important because certain groups of voters have already participated in early voting, meaning that ballots cast for Achi before its withdrawal became official will not be counted.

Achi’s departure follows the withdrawal of Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party, which also left the race after polling indicated that it was unlikely to cross the electoral threshold.

Both withdrawals come amid intense pressure from political leaders seeking to consolidate votes within their respective blocs before Tuesday’s election.

For Netanyahu and his allies, the concern has been that small right-wing and religious parties could attract tens of thousands of votes without winning any Knesset representation, potentially weakening the bloc’s chances of forming the next government.

The withdrawal of Achi removes one such party from the contest and could redirect its supporters toward other religious and right-wing lists.

{Matzav.com}

The Gerer Rebbe, Rav Yaakov Aryeh Alter, was released from Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Yerushalayim on Sunday afternoon, just hours after undergoing a medical procedure, with his secretary informing chassidim that the Rebbe is feeling better but requires additional rest.

The Rebbe underwent the scheduled treatment beginning at approximately 2:30 p.m. and was permitted to return home several hours later.

Following his discharge, the Rebbe’s longtime secretary, Rav Yitzchok Broida, issued a recorded update to Gerer chassidim regarding the Rebbe’s condition and the arrangements for the coming days.

“Boruch Hashem, the Rebbe has returned home and is feeling better, but he still needs to rest,” Rav Broida said.

He emphasized that the Rebbe must be given time to recuperate and announced that the regular schedule would be temporarily curtailed.

“The Rebbe needs to rest, and this week, Parshas Va’eira, there will be no public reception and no Mincha in the central minyan,” he informed the chassidim.

The announcement means that chassidim will not be able to attend the customary kabbalas kahal sessions with the Rebbe during the coming week. The regular central Mincha minyan will likewise not take place, allowing the Rebbe to rest without the demands of his usual public schedule.

News of the planned medical procedure had emerged on Motzoei Shabbos, when it was reported that the Rebbe would be undergoing treatment the following day.

Ahead of the procedure, the Rebbe’s sons visited the tziyunim of the Gerer Rebbes in Yerushalayim to daven for their father’s recovery.

The public is asked to continue being mispallel for the refuah sheleimah of Rav Yaakov Aryeh ben Yuta Henna.

{Matzav.com}

House Speaker Mike Johnson is rejecting election forecasts predicting that Democrats will capture control of the House of Representatives in next month’s midterm elections, insisting that pollsters are significantly underestimating Republican support and that enthusiasm among GOP voters points to a much stronger showing than current projections suggest.

Speaking during a televised interview Sunday, Johnson challenged polling data and political forecasts showing Democrats with an advantage in the battle for the House, arguing that the surveys fail to accurately reflect the Republican voters he has encountered while campaigning across the country.

“I’m telling you, these polls are off — all of them. They use faulty analysis,” Johnson declared.

The speaker said his confidence was based on extensive firsthand campaigning, explaining that he had traveled through 21 states and visited 39 congressional districts during the preceding three weeks. His stops included districts currently represented by Democrats that Republicans believe they have a realistic opportunity to capture on November 3.

According to Johnson, the crowds attending Republican campaign events have displayed enthusiasm reminiscent of President Donald Trump’s successful 2024 presidential campaign. He also said that when he asks attendees whether they have participated in political surveys, relatively few indicate that they have been contacted by pollsters.

Johnson offered those observations as evidence that polling organizations may be overlooking significant numbers of Republican voters, particularly those who do not routinely participate in surveys but are nevertheless motivated to turn out on Election Day.

During the interview, the program presented an election forecast assigning 219 House seats to the Democratic column, 198 to Republicans, and another 18 as competitive races that could go either way. Because a party needs 218 seats to secure a House majority, those projections would place Democrats in position to take control of the chamber.

Johnson disputed the forecast, maintaining that Republican candidates were performing considerably better on the ground than the numbers suggested. He expressed confidence that the party’s campaign efforts and legislative accomplishments would resonate with voters during the final days before the election.

The speaker said Republicans intend to make the election a referendum on the contrasting policy priorities of the two parties, emphasizing immigration enforcement, energy production, crime, taxation, and economic growth.

“It is an election we refer to as common sense versus crazy,” he said.

Johnson argued that voters face a choice between continuing the Republican agenda under President Trump and returning congressional power to Democrats, whom he portrayed as pursuing policies that would undermine the progress made by the administration and its allies in Congress.

Sunday also marked the third anniversary of Johnson’s election as speaker, a milestone he used to highlight his work on behalf of House Republicans and the party’s efforts to maintain its congressional majority.

Johnson said he had raised approximately $860 million for House Republican campaigns during his tenure as speaker, underscoring the considerable financial resources being directed toward protecting vulnerable Republican incumbents and challenging Democrats in competitive districts.

He pledged to maintain his aggressive travel schedule through Election Day, continuing to campaign for Republican candidates across the country rather than relying on polling forecasts to determine which races deserve attention.

Turning to the Republican legislative record, Johnson credited the party with strengthening border security, reducing taxes, restraining federal spending, and eliminating regulations that he said had burdened American businesses and discouraged investment.

