Reply To: Refuting the Three Oaths [Gimel Shevuot]

To clarify, the Briskers and Satmars sound almost similar in their rhetoric on the tziyoinistim. However, they differ on these 2 major points:
1. The Briskers follow the Rambam and shulchan aruch not nistar. So the 3 Oaths are not an inyan to them.
2. They argue on the Satmar Rebbe’s maaseh Satan. In nigleh, the Satan is a weak angel who isn’t powerful enough to command armies and overturn war. The Satmar approach was based on nistar which has the Satan as more powerful and indeed closer to the Christian “devil”.
After 10/7, the americans told the israelis to expect a certaindeath toll based on their experience in Falluja. The current Israeli death toll is 10% of that, 90% less. So if you say the tradiitonal Satmar pshat in maaseh Satan, the Stmar Rebbe zt”l would explain this miracle the same way. However, if you explain maasah satan away as the experts say it wasn’t a miracle, then Satmar would be forced to call this a miracle, which is ridiculous. This is also a maaseh Satan to them not a miracle. Brisk would call it a miracle done for the shomerei shabbos and lomdei Torah, not that the apikorsim and kofrim are raui to nissim like this.