The Satmar Rebbe and aCensored Mishnah Berurah, andR. Baruch Rabinovich ofMunkácsThe Satmar Rebbe and a Censored Mishnah Berurah, and R. Baruch

Rabinovich of Munkács

Marc B. Shapiro

1. In my recent interview in Der Veker, available here, I saidthat I hope to discuss how the Satmar Rebbe was mistaken inidentifying a Zionist censorship in the Mishnah Berurah.

In Ha-Maor, Elul 5716, p. 30, M. Abramson tells the followingstory that appears under the heading על זיוף המשנה ברורה. TheSatmar Rebbe was away from home and asked his assistant, R.Joseph Ashkenazi (who is the source of the story), to bringhim a book. Ashkenazi brought the first book that came to hishand. It was a Mishnah Berurah printed in Israel. Afterinvestigating the history of the printing of the MishnahBerurah at the National Library of Israel, I concluded thatthe copy the Satmar Rebbe was given was published by Pardes in1955 (one year before the event described). Here is the titlepage.

Later the Rebbe returned the book to Ashkenazi and said thatas far as he remembers, the language in section 156 of thiscopy of the Mishnah Berurah differs from what appears in othereditions. Ashkenazi checked an older edition of the MishnahBerurah and discovered that the Israeli edition had alteredthe original text.

The original Mishnah Berurah 156:4 reads:

מצוה על כל אדם לאהוב את כ”א מישראל כגופו שנא’ ואהבת לרעך כמוך

וכו’ ודוקא רעך בתורה ומצוות אבל אדם רשע שראה אותו שעבר עבירההמפורסמת בישראל ולא קיבל תוכחה מצוה לשנאתו.

I have underlined the words that Abramson calls attention to.While the original text reads: לאהוב את כ”א מישראל, the Pardesedition has עמיתו את .לאהוב Abramson notes, “In this theywanted to show their support for democracy, that one needs tolove not just the Jews but also the Arabs.” The Pardes editionalso omits the second series of words that I have underlined,which express sentiments that are not very tolerant of theirreligious,[1] as well as some other words.

Here is the uncensored page in the Mishnah Berurah.

Here is the censored page in the Pardes edition.

Upon looking again at the Abramson article, I see that Imisremembered, as it does not actually say that the SatmarRebbe attributed this censorship to the Zionist publisher. Hesimply noticed the problem in the Israeli edition and saidthat this Mishnah Berurah is not like the others he has seen.It is Abramson who explicitly blames the Zionists (althoughperhaps the Rebbe agreed with Abramson). Abramsonsarcastically writes that apparently they also provide copiesof the Mishnah Berurah “to the children of Mapai and Mapam,”and this explains why they altered and censored the text.

Yet the truth is that what we have just seen has nothing to dowith the Israeli publisher, Pardes. I found the samecensorship in a Mishnah Berurah that appeared in Warsaw in1895, and interestingly, it is this very edition that is foundon hebrewbooks.org here. In other words, the changes we haveseen were inserted under Czarist rule, and the Israelipublisher simply reprinted a copy of the Mishnah Berurahwithout realizing that it was a censored version.[2]

I know of another example where the altering of a text wasblamed on the Zionists, and this time the one doing theblaming was a Mizrachi rabbi, R. Avigdor Cyperstein. In theMossad ha-Rav Kook Archive of Religious Zionism there is aletter from R. Cyperstein to Dr. Yitzhak Rafael dated May 14,1967. The relevant section reads as follows:ידידי היקר – אני רוצה לזכות אותך בזכות הרבים, ובטח לא תחמיץאת המצווה הזו: כעת בכל העולם נפוצים הסידורים תוצרת הארץ הוצאת“בית רפאל”, ת”א – “סדור התפלה השלם” – והנה מצאתי בסידור זהדבר נורא: במעמדות של יום הששי מובא הגמ’ מנחות מד. המעשה באדםאחד שהי’ זהיר במצוות ציצית וכו’ ושם כתוב “באה לבית מדרשו שלר’ חייא, אמרה לו רבי צוה עלי ויעשוני גיורת וכו’, – והמולי”ם– גיורת ויעשוני ובמקום הגמ’, בגירסת יד לשלוח העיזו הללו השליכו את הגיורת החוצה, והכניסו במקומה “עברית” . . . והמרחק-הטרופה, כוונתם וגם לבאר, צורך אין – לעברית גיורת בין התהום בוקעה מזה, ומעלה סרחון, בכי’ לדורות. דומני שאין מי שהוא שהעיזלכבוש את המלכה בבית וכל ישראל – מתפללים מסידור זה, וע”כ מצווה