He also pointed to efforts to expand domestic manufacturing, arguing that Republican policies had created incentives for companies to invest in American production and bring economic activity back to the United States.

Among the initiatives Johnson highlighted were investment accounts established for newborn children and a nationwide school choice program, both of which he presented as examples of Republican policies designed to provide families with greater financial opportunity and educational options.

The speaker maintained that these accomplishments should form the foundation of the party’s closing argument to voters, particularly those concerned about the economy and the financial pressures facing their households.

When questioned about continuing public dissatisfaction with economic conditions, Johnson suggested that negative media coverage had contributed to Americans’ perceptions of the economy, arguing that positive developments were not receiving sufficient attention.

At the same time, he acknowledged that many families continued to struggle with the cost of everyday necessities and that the administration and congressional Republicans still had significant work ahead of them.

“Gas prices are too high, we know that. Of course we have more work to be done,” Johnson said.

Johnson urged voters to evaluate the election based on which candidates and policies would best serve their families, arguing that Republicans should be given additional time to implement the changes they have begun since Trump returned to the White House.

“We have set the ship of state on the right course, and it has to be continued,” he said.

The speaker’s comments come as Republicans enter the final stretch of a closely watched midterm campaign in which control of Congress will determine how much legislative freedom President Trump retains during the remaining two years of his term.

A Democratic takeover of the House would give the opposition party control of congressional committees, the ability to launch investigations into the administration, and considerable influence over legislation and federal spending negotiations.

Republicans, meanwhile, are seeking to preserve their majority by defending competitive districts and winning seats currently held by Democrats, particularly in areas where Trump performed strongly in the presidential election.

With Election Day approaching, Johnson is betting that Republican turnout and the party’s campaign organization will prove more consequential than the polling averages and election models currently favoring Democrats.

Johnson’s skepticism toward the polls is not new. During a campaign stop in North Carolina earlier this month, he acknowledged that even Republican internal surveys were having difficulty reaching GOP voters, suggesting that the problem extended beyond publicly released polls.

In a separate interview last week, Johnson said he was concentrating on competitive districts that political analysts had already written off for Republicans. He maintained that the party’s turnout operation and voter enthusiasm could allow Republicans to overcome the historical difficulties faced by the president’s party in midterm elections.

Independent election analysts, however, continue to see a difficult electoral environment for Republicans. Decision Desk HQ’s October 24 forecast placed the probability of a Democratic House victory at approximately 80%, with a projected Democratic majority of 237 seats. The Cook Political Report has also shifted numerous competitive races toward Democrats during October, citing an increasingly favorable political environment for the opposition party.

Retired IDF Major General Gil Regev, a former fighter pilot who headed the military’s Personnel Directorate, has sparked controversy after declaring that he feels a greater personal connection to Palestinian Arabs than to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, dismissing their shared Jewish identity as a meaningless basis for common ground.

Speaking with journalist Guy Peleg on the All-In podcast, Regev expressed his deep estrangement from Smotrich, a prominent figure in Israel’s religious-nationalist political camp, and argued that his experiences working alongside Palestinians had given him a sense of connection he could never imagine having with the finance minister.

When Peleg asked what he and Smotrich had in common, Regev answered bluntly, “Nothing.”

האלוף גיל רגב מרגיש שיש לו יותר דברים במשותף עם ערבים מרפיח מהשר סמוטריץ'.
למה?
עם הערבים הוא ישב לנגב חומוס ואכל איתם זיתים.
"פיתה נגעה בפיתה". pic.twitter.com/T1XDS6YS7H

— דביר לוגר (@dvirluger) October 25, 2026

Peleg then pointed out that the two men share a Jewish identity, but Regev rejected the suggestion that this created any meaningful bond between them.

“That’s nonsense. I happen to be Jewish; my mother was Jewish. Nobody checked, but I think we tell the truth,” he said.

Regev went on to explain that his perspective had been shaped by personal encounters with Palestinian Arabs over the years, including during his military career and while working on construction projects in Rafah, Sinai, and Yehuda and Shomron.

He recalled spending time alongside Palestinian workers and sharing meals with them, experiences he said had allowed him to recognize their ordinary concerns and aspirations.

“I can share a plate of hummus with a Palestinian. I’ve done that in the past,” he said, describing a period when he was involved in constructing prefabricated buildings, including work carried out on the roof of the Rafah municipal building.

According to Regev, those encounters provided opportunities for conversations that had little to do with the political and national disputes dividing Israelis and Palestinians.

“We worked in Judea and Samaria. Palestinians worked alongside us for a full day, two days, sometimes longer. We would share hummus and eat olives. In those moments, we would talk about life, not politics or the occupation, just life. They told me about their lives. I understood that they wanted to live,” he said.

Regev contrasted those experiences with his feelings toward Smotrich, insisting that the relationships he developed with Palestinian workers were more meaningful to him than any connection he might have with the Israeli minister.

“They and I had more in common than I will ever have with Smotrich. I will never have that kind of connection with him, where we sit at the same plate, pita touching pita,” he said.

The retired general reiterated his sense of alienation from Smotrich, questioning what, if anything, connected them.

