Anash Inc v. Borough of Kingston- a shul violating the newly imposed zoning ordinance

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Opinions

Anash Inc v. Borough of Kingston Docket: 25-1097 Opinion Date: July 30, 2026 Judge: Peter Phipps Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use A municipality in Pennsylvania investigated two properties owned by a rabbi after receiving complaints about their use. One property was used as a residence for young men engaging in religious study, while the other served as a space for prayer, study, and religious instruction. Both properties were located in a commercially zoned district. Citing a new zoning ordinance, the municipality issued violation notices to the rabbi, asserting that such religious uses were not permitted in the district. The municipality then obtained administrative search warrants, conducted inspections, and condemned the properties the day before a major religious holiday, barring occupancy until the buildings were brought into compliance. The municipality also threatened daily fines for continued non-compliance. The rabbi and his congregation filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the municipality and its officers, raising several claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), among other federal and state claims. They sought a preliminary injunction to regain access to the properties and halt enforcement actions during litigation. The District Court denied their request, finding no likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and reasoning that alternative locations for religious activities were available. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their RLUIPA substantial-burden claim as to the zoning ordinance, since enforcement prevented access to property for religious exercise and imposed significant penalties. The court found irreparable harm and determined that the balance of hardships and public interest favored the plaintiffs. The Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s order denying a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to enter appropriate injunctive relief.

SWEET'N LOW- contains non-kosher wine?

Sweet & Low contains "cream of tarter" derived from grape-juice extracted via a centrifuge process. The source of the grape-juice is "ANY SOURCE".

The Chofetz Chaim in two places paskens that smoking/vaping is מאבד עצמו לדעת and the second hand smoke affecting others is a form of רציחה

 

Zachor L'Miriam, ch. 23

Likkutei Amarim, ch. 12

Kosher cruises- are they kosher by name only?

https://kosherrivercruise.com/amsterdam/?utm_source=website&utm_campaign=jcn

WATCH: Kosherica launches ‘Yeshiva week’ "treif" cruise?

Kosherica cruises has been machshil thousands in not providing kosher according to any standards.

Why Do the  Rabbis sanction these non-kosher cruises? 
Isn't it embarrassing that all of the Miami, Lakewood,  OU affiliated Rabbis are allowing this scandal 

Can someone like Rabbis Weil (OU), Schneier, Riskin, Heir, Herring, Lipskar arrange an "OU" Hashgocha at least?

Why doesn't the "OU" send their own staff on the cruises to witness the kashrus disaster.

Alert- Re: all Strawberries of Bodek & B'gan, regardless of dates, lots, etc. DO NOT USE ANY OF THEM REGARDLESS OF DATES, ONLY PEELED STRAWBERRIES ARE INSECT FREE!

Public Notice

Regarding Bodek and B'gan Frozen Strawberries

 It has been noted that both Bodek and B'gan—two separate companies—market frozen strawberries produced in Peru. Under existing arrangements, the primary certifying authorities including Rabbi Shmuel Teitelbaum, Minchas Chinuch Hashgocha and the OU rely entirely on the insect-free certification of Rabbi Aharon Teitelbaum (the Nirbater Rav), who oversees the initial production for B’Gan etc. in Peru. Consequently, no independent, secondary reinspection of these products is conducted before they are marketed.

Recently, independent kashrus individuals not affiliated with Bodek or B’gan have reportedly discovered insect infestations in these imported frozen strawberries from Peru. These findings have called into serious question the reliability of the current certifications, particularly because the specific authorities being relied upon are widely known not to be specialized experts in insect infestation or entomological kashrus inspection protocols. This raises severe concerns within the community regarding whether the oversight is sufficient to guarantee that the strawberries are entirely insect-free.

The Halachic Context

From a halachic standpoint, strawberries are widely recognized as much’zak be’tolaim (substantiated and presumed to be infested). Due to the nature of their textured surface, many halachic authorities maintain that it is virtually impossible to ensure they are insect-free through standard commercial washing alone.

As a result, a growing consensus of halachic experts advises that consumers should not rely on pre-washed frozen strawberries—even those bearing multiple prominent certifications. Instead, strawberries should only be used if they are completely peeled, as this is the only definitive way to ensure they are free of insects.

Current Actions and Lack of Public Alerts

Reports indicate that the certifying Rabbonim have quietly directed companies to remove affected stocks from retail store shelves. However, no public alerts have been issued to warn families who may already have these products stored in their home freezers, or who may have already used them in prepared foods.

The Problem with Undated Notices

Notably, both the B'gan and Bodek consumer notices are undated. An undated notice is a significant irregularity in any consumer-protection context:

• No Traceability: It cannot be tied to specific production lots, shipment dates, or timeframes.
• Lack of Accountability: It allows the notice to be quietly circulated—or quietly withdrawn—without creating a fixed public record of when the problem was acknowledged.
• Consumer Ambiguity: Neither notice identifies lot codes, production dates, or a date range of affected product, leaving consumers with no way to determine whether strawberries already in their freezers are NOT included.

The absence of dates and lot identification points to a broader systemic concern: that a system relying on a single initial inspection—conducted by an authority lacking specialized infestation expertise, with no independent secondary reinspection—cannot reliably distinguish clean lots from infested ones. If the certifiers were confident in identifying which specific lots were affected, standard practice would be to disclose them. The decision to instead pull all Peruvian-sourced product, without dates or lot numbers, speaks for itself, THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK!

Conclusion

The lack of a transparent public statement or formal clarification from the certifying Rabbonim in the wake of these independent findings has created significant ambiguity for kosher consumers. This prolonged silence leaves the current safety and halachic status of these batches open to serious question, heightening the urgency for consumers to discard these items or consult their own competent halachic authorities before using them.

 

Kashrus alert- recall from the distributors- We think, it should have been dated and from the kosher certifiers