לפרסם זה ברבים, ולתקן בהוצאות החדשות.

It is hard to know whether what R. Cyperstein refers to wasindeed a Zionist inspired alteration. I say this because theversion עברית ויעשוני is also attested to in a few sourcesthat pre-date Zionism. I think it is more likely that thepublisher just assumed that this is a more authentic reading.Since I have been discussing the Satmar Rebbe, here is as gooda place as any to note that contrary to popular belief, thename Satmar does not come from St. Mary. The original meaningseems to be a personal name, and in popular etymology the wordcame to mean “great village.”[3] Yet even in the Satmarcommunity some believe that the word comes from St. Mary, andbecause of this they pronounce it as “Sakmar”. In pre-war

Hungary this pronunciation was common among many OrthodoxJews, not only Satmar hasidim.[4] For one example of this,here is Samuel Noah Gottlieb’s entry on Satmar in his rabbinicencyclopedia, Ohalei Shem (Pinsk, 1912), p. 425. As you cansee, while “Szatmar” appears in the vernacular, in the Hebrewthe city is spelled “Sakmar”. There are many more suchexamples.

This avoidance of saying the word “Satmar” is similar to the

way Jews referred in Hebrew and Yiddish to the Austrian townDeutschkreutz. Unlike the case with Satmar, when it came toDeutschkreutz the universal Jewish name was Tzeilem(Kreutz=cross=tzelem). On the other hand, there was asignificant Jewish community in the Lithuanian city ofMariampole, whose name comes from Mary. Yet I am not aware ofanyone who avoided saying the name of this city. ShimonSteinmetz emailed me as follows:We might also note other cities with Christian-y names, likeKristianpol. Kristianpoler was a name used even by rabbis,cf. Rabbi Yechiel Kristianpoler, and his son Rabbi Meir. Inaddition, the Lithuanian town Kalvarija, which has a veryChristian association, Jews used it without any issue. On theother hand, the Jews called St Petersburg, “Petersburg,”without the “St.”

One other point about Satmar: In a lecture I mentioned thatone of the old-time American rabbis met with the Satmar Rebbeand concluded that when it came to the State of Israel, yousimply could not speak to him about it. He was like a shotehle-davar ehad when it came to this in that no matter how muchyou tried to convince him otherwise, he refused to listen toreason. Someone asked me which rabbi said this. It was R.Ephraim Jolles of Philadelphia (as I heard from a familymember). I don’t think his formulation is too harsh, as anyonewho has read the Satmar Rebbe’s writings can attest. It doesnot bother me if he or anyone else wants to be an anti-Zionist. However, the anti-Zionist rhetoric found in theSatmar Rebbe’s writings, and those of his successors, is oftenmore extreme than what we find among the pro-Palestiniangroups. Take a look at this passage from Va-Yoel Moshe, p. 11.

אם נקח כל פירצות הדור והעבירות המרובות הנעשות בכל העולם וישימואותם בכף מאזנים אחת, ומדינה הציונית בכף מאזנים השני’, [המדינההציונית] תכריע את הכל, שהוא השורש פורה ראש ולענה של אבי אבותהטומאה שבכל אבות הנזיקין שבכל העולם כולו, והן המה המטמאים את

כל העולם כולו.