“I ask myself, what do I have to do with him? Nothing. I have nothing in common with them.”

The remarks were particularly striking given Regev’s lengthy career in the IDF and his former position as one of the military’s most senior officers.

Regev served as a fighter pilot in the Israeli Air Force before rising through the military’s ranks and eventually heading the IDF Personnel Directorate, a position involving responsibility for the army’s manpower and personnel policies.

His comments reflected a profound political and cultural divide between segments of Israel’s secular establishment and the religious-nationalist community represented by Smotrich.

Rather than viewing their common Jewish background as a source of solidarity, Regev described personal experiences and shared everyday concerns as more significant in determining whom he feels connected to.

The discussion also turned to Regev’s continued residence in Israel, with Peleg questioning why he remained in the country despite his expressed alienation from certain elements of Israeli society.

Regev responded that his age, personal relationships, and established life in Israel made leaving an unrealistic prospect.

“I’m old. Where would I go? I have family and friends. I live in a bubble.”

His answer suggested that, despite his frustration with Israel’s political and social direction, he remained attached to the country through his family, friendships, and the life he had built there.

The interview comes during an especially contentious period in Israeli politics, with the country’s upcoming elections sharpening disagreements over national identity, religious values, security policy, and the relationship between secular and religious Israelis.

Smotrich, who leads the Religious Zionism party, has been a central figure in those disputes, particularly over policies concerning Yehuda and Shomron and the role of religious values in public life.

Regev’s comments placed those divisions in unusually personal terms, presenting his sense of shared humanity with Palestinian workers as stronger than the bond of Jewish identity with an Israeli political leader.

The interview was part of a nearly two-hour podcast episode released on Friday, October 23, under a title warning that Israel was collapsing and approaching the possibility of internal conflict.

During the wider discussion, Regev expressed concern about the country’s future following the elections, arguing that Israel was approaching a critical turning point and warning about the possibility of a confrontation between different segments of Israeli society.

He also discussed the controversy surrounding the judicial overhaul, the protest movement among Israeli Air Force pilots, and his concerns about the military’s handling of friendly-fire incidents and subsequent investigations.

Asked about the possibility of civil conflict, Regev clarified that he was not advocating such an outcome but warning about what he believed could happen.

Iranian authorities have announced another purported meeting involving Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who has remained out of public view for nearly eight months, fueling continued speculation about his health, whereabouts, and whether he is personally directing the Iranian regime.

The latest announcement came Saturday night from Iran’s judiciary, which claimed that its chief, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, had met with Khamenei to discuss government affairs and the continuing confrontation with the United States and Israel.

However, officials provided no photographs or video of the encounter and did not disclose when or where it supposedly took place. The absence of any visual confirmation has added to the questions surrounding the Iranian leader, who has not appeared publicly since assuming power in March.

According to Mizan Online, the Iranian judiciary’s official news outlet, the meeting included discussions about domestic governance, judicial responsibilities, and “securing public rights, and effectively combating corruption and its bottlenecks,”

The judiciary also reported that the two discussed “pursuing the recovery of rights and compensation for material and moral damages arising from the crimes of American-Zionist criminals,”

The reference appeared to concern Iran’s demands for compensation following the American-Israeli military campaign that began in March and resulted in the death of Khamenei’s father, longtime Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The elder Khamenei was killed alongside senior Iranian military commanders during strikes in central Tehran at the outset of the war. His son Mojtaba subsequently assumed the position of supreme leader, placing him at the head of the Islamic Republic during one of the most turbulent periods in its history.

Yet despite holding Iran’s highest political and religious office, the younger Khamenei has not delivered a televised address, participated in a publicly documented appearance, or been seen meeting government officials since taking power.

Instead, communications attributed to him have consisted of written messages and statements, including several presented as handwritten communications.

Iranian officials have repeatedly maintained that they are consulting with Khamenei, but the regime has not released footage that would independently establish his condition or current location.

The latest judiciary announcement follows similar accounts involving other senior Iranian officials.

Earlier in the week, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has been involved in negotiations concerning the ongoing conflict, was reportedly granted a meeting with Khamenei to review “the latest developments” in the confrontation.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has likewise been reported to have met with the supreme leader on several occasions since March, including a purported meeting in early August.

As with the latest encounter, however, these reports have not been accompanied by publicly released photographs or video showing Khamenei participating in the discussions.

The pattern has prompted growing speculation about whether the Iranian leader is seriously incapacitated, being kept in a secure location because of security concerns, or no longer exercising direct control over the regime.

Some reports have gone considerably further, suggesting that Khamenei may have departed Iran or even died from injuries sustained during the war. Those claims have not been independently substantiated.

In July, the Saudi broadcaster Al Hadath reported allegations from an Israeli defense source that Khamenei was no longer inside Iranian territory.

The source further alleged that public statements attributed to the supreme leader were actually being prepared by Ahmad Vahidi and other senior officials within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

According to that account, the Revolutionary Guards were playing an increasingly dominant role in managing the regime’s affairs while internal disagreements and unrest were creating additional instability.

The allegations raised questions about whether senior military officials had assumed effective control over important decisions traditionally reserved for Iran’s supreme leader.

