[Avodah] Vayoel Moshe- misrepresntations

[Dov Bloom]

regalkit at aol.com wrote: The sefer [VaYoel Moshe], in my humble opinion, is full of these misrepresentations; can someone guide me as to how I can understand a Godol Hador's writings?

For anyone bothered or interested by seeming misrepresentations by the Satmar Rebbe in VaYoel Moshe,  I would suggest they study HaTekufa HaGedola by R Menachem Mendel Kasher, mechaber of the Torah Shleima Series.

This work is in many ways an answer to the shitot of the SR, showing how the predominant opinions in Chazal, Rishonim Achronim and Gedolim in the last few generations are in great contradistinction to the SR's hashkafa. 

RMMK frequently quotes "unnamed" sfarim / authors which are usually the VM or similar hashkafot. For example, see p. 189 (kuf pe tet) where he quotes an unnamed "mechaber" who brought down and argued with an "incorrrect" peirush of the "apikorsim" to the Yalkut Eicha. RMMK shows that this peirush attributed by the unnamed machaber to the apikorsim  is found given by R Yisrael Zeev Halevi, the Av Beit Din of R Moshe Teitelbaum, the Yismach Moshe. So, RMMK states in a footnote, the "peirush zar she-meyachaso le-apikorsim, mevoar basefer she-mechabro haya Rosh Beit Din etzel zekano zt'l " (the "strange" explanation he attributes to apikorsim in expounded in a book authored by the Head of his grandfather's Rabbinical Court).  Without  ever mentioning by name who exactly it is who is the grandson of the Yismach Moshe that attributed this peirush to apikorsim.

All through HaTekufa HaGedola I don't recall him mentioning the SR by name, always "I saw a mechaber who wrote" or someone asked RMMK about what he saw in an unnamed "sefer echad". See for instance pp. 177, 195, 205, 260 and many more times in HaTekufa HaGedola. 

I believe it was RMMK's way of writing in a "derech eretz" manner not to mention the SR by name.

Chapter 13 for instance rejects the view of "sefer echad" who said that leaving churches standing in the Old City after 1967 is "lo ta'avdum vehu bichlal yehareg ve-al yaavor ... ". This unnamed "sefer echad" concludes that the conquerers of the old city in 67 thus became ovdei AZ mamash. RMMK shows this is incorrect.

Chapter 15 explains what "Sitra Achra" means, quoting encyclopediacly every early reference to SA in Targum, Zohar etc. He shows how attributing the events in 1967 in EY to the Sitra Achra is incorrect. RMMK quotes for instance an explicit Zohar VaYera 108 b 
"ve-arah de-yisrael lo shalit ba mal'acha memana achara ela eihu belichadohi" 
(in Eretz Yisrael no dominance is given to angels or other appointed powers but only to Him [hashem] himself). 
See also Zohar Truma 173 - "kol inun marei  Sitra Achra d'Ruach MeSaava lo shalte be-arah kadisha". So RMMK concludes the shita of the unnamed mechaber attributing seemingly miraculous events in EY (cefeating numerous Arab armies, capture of the Old City and Mekom HaMikdash) to the SA is incorrect. 

Conclusion: Dont learn VM without HaTekufa HaGedola! 

You wouldn't learn Menachem without Dunash, the Ktzot without the Netivot, or the Mechaber without the Rema! 

More accurately, you wouldn't learn the rejected calender shitot of Ben Meir without Saadya Gaon's responses, you wouldn't delve in to the grammatical opinions of Ben Naftali without learning about the accepted opinions of Ben Asher. Don't learn only the VM without knowing the mainstream hashkafot.