By what logic can one claim that such an outrageous passagewould be anti-Semitic if said by Mahmoud Abbas, Linda Sarsour,Tamika Mallory, or Max Blumenthal, but not so if the very same

thing is said in Satmar?If anyone wants to see the results of this rhetoric, here aretwo videos with kids from Satmar. In this one the children arebeing taught that the Zionists started World War II and tohope for the destruction of the State of Israel.

In this video children were told that Netanyahu was in the carand they were to throw eggs at it.

It is very painful to see how children are being indoctrinatedwith such hatred. Again I ask, if such a video surfaced from aleftist camp, there would be no hesitation in labeling itanti-Semitic. So why are people hesitant to conclude thatSatmar is also involved in spreading anti-Semitism?

The general assumption is that the Satmar Rebbe hated Zionismand the State of Israel so much, that he was inclined tobelieve even the most far-out anti-Semitic canards against theState. I have always found this difficult to believe. Say whatyou will about the Rebbe, there is no denying that he was veryintelligent. Thus, I have a hard time accepting that he couldhave really believed in Zionist control of the media and otheranti-Semitic tropes found in his polemical writings. In otherwords, I think it is more likely that he did not believe inany of these things but said them anyway in order to convincehis followers not to give up the fight against Zionism, afight that had been abandoned by so many former anti-Zionistsafter the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel in1948. In such a battle it was necessary to turn Israel notonly into something bad, but actually the worst sinimaginable.

R. Nahum Abraham, a Satmar hasid and prolific author, hasrecently written that the Satmar Rebbe would deny things thathe knew were true. He regarded his denials as “necessarylies,” in order to prevent people from being led in the wrongdirection.[5] If the Rebbe thought that it was permissible todeny the truth of certain hasidic stories in order to preventhis followers from being influenced by them, isn’t it possiblethat he would exaggerate the evils of the State of Israel inorder to best indoctrinate his followers with an anti-Zionist

perspective?This approach also would explain a big problem that no one hasbeen able to adequately account for. How was the Satmar Rebbeable to have friendly and respectful relationships with peoplewho, based on what he writes, he should have regarded ascompletely out of the fold due to their involvement with theState of Israel? This includes even men like R. Aharon Kotlerwho supported voting in the Israeli elections, which theSatmar Rebbe claimed is “the most severe prohibition in theentire Torah.”[6] Yet we know that the Satmar Rebbe respectedR. Aharon and others who had a very different perspective.[7]Can’t this be seen as evidence that there is a good deal ofideologically-driven exaggeration in the Satmar Rebbe’swritings, and that not everything he says really reflects hisactual views? After all, if he really thought that voting inthe elections was the most severe prohibition in the Torah andthe State of Israel was completely destroying Judaism, wouldhe still be able to be on good terms with rabbis whoinstructed their followers to vote and be part of the State?

2. Since I mentioned Munkács in this post, let me return toanother recent post here where I discussed R. BaruchRabinovich, the son-in-law of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira andhis successor as Munkácser Rebbe. When I wrote the post I wasunaware of the fact that R. Baruch’s grandson, R. YosefRabinovich, recently published Ner Baruch, which is acollection of Torah writings and letters from R. Baruch. Heincludes in the volume the haskamot written by R. Baruch. Iexamined new printings of the volumes with haskamot that I wasunaware of and found that R. Baruch’s haskamah to the firstedition of R. Yitzhak Adler, Seder Shanah ha-Aharonah(Munkács, 1937) was deleted in subsequent printings. The samething happened with R. Baruch’s haskamah to R. Judah ZviLustig’s Yedei Sofer (Debrecen, 1938). Here is how the pagewith the haskamot looks in the original printing.

Here is how the page with the haskamot looks in the reprint,where R. Baruch’s haskamah has been deleted.