Iranian authorities have not provided publicly verifiable evidence supporting those claims, and the precise division of power within the regime remains unclear.

Questions about Khamenei’s physical condition first emerged shortly after the American-Israeli military operation began.

CNN reported in March that he had suffered injuries during the opening day of the conflict, including a fractured foot, wounds near his left eye, and facial lacerations.

Those reports suggested that Khamenei had survived the initial strikes but had sustained injuries serious enough to raise concerns about his ability to appear publicly or carry out his responsibilities.

Subsequent accounts offered conflicting assessments of his condition, with some suggesting that his injuries were far more severe than initially reported.

President Donald Trump addressed the uncertainty during an August interview on The Glenn Beck Program, saying that he believed Khamenei was still alive but had been badly wounded.

“I don’t think he’s dead. He was very seriously wounded,” Trump said. “The left side of his body, the arm, the leg, the whole thing, he was very seriously wounded. But I don’t think he’s dead.”

Trump also discussed the repeated announcements by Iranian officials that they were meeting with Khamenei or seeking his approval for government decisions.

The President suggested that those claims could indicate that the supreme leader remained alive, although he acknowledged that Iranian officials might also be maintaining the appearance of an active leadership structure.

“And if he is, they’re putting on a pretty good show because they talk about, you know, going back to talk to him all the time, you know, to get a final blessing on things,” the President said.

The remarks highlighted the unusual circumstances surrounding Iran’s leadership, with its highest-ranking official remaining invisible to the public while other senior figures continue to describe meetings and consultations with him.

The uncertainty carries particular significance because Iran’s supreme leader occupies the most powerful position in the country’s political system, exercising ultimate authority over the armed forces, the Revolutionary Guards, and major national security decisions.

Ordinarily, the supreme leader’s public appearances, speeches, and meetings with senior officials provide important indications of the regime’s priorities and internal political direction.

Mojtaba Khamenei’s prolonged absence has deprived outside observers of those signals, leaving intelligence agencies, regional governments, and analysts to assess his status through indirect information and official Iranian announcements.

The lack of visual confirmation has also made it difficult to determine whether decisions attributed to Khamenei are being made personally by him or through other figures within Iran’s political and military leadership.

For the Iranian regime, the question is particularly sensitive as the country continues to confront the consequences of the war, international pressure, and internal political strains.

The Revolutionary Guards remain a central pillar of the Islamic Republic’s security structure, and any uncertainty surrounding the supreme leader’s authority could have significant implications for the balance of power in Tehran.

Saturday’s announcement therefore appeared intended, at least in part, to demonstrate that Khamenei continues to participate in government affairs and remains involved in decisions concerning domestic policy and Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the United States.

But without photographs, video, or other independently verifiable evidence, the announcement has done little to resolve the mystery surrounding his prolonged disappearance.

Additional details released by Iranian state media indicate that the reported discussion with judiciary chief Mohseni Ejei went beyond the matters initially disclosed.

According to Iranian accounts, Khamenei called for extensive changes to the country’s judicial system, including faster court proceedings, stronger anti-corruption enforcement, improved supervision of government institutions, and expanded use of modern technology to administer judicial affairs.

The judiciary chief reportedly presented plans to modernize court operations, reduce administrative expenses, accelerate the handling of cases, and strengthen oversight of judicial personnel.

Khamenei was also said to have demanded greater efforts to pursue compensation from the United States and Israel for damage inflicted during the military campaign.

The latest announcement follows an earlier report that Iranian military official Ali Abdollahi, who oversaw operations at the Khatam al-Anbiya command center, had met with Khamenei. Abdollahi was subsequently appointed chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces while retaining his previous responsibilities.

Meanwhile, Iran’s political leadership continues to face pressure over the economic consequences of the conflict and the breakdown of diplomatic efforts.

President Pezeshkian said Saturday that Iran should make another attempt to reach an agreement with Washington, blaming the United States for the failure of previous negotiations.

The diplomatic impasse follows the collapse of a ceasefire arrangement mediated principally by Pakistan in June. The conflict has continued to affect regional shipping and energy supplies, with the United States maintaining restrictions on Iranian maritime trade and Tehran continuing to assert control over passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

{Matzav.com}

Former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz sparked outrage on Sunday after comparing leading chareidi rabbonim in Eretz Yisroel to the ayatollahs who rule Iran, prompting a blistering response from United Torah Judaism MK Yaakov Asher, who accused the retired general of hypocrisy and invoked his controversial stock sale during the Second Lebanon War.

Halutz made the remarks during an appearance on the “Moshe Fabrikant Podcast,” where he discussed the leadership of the chareidi community and singled out senior rabbonim, including Maran Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch and the rabbonim of Shas.

In a sweeping attack on the country’s religious leadership, Halutz declared that he saw no meaningful distinction between the rabbonim of Eretz Yisroel and the clerics who preside over the Iranian regime.

“I see no difference between the ayatollahs in Iran and the rabbis in Israel.”

Halutz went further, specifically mentioning Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch and questioning whether the distinctions between Ashkenazic and Sephardic rabbinic leadership made any difference in his comparison.

“Is Rabbi Hirsch any better because he speaks Yiddish? Are the rabbis of Shas any better? In Iran, there is no Sephardic ayatollah and Ashkenazi ayatollah. There is just one.”

The remarks immediately drew condemnation from MK Yaakov Asher, chairman of United Torah Judaism, who responded by recalling a controversy that has followed Halutz since his tenure as the IDF’s chief of staff.

Asher pointed to Halutz’s decision to sell his investment portfolio on July 12, 2006, the day the Second Lebanon War erupted, as Israeli soldiers were being mobilized for a conflict that would ultimately claim numerous lives.

Addressing Halutz directly, Asher wrote:

“Take off your shoes! A despicable man like you, who, while serving as IDF Chief of Staff, just minutes before sending soldiers into the Second Lebanon War, some of whom sadly never returned alive, was concerned at those fateful moments with nothing more than calling the bank to sell your stocks,”

Asher’s response drew on the public controversy surrounding Halutz’s financial transactions at the beginning of the 2006 war, when it emerged that the then-chief of staff had instructed his bank to sell shares from his personal investment portfolio.

The disclosure generated widespread criticism at the time, with critics questioning the judgment of a military commander attending to personal financial matters as Israel entered a major military confrontation.

Halutz maintained that the transaction was unrelated to the outbreak of hostilities and denied acting improperly. Nevertheless, the incident became one of the controversies associated with his leadership during the war.

Asher invoked that episode to challenge Halutz’s standing to criticize the country’s rabbinic leadership, arguing that the former military chief’s conduct made his latest remarks particularly objectionable.

Concluding his response, Asher turned Halutz’s own comparison with Iran against him.

“Such depravity may not even exist at the headquarters of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.”

The comments were made during a lengthy interview released on October 21, in which Halutz, who served as the IDF’s 18th chief of staff, discussed Israel’s political and security situation, Iran, Gaza, and other controversial issues.

Halutz, who previously commanded the Israeli Air Force, headed the military during the 2006 Lebanon war. His handling of that conflict generated widespread criticism, ultimately contributing to his resignation in January 2007.

The stock transaction cited by Asher was reported by the Israeli press in August 2006. According to reports at the time, Halutz instructed Bank Leumi to sell an investment portfolio worth approximately 120,000 shekels on July 12, the day Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers and fighting erupted along Israel’s northern border.

The disclosure provoked anger among politicians and military officers, who questioned why the country’s highest-ranking military commander had been attending to his personal investments during the opening hours of a major military crisis.

Halutz acknowledged the sale but insisted that it was unrelated to the war and denied any improper conduct. The Israel Securities Authority indicated at the time that the transaction did not constitute a violation of securities law.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered a stark warning to Iran and its regional proxies on Sunday, declaring that Israel would unleash an overwhelming military response if Tehran or its allies attempted to attack the country in an effort to interfere with the upcoming Israeli elections.

The warning came during Netanyahu’s visit to an Arrow missile defense battery, where he disclosed that Israeli intelligence had detected indications of possible enemy plans to carry out attacks intended to disrupt the electoral process.

Standing alongside one of Israel’s principal defenses against long-range ballistic missiles, Netanyahu stressed that the military was prepared both to intercept incoming threats and to launch offensive operations against those responsible.

“I’m here at one of our Arrow batteries. The IDF is prepared on both defense and in offense,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister then publicly addressed the intelligence concerns that had prompted his warning, identifying Iran and its allied organizations as potential sources of attacks ahead of the elections.

“We have intelligence indications that our enemies, Iran and its proxies, may try to challenge us with attacks in order to disrupt the elections.”

Netanyahu made clear that Israel would regard any such action as a serious escalation and would respond with military force far exceeding what its adversaries might anticipate.

“And I warn them: Do not test us. You will suffer blows of a magnitude far beyond proportion, far beyond what you imagine. It will be a decisive blow against you. Make no mistake about us. Do not test us.”

The remarks amounted to an unusually explicit warning that Israel was preparing for the possibility of an Iranian-directed escalation during a particularly sensitive period for the country.

By choosing to deliver the statement at an operational Arrow battery, Netanyahu underscored the importance of Israel’s missile defense capabilities in confronting threats from Iran and other hostile forces.

The Arrow system forms a central component of Israel’s multilayered air defense network and is designed primarily to intercept ballistic missiles, including long-range projectiles that could be launched from Iranian territory.

Netanyahu’s appearance at the battery also served to emphasize that Israeli defense preparations encompass both protective measures against incoming attacks and the ability to strike back at their sources.

The prime minister did not disclose the specific intelligence underlying the warning, identify a particular planned operation, or indicate whether Israeli officials believed an attack was imminent.

His statement nevertheless suggested that security authorities were taking seriously the possibility that Iran or its proxies could attempt to influence events inside Israel through military action as voters prepare to head to the polls.

The warning comes amid longstanding tensions between Israel and Iran, whose regional allies have repeatedly threatened Israeli territory and whose ballistic missile capabilities remain a central concern for Israeli defense planners.

The possibility of attacks timed to coincide with elections adds another dimension to those security concerns, raising the prospect of hostile forces attempting to interfere with the democratic process by creating a major security emergency.