Another point about R. Baruch: In 1946 he tried to becomechief rabbi of Tel Aviv but lost out to R. Isser YehudahUnterman. This is discussed in Samuel Heilman’s Who Will LeadUs? From a letter that appears in the archive of R. IsaacHerzog, and was sent to an unknown rabbi, we see that in 1950R. Baruch was also interested in becoming av beit din in TelAviv.

This information is, to the best of my knowledge, not recordedanywhere else. In this letter, which I found here (a site thatcontains more interesting information and pictures about R.

Baruch) we that R. Herzog, R. Unterman, and R. Yaakov MosheToledano were strongly opposed to R. Baruch receiving thisappointment. Although the reason for this opposition is notmentioned, it is perhaps because they felt it was anabomination that someone from the anti-Zionist Munkács dynastyshould have such a position in the State of Israel. However,as I have mentioned in my previous post, it is doubtful thatR. Baruch ever really shared his father-in-law’s strong anti-Zionism. It is possible that the anti-Zionist statements hemade in the pre-war years might not have reflected his actualbeliefs but were due to his position as rebbe. That is, as thesuccessor of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira he felt that he had tomake such statements. It is also the case that had he notcontinued his father-in-law’s anti-Zionist stance he would nothave retained much of a following in Munkács.

When R. Baruch wanted to become chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, aletter in opposition to this was published by Chaim Kugel,head of the Holon Municipal Council:Is it conceivable that this man . . . who hounded Zionism andZionists . . . who loyally continued the line of the Munkácscourt, which cursed and banned any Jew who pronounced theword Zion on his lips . . . is it conceivable that this manwill appear as a representative and moral leader in the firstHebrew city, and be a guide to its residents and Zionists?[8]

In those days it was obvious that positions of chief rabbis ofimportant cities would go to Zionist rabbis. Here, forexample, is a letter to R. Unterman from David Zvi Pinkas, animportant Mizrachi figure and signatory of Israel’sDeclaration of Independence.[9] Note how Pinkas tells R.Unterman that the Mizrachi expects him to follow the Mizrachiapproach in everything he does. If R. Unterman could notcommit to this, then Pinkas would have found another rabbi whocould.

In my earlier post I neglected to mention R. Baruch’s HashavNevonim that appeared in 2016. This book is full ofinteresting material, and the more I read from R. Baruch, themore impressed I am. He really was a fascinating figure in so

many ways.There is a good deal I can say about Hashav Nevonim, but letme just call attention to the first essay that appears in thebook, focused on conversion. Conversion is a matter often inthe news. I have said on numerous occasions that whatcurrently passes as the standard approach to conversion wasnot the case at all in previous years. To begin with, amongthe rabbis there were different understandings of whatkabbalat ha-mitzvot entailed, and the currently accepted viewthat a prospective convert must commit to become fullyhalakhically observant, as practiced today in Orthodoxcommunities, was not the view of many, and perhaps not eventhe view of most. The notion that a conversion could beannulled after the fact was hardly ever put into practice,although even this is found on occasion and R. Baruch citessome authorities who speak about this very point. Thus, it isnot, as has often been alleged, a modern haredi idea with nohistorical basis although, as mentioned, it was very rare.

After going through the various views on conversion, R. Baruchconcludes as follows (p. 47).

ששומר בין שנתגייר, מי וכל זו, דיעה כמקבל נראה העולם מנהג מצוות, ובין שחוזר ועובר עבירות, דינו כישראל, כל שקיבל עצמו עול

מצות עם גירותו.

I have underlined the words which are not currently acceptedby many (most?) conversion courts and which are at the heartof the controversy regarding voiding conversions. Today, theassumption of many conversion courts is that if someone whoconverts is later seen violating halakhah in a serious way, wecan assume that this person never really accepted the mitzvotat the conversion, and the conversion is therefore not valid.It is this argument which was hardly ever put into practice inprevious years and now appears to be quite common, so much sothat converts claim to feel that their conversions are always“on condition,” namely, that even many years after convertingthere is the possibility that the conversion will be declaredinvalid because of a lack of proper kabbalat ha-mitzvot.