Netanyahu’s message was directed not only at Tehran but also at the organizations operating under Iranian sponsorship or influence throughout the region.

His insistence that Israel was prepared for both defensive and offensive action signaled that any attempted strike could trigger retaliation against the forces responsible.

The prime minister offered no indication that Israel intended to alter the election schedule or that the government had made any decision to take preemptive military action.

For now, his message was one of deterrence, warning Iran and its allies that an attempt to exploit the election period would be met with a decisive Israeli response.

Netanyahu has issued similar warnings several times in recent weeks. In a September 29 appearance at the Tel Nof air base, he cautioned that Israel’s enemies might attempt attacks ahead of the vote. He subsequently identified Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas as potential sources of such an escalation.

In an October 13 interview with Channel 14, Netanyahu said Tehran was seeking to influence the election either through a direct attack or through one of its regional proxies. He also raised the possibility of terrorist activity in Yehuda and Shomron.

Israeli election officials have reportedly examined contingency plans for an attack on October 27, including the possibility of Iranian missile fire as polling stations open. Central Elections Committee Chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg has held discussions about the threat and its potential consequences for voting.

The prime minister’s warnings have also generated political controversy. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has questioned whether the intelligence justifies the public alarm and accused Netanyahu of using the possibility of war to influence the election campaign.

Israeli security forces thwarted a suspected terrorist attack in the Binyamin region of Yehuda and Shomron on Sunday, apprehending a suspect just 30 minutes after receiving intelligence indicating that he was preparing to carry out an attack, believed to have been planned for Route 60.

The rapid operation was conducted jointly by the IDF and Shin Bet, with soldiers from the Binyamin Regional Brigade establishing emergency checkpoints after intelligence officials identified an individual suspected of planning an imminent attack.

According to the military and Shin Bet, security personnel received specific information concerning the suspect’s identity and his alleged intention to carry out an attack along a major roadway in the area.

Acting immediately on the intelligence, IDF troops established checkpoints along routes the suspect was believed likely to use, positioning soldiers to intercept him before he could reach his intended destination.

Within approximately half an hour of the initial warning, soldiers located the suspect at one of the checkpoints and took him into custody.

No weapons were discovered in his possession during the arrest. Nevertheless, security officials said the suspect had expressed an intention to commit an attack, prompting his detention and transfer for further interrogation.

Defense officials believe the intended target was Route 60, a major north-south highway running through Yehuda and Shomron that serves as an important transportation artery for residents throughout the region.

The arrest prevented the suspected plot from progressing further, although authorities have not publicly disclosed the precise nature of the attack the individual allegedly intended to carry out.

Binyamin Regional Council Chairman Israel Ganz, who also heads the Yesha Council, praised the intelligence work and rapid military response, saying the coordination between the Shin Bet and IDF had potentially prevented a deadly incident.

“The Shin Bet’s precise intelligence and the swift action of IDF soldiers prevented a terrorist attack that could have claimed lives.”

Ganz said the incident came amid a troubling period of heightened terrorist activity throughout Yehuda and Shomron, warning that the threat extends well beyond the location of Sunday’s arrest.

“Over the past month, a series of serious terrorist attacks have taken place in Judea and Samaria, some of which claimed lives, and there are terrorists who have yet to be apprehended. This alarming series of incidents requires expanding the offensive operations launched in Hebron following the attack at the Judea Junction to all of Judea and Samaria, and targeting terrorists and terrorist infrastructure before the next attack.”

His remarks referred to recent security operations in the Chevron area following an attack at the Yehuda Junction, which prompted renewed military efforts against terrorist suspects and infrastructure.

Ganz urged security officials to broaden those operations across Yehuda and Shomron, arguing that the recent attacks demonstrated the need for more extensive preventive action.

He also expressed appreciation to senior defense officials and the soldiers involved in protecting communities throughout the region.

“I thank Shin Bet Director David Zini, IDF Central Command Commander Avi Bluth, Judea and Samaria Division Commander Kobi Heller, Binyamin Regional Brigade Commander Anan Fares, and all the heroic soldiers for their determined efforts to save lives. They work day and night to ensure the security of our residents, and we encourage them to continue and intensify the campaign against terrorism.”

The suspect remains in the custody of security authorities for questioning as investigators seek to determine the full circumstances of the alleged plot, including whether other individuals were involved.

The attempted attack comes amid heightened security concerns following a deadly shooting near the Yehuda Junction in the Chevron area on Friday, in which two Israeli soldiers, Staff Sergeant Ron Yonatan Roytman and Sergeant Yuval Shai Svilem, were killed and three others were lightly wounded.

On Sunday, the IDF announced that troops had sealed the homes of the two terrorists responsible for that shooting in preparation for their demolition. Both attackers were killed during the confrontation.

Israeli forces also conducted overnight operations in Chevron, with soldiers from the Paratroopers Brigade and Maglan Unit arresting 12 suspects. Weapons and illegal vehicles were seized during the operations.

In a separate operation earlier this month, Israeli security forces demolished the home of the terrorist responsible for the September 21 murder of Netanel Shukrun near Neve Tzuf in the Binyamin region. That operation was accompanied by raids targeting wanted suspects, terrorist infrastructure, and incitement throughout Yehuda and Shomron.

Against that backdrop, Sunday’s arrest underscored the importance of intelligence-led operations aimed at stopping attacks before they occur. Israeli authorities have not released the suspect’s identity or indicated whether he was acting independently or in coordination with a terrorist organization.

{Matzav.com}

A peculiar phenomenon at gatherings attended by Gedolei Yisroel is attracting attention in the chareidi community, as individuals compete for the opportunity to stand directly behind prominent rabbonim, sometimes resulting in pushing, arguments, and embarrassing scenes in full view of the public.

With Israel’s election campaign bringing large gatherings of Gedolei Yisroel to cities across the country, photographs and videos have repeatedly captured crowds of attendants, assistants, and other individuals jostling for position behind the rabbonim seated at the dais.

A report by Israeli journalist Moshe Birnbaum examined the phenomenon, raising an uncomfortable question: Why are so many people determined to be photographed standing behind a prominent rav, even when doing so creates disorder and detracts from the dignity of the occasion?

One particularly striking example occurred this past Av, when Gedolei Yisroel, admorim, and rabbonim gathered outside Military Prison 10 on a Thursday evening to protest the imprisonment of yeshiva bochurim arrested over their military draft status.

The gathering followed an earlier assembly of roshei yeshiva and was intended to express the chareidi community’s opposition to the arrest and imprisonment of individuals whose lives are devoted to Torah learning.

The event featured tefillos, impassioned addresses, and calls for the release of the imprisoned bnei Torah.

However, an entirely different scene unfolding near the dais attracted considerable attention.

Because numerous rabbonim had arrived accompanied by groups of attendants, gabbaim, and assistants, the area around the mizrach table became overcrowded. Individuals pushed and squeezed past one another in an effort to secure positions near the Gedolim, creating a scene that organizers apparently felt was inappropriate for the occasion.

Eventually, the master of ceremonies made an unusual announcement over the public-address system.

“One mashbak for each Gadol!”

The announcement, limiting each Gadol to a single personal attendant in the immediate area, was intended to relieve the congestion and preserve the dignity of the gathering.

The incident has become emblematic of a broader phenomenon that is increasingly visible at major chareidi events.

Throughout the current election campaign, photographs from political assemblies and gatherings attended by leading rabbonim show individuals crowded behind the dais, with some apparently determined to ensure that they appear in photographs and video footage alongside the Gedolei Yisroel.

According to the report, the space directly behind the rabbonim has effectively become an unofficial VIP area, with access to that location perceived by some as a reflection of personal importance and influence.

The moment an event begins, the area behind the Gedolim becomes highly sought after, even though only a limited number of people can reasonably be accommodated there.

Birnbaum observed that the phenomenon is particularly noticeable at chareidi gatherings, where proximity to prominent rabbonim can carry considerable social significance.

At ordinary political conventions, he noted, it is uncommon to see crowds of people struggling to position themselves immediately behind party leaders for the duration of an event.

The report offered a somewhat humorous breakdown of the unofficial hierarchy that can be observed at major chareidi gatherings.

At the lowest level are the ordinary attendees, who occupy the general seating area, from the back of the hall to the rows closer to the stage. These are generally people who have come simply to participate in the gathering.

The next category consists of more prominent attendees, who are seated in the front rows, sometimes in chairs bearing reserved signs. Their placement reflects a measure of recognition or honor, although they remain part of the audience.

Above them are what the report describes as second-tier VIPs, individuals who do not sit with the general public but stand along the sides of the stage, often behind security barriers. This group frequently includes assistants to rabbonim and other figures regarded as important enough to be granted access to restricted areas.

Finally come the first-tier VIPs: those who manage to stand directly behind the Gedolei Yisroel on the dais itself.

These individuals occupy the most visible positions apart from the rabbonim seated at the table, and their presence is prominently recorded in the photographs and videos distributed following the gathering.

But why does that particular location hold such appeal?

The report explored several possible explanations drawn from social psychology, particularly research concerning people’s desire to associate themselves with celebrities and other prominent personalities.

One concept discussed was “basking in reflected glory,” a psychological phenomenon in which individuals seek to associate themselves with the accomplishments, prestige, or public standing of others.

According to this explanation, standing close to an admired or influential figure can create the impression of a special relationship, allowing an individual to benefit socially from the prominence of the person beside whom he appears.

In the chareidi community, the report suggested, this dynamic can be especially pronounced because of the importance attached to being considered a mekurav, someone who enjoys personal access to a prominent rav or communal leader.

A person photographed directly behind a Gadol may be perceived as belonging to the rav’s inner circle, even when the photograph itself does not establish any such relationship.

The appearance of closeness can create an impression of influence, particularly in communities where access to leading rabbonim is highly valued.

The report also pointed to the growing influence of digital media in reinforcing the phenomenon.

In earlier years, photographs from major gatherings might have appeared in newspapers days later. Today, images and videos are distributed almost immediately through news websites, messaging groups, and social media.

As a result, an individual who manages to stand behind a prominent rav may find his face appearing in photographs viewed by thousands of people within minutes.