On pp. 27-28, R. Baruch calls attention to the novel view ofR. Isaac Benjamin Wolf, author of Nahalat Binyamin (Amsterdam,1682), a book reprinted a number of times and which carriesthe haskamah by R. Jacob Sasportas. Here is the title page.

R. Isaac is described as rabbi of מרק .מדינת This refers tothe German county of Mark, about which see here.

Here is page 89a in Nahalat Binyanim

According to R. Isaac, in places such as Spain and Portugal,where one could not practice Judaism openly, if a Jewish manmarries a non-Jewish woman, and the woman chooses to practiceJudaism, both she and her children are regarded as Jewish. Howcan she be Jewish when she never immersed in the mikveh and

there was no beit din to preside over the conversion? R. Isaacsays that there is no obligation to immerse in the mikveh whenthere is danger (as there would be in a place with theInquisition looking to find Crypto-Jews). Although he does notelaborate, it is obvious that according to R. Isaac kabbalatha-mitzvot in front of a beit din is not an absoluterequirement. In other words, he holds that in a she’at ha-dehak one can convert on one’s own, without a beit din.

This is a fascinating position that is at odds with acceptedhalakhah, so much so that most people won’t even believe thatsuch a position is possible. R. Baruch is not able to citeanyone who agrees with it. The position of Nahalat Binyamim isdiscussed by R. Eliezer Waldenberg, who not surprisinglycompletely rejects it.[10] However, he does cite a medievalview that has some similarity to Nahalat Binyamim:

ביבמות במרדכי שהובא האביאסף משיטת לזה סמוכין להביא מקום היה סו”פ החולץ שמפרש דברי הגמ’ שם שאומרת מי לא טבלה לנדותה שמשמע

דבדיעבד הוי גר גמור גם בטבילה בלי ג’.

Unlike R. Waldenberg, R. Hayyim Amsalem, Zera Yisrael, p. 290,does not reject Nahalat Binyamin out of hand. Instead hewrites:

האנוסים בבני להקל ולדון לאיצטרופי, זה קדמון גאון דברי חזו לשם ויטבלו שימולו שכל לדת, וחזרתם גיורם לענין יהודים ובבני יהדות בהודעת מקצת מצוות כהלכה, סגי להו אף לכתחילה, אע”פ שאנחנולמ”ד אפי’ אתי וזה המצוות, קיום לענין אח”כ שהיה מה יודעים לא

קבלת מצוות מעכבת.

See also Jacob Sofer, Sipurei Yaakov (Lvov, 1913), vol. 2, pp.7ff. (no. 42), for a lengthy story starring the Maharal. Thetale is obviously fictional, but of importance for ourpurposes is that the story, reported in a hasidic text, tellsof a woman who ran away from her non-Jewish husband andmarried a Jewish man, had children, and was a righteous woman.However, this woman never converted with a beit din, and yeton p. 8a it specifically states that she and her children areto be regarded as Jewish. R. Nahum Abraham points to this asan example of an anti-halakhic hasidic story that cannot betrue.[11]

Finally, Nahmanides in his commentary to Yevamot 45b has aninteresting view and I do not know if it is accepted.

ואיפשר לומר דגבי קבלת מצוות צריך שלשה אפילו בדיעבד דמשפט כתיבאפילו גר אינו כאן אף דין דיניהן אין שדנו שנים התם מה ביה בדיעבד, אבל מי שהודיעוהו מקצת ענשן של מצות ומתן שכרן של מצותוקיבל עליו בב”ד לטבול ולמול, אם הלך ומל וטבל שלא בפני ב”ד הרי