For some, the report suggested, this offers an opportunity for public recognition without having to deliver an address, hold an official position, or otherwise play a significant role in the gathering.

The phenomenon raises questions about the distinction between genuine service to Gedolei Yisroel and the desire to be publicly identified with them.

Personal attendants and gabbaim frequently perform essential responsibilities, helping elderly rabbonim navigate crowded venues, coordinating their schedules, and ensuring that they can participate in public gatherings without unnecessary difficulty.

The report’s criticism, however, focused on the excessive number of individuals attempting to occupy the same limited space, particularly when the competition results in pushing, arguments, or disorder.

The incident outside Military Prison 10 illustrated how the situation can reach a point where organizers must intervene publicly to restore order.

The instruction that only one mashbak accompany each Gadol was a practical response to the overcrowding, but it also highlighted the unusual extent to which individuals had gathered behind the rabbonim.

As election gatherings continue across Eretz Yisroel, the report suggests that the competition for positions behind the dais is unlikely to disappear.

For all the speeches, declarations, and political messages delivered at these events, the photographs sometimes tell another story altogether: a crowd of individuals determined to be seen standing as close as possible to the Gedolei Yisroel, even when the resulting spectacle threatens to overshadow the dignity of the gathering itself.

{Matzav.com}

Dear Matzav Inbox,

I would like to raise an issue that is causing tremendous frustration for families with boys in mesivta, and one that could have been avoided with a little communication and coordination between the yeshivos.

I am referring to the off-Shabbos arrangements for Chanukah this year.

For quite some time, the understanding was that many mesivtos would be giving off the first Friday, Shabbos, and Sunday of Chanukah. This made perfect sense. Chanukah is a time when families get together, when grandparents host Chanukah parties, when cousins see one another, and when parents look forward to having their sons home from yeshiva. Having those three days off gives families an opportunity to spend some meaningful time together without interfering too much with the yeshiva schedule.

Naturally, families began making plans accordingly. Chanukah parties were scheduled, relatives were invited, and arrangements were made around the assumption that the boys would be home that first weekend.

But now, apparently, some mesivtos have decided to announce that they will instead be giving off the second Sunday (a day, by the way, that isn’t even Chanukah anymore).

I am not here to debate the merits of one schedule versus another, although I certainly find it difficult to understand the logic of giving boys off on a Sunday after Chanukah instead of during Chanukah itself. My bigger question is: Where is the coordination?

How is it possible that we have so many mesivtos serving the same families and communities, yet nobody seems to have made sure that they are all on the same page?

Does anyone realize what this does to a family with two or three boys in different yeshivos? One son is home the first weekend, another is in yeshiva, and a third might be coming home the following Sunday. When exactly is the family supposed to get together?

And what about the extended family? A grandmother plans her annual Chanukah party for the first Sunday because that is when she was told the boys would be home. She coordinates with her children and grandchildren, perhaps dozens of people coming from different places. Then, suddenly, a few mesivtos announce a different schedule, and half the teenage grandsons won’t be there.

Are the grandparents supposed to move the party? Many people already rented halls and venues. Are all the aunts, uncles, and cousins supposed to rearrange their plans? And if they do, what happens to the boys whose yeshivos are following the original schedule?

The whole thing becomes a logistical nightmare.

And the frustrating part is that none of this was necessary. We are talking about a handful of days on the calendar. Surely, the mesivtos could have communicated with one another before finalizing their schedules. Surely, there could have been some discussion among the menahelim to establish a common arrangement, or at least a general understanding that would allow families to plan.

There is tremendous value in a bochur sitting at his grandparents’ Chanukah party, seeing his cousins, singing together, and participating in the family atmosphere. These gatherings are part of what makes Chanukah so special. They create memories and strengthen family relationships. They should not become casualties of unnecessary scheduling confusion.

I also wonder whether the people making these decisions fully appreciate how complicated family schedules have become. Years ago, perhaps it was simpler. Today, families often have children in several different yeshivos and schools, each with its own calendar. Coordinating a family gathering is difficult enough when everyone knows the schedule months in advance. When the schedules don’t match, it becomes almost impossible.

And what makes this particularly aggravating is the timing. If the mesivtos had coordinated from the beginning and announced a uniform schedule, families would have adjusted. Instead, people are discovering that the arrangements they thought they could rely on are not necessarily going to work.

I understand that every yeshiva has its own considerations, and I am sure the decisions were made with good intentions. But good intentions do not eliminate the need to consider how those decisions affect the families who depend on these institutions.

At this point, much of the damage may already be done for this year. Families will have to scramble, adjust their plans, and accept that some of their sons or grandsons may miss gatherings that were arranged specifically so everyone could be together.

But I hope the hanhalos of our mesivtos will take this issue seriously and establish a system of communication for the future. A little coordination before the calendars are announced would spare thousands of families a great deal of unnecessary aggravation.

Chanukah comes only once a year. Families should be able to look forward to celebrating it together without having to navigate a different vacation schedule for every son in yeshiva.

Is that really too much to ask?

Sincerely,

A Frustrated Mesivta Parent

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.