זה כשר ולא פסלינן לזרעיה

3. There are many new books to speak about. One of them isChaim I. Waxman, Social Change and Halakhic Evolution inAmerican Orthodoxy. The content of the book can be seen fromthe title. I will be reviewing this book in an academicjournal, so I do not need to speak about it here. I would,however, like to call attention to one point that will not bementioned in my review. Chapter 5 is titled “Tensions WithinModern Orthodoxy.” Not surprisingly, it deals with womenrabbis. On pp. 109-110, Waxman refers to R. Jeremy Wieder’sview on the matter (the name is misspelled “Weider”). Hequotes from an article in the Yeshiva University Commentator,which summarizes R. Wieder’s position as follows: “[I]n lightof the success of the yoetzet halacha program in increasingoverall observance in the communities that he has observed, itmay be very beneficial to have women rabbis.”

I was quite surprised to see such a liberal position expressedby a YU Rosh Yeshiva, and I checked the source which appearshere. R. Wieder is indeed quoted saying, among other things,that there is no binding tradition on the matter of womenrabbis since the issue of women in leadership positions is anew question, thus preventing the development of a “stream ofJewish tradition.” However, when I read the article I did notfind anything about how it may be “beneficial to have womenrabbis.” I then noticed the following at the beginning of thearticle. “Editor’s Note: This article has been edited to moreprecisely convey the opinions represented.” In this case, Ithink the meaning of “more precisely convey” is that whatoriginally appeared was altered (presumably at R. Wieder’srequest) in order to prevent controversy. Yet even with theremoval of R. Wieder’s view that it may be “beneficial to havewomen rabbis,” the current text of the article does not alterthe substance of R. Wieder’s opinion. Thus, we find thefollowing:

Lastly, Rabbi Wieder talked about the issue from aphilosophical standpoint. He argued that expanding the poolof rabbinic students could lead to an increase in qualifiedrabbinic candidates. Rabbi Wieder added that he has observedthe yoetzet halacha program increase overall halachicobservance in the communities it serves and he expressed hisoptimism that women rabbis could generate similarimprovement.

These words are certainly in opposition to the OU’s recentstatement on women and religious leadership which is availablehere.

The question I have been asked a few times is if in thecurrent political climate it is possible for a rabbi at amainstream Modern Orthodox synagogue, or a teacher at amainstream Modern Orthodox school, to feel free to expresssupport for the ordination of women. Would such a rabbi orteacher risk censure from his colleagues or even thepossibility of losing his job? The answer to these questionswill determine if we are dealing with a real wedge issue (as Ithink we are).

Another new book is R. Bezalel Naor’s Shod Melakhim. R. Naoris well known as an outstanding interpreter of R. Kook. Hisgreat knowledge of the entire scope of Jewish thought (notjust R. Kook) is apparent to anyone who examines his writings.Yet I do not know how many are aware of R. Naor’s achievementswhen it comes to rabbinic literature. This latest book is acollection of R. Naor’s studies on various halakhot in theMishneh Torah. As part of R. Naor’s explication of thesehalakhot, he offers the reader wide-ranging enlighteningdiscussions using numerous sources, both traditional andacademic. For those who can appreciate the synthesis of thetraditional and the academic approaches to the study ofMaimonides, R. Naor’s new book is a real treat.

In the past I have spoken about the late R. MordechaiSpielman’s great work on the Zohar, Tiferet Zvi. The seventhvolume of Tiferet Zvi has recently appeared, and can even bepurchased on Amazon. Anyone who is interested in how the Zohar

has been interpreted, and the impact of the Zohar on laterrabbinic literature, will benefit greatly from of R.Spielman’s writings.

A new book (over 600 pages) by Benjamin Brown has appeared. Itfocuses on the Karlin hasidic dynasty. When I received thebook in the mail, the first thought that came to my head isthat Brown is a phenomenon. There is no other way to put it.It is not just the quantity of his literary output that isastounding, but also the quality, as everything he writes isworth reading.____________

[1] Regarding the Hafetz Hayyim’s view of the non-religious,which is very much at odds with current approaches in theLithuanian yeshiva world (at least in America), see BenjaminBrown, “Ha-‘Ba’al Bayit’: R. Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen, he-‘HafetzHayyim,’” in Brown and Nissim Leon, eds., Ha-Gedolim(Jerusalem, 2017), pp. 127ff. Brown also shows that in a fewletters the Hafetz Hayyim adopts a more moderate perspective.[2] In future posts I hope to say a good deal more about theSatmar Rebbe’s writings. For now, let me just respond tosomeone who emailed me and compared R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira,the Munkácser Rebbe, to the Satmar Rebbe. It is true that theyare similar in terms of their strong opposition to Zionism,and the Satmar Rebbe can be seen as the Munkácser Rebbe’ssuccessor in this matter. However, in terms of their scholarlyapproach, they are quite different, as the Satmar Rebbe didnot have the Munkácser’s critical sense. In fact, I was quitesurprised to learn that the Satmar Rebbe accepted as authenticthe forged anti-Zionist letters published by Chaim Bloch inhis three volume Dovev Siftei Yeshenim. See R. Dov Schwartz,Meshiv Devarim (New York, 2011), pp. 140-141.[3] See here.[4] Shimon Steinmetz called my attention to סאקמאר appearingas the name of the city as early as 1859 in R. Hayyim MeirZe’ev ha-Kohen, Sha’arei Hayyim (Pressburg 1859), in the listof subscribers at the beginning of the book. (You can findthis on Google books, but the version of the book onhebrewbooks.org is missing these pages, as well as otherpages.) This shows that referring to the city as “Sakmar” wasalready common. Steinmetz also called my attention to the same

thing in the list of subscribers found at the end of R. HayyimJoseph David Azulai, Kise Rahamim (Ungvar, 1870). In thiscase, you can see the subscribers in the copy onhebrewbooks.org, but it has been removed from the copy onOtzar ha-Chochmah. If this was removed intentionally, on theassumption that it is not really part of the sefer, it is abig problem, as the subscriber information can be of greathistorical importance. It is vital that both hebrewbooks.organd Otzar ha-Chochmah scan books in their entirety, withoutmaking any changes whatsoever.R. Yoel Teitelbaum used the term Satmar all the time, and itwas on his stationery, but I did find a number of places wherehe wrote Sakmar, spelled סאקמער and .סאקמיר See e.g., hisapprobations to R. Abraham Hayyim Reinman, Va-Yetze Perah(Satmar, 1940), R. Asher Steinmetz, Mikveh Yisrael ha-Shem(Jerusalem, 1961), and his letter in Divrei Yoel: Mikhtavim(Brooklyn, 1981), vol. 2, p. 81. See also Esther Farbstein,Be-Seter ha-Madregah (Jerusalem, 2013), p. 862, for a 1949letter from Budapest to R. Yoel in which the word Sakmar isused. Shimon Steinmetz wrote to me as follows:

I think you can see by his [R. Yoel’s] correct spelling inLatin letters that he didn’t take it seriously, and perhapsnot too many Jews did. After all, R. Joel Teitelbaum himself,who I think most people would consider fairly zealous, didnot insist or use it very much. . . . This tells me that whenpeople did call it Sakmar, most of them were probably justcalling it that because it was already what Jews called it.Perhaps it was even a sly joke to begin with.

[5] Peti Ya’amin le-Khol Davar (n.p., 2017), p. 31[6] Divrei Yoel, Mikhtavim, no. 90.[7] In a future post I will publish a letter I received fromMoshe Beck dealing with this point. Beck is the chief rabbi ofthe U.S. Neturei Karta.[8] Translation in Heilman, Who Will Lead Us?, p. 45.[9] The letter is found in the Israel State Archives, DavidZvi Pinkas collection, 3070/15-פ.[10] Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 17, no. 42:11.

[11] Heikhal ha-Besht 18 (Nisan 5767), p. 18. For an Arabicversion of this story, see Bayit Neeman 96 (26 Tevet 5776),pp. 4-5.