Did Rabbi Meir Kahane Z"L take Midrashim literally?

[Rashi]

I Have heard many speeches online and have just started  Or Hara'ayon volume 1...It seems to me that Rabbi Meir Kahane took some Midrash literally?...Is this so?...I have always understood aggadic midrash as non-literal..also would like to add something I heard but can't confirm...That  Rabbi Moshe Feinstein z''L condemned The Rav and JDL in the early 70's...Saying that they caused more problems than they solved...If true I would not be so praising as I have in the past of   Rabbi Moshe Feinstein.

[Israel Chai]

https://books.google.ca/books?id=j7Np_7m67v8C&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=Feinstein+kahane&source=bl&ots=0ZGVVjLiKY&sig=fhEnm7Flsp_Zs_e7J_PysjOdm8M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEUQ6AEwB2oVChMI6I7r8NGlxwIVjKKACh2XTA6k#v=onepage&q=Feinstein%20kahane%2013&f=false

Here's a quote on 197 that says Feinstein was against him, but can't get to the source in the preview


Here it says http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-broadcasting-authority-to-compensate-rabbi-kahanes-family/2013/06/23/

Kahane was highly regarded by many top mainstream Jewish Orthodox leaders: He was assisted by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the leading posek of his generation;


(Interesting side note i found during research

[Ha-Rav] Kahane was Right!
Q:  Isn't  there  an  infringement  on  the  honor  of  a  Torah  scholar  by  using  the  expression:
"Kahane was right" instead of "Ha-Rav Kahane was right"?
A: People mean the concept "Kahane", but one should certainly say: Ha-Rav Kahane.)

[Yerusha]

A shame that RMK never went for a one hour yechiduss with the Lubavitcher Rebbe: that would have been one for the books!





Some say that they were the potential MBY and MBD of their generation.

[Zelhar]

Do you have any specific example? I don't recall any such statement by rabbi Kahane. I think he used pure halacha certainly in matters of state and policy. If anything wasn't he against the satmer 'interpretation' of the three oaths?

[Israel Chai]

Do you have any specific example? I don't recall any such statement by rabbi Kahane. I think he used pure halacha certainly in matters of state and policy. If anything wasn't he against the satmer 'interpretation' of the three oaths?

He took those oaths seriously and literally, and said 2 parties are required for an agreement. Since all three had been violated, you can make any agreement you want with yourself, but it's not binding. Also, that you could see proof that all of them were gone, since G-d truly made us invincible against our enemies.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

He took those oaths seriously and literally, and said 2 parties are required for an agreement. Since all three had been violated, you can make any agreement you want with yourself, but it's not binding. Also, that you could see proof that all of them were gone, since G-d truly made us invincible against our enemies.

 Could be that HaRav Kahane ZTL HYD had to explain the oats in a more "literal" way in order to knock down that argument from all angles. If he would say that its purely theoretical and/or just a Midrash and non- binding then their could be those who would claim that that isn't true and it is (somewhat) literal and Halachically binding. He came from the argument made by those who took (or take) it as binding. Besides Satmar their were also others who read it that way. Rav Kahane made an excellent argument with proofs against them being binding certainly today. therefore which ever way one takes them its still a non-argument for not having a Jewish State. 

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

(Quick search, don't know if reliable)

 Kahane was highly regarded by many top mainstream Jewish Orthodox leaders: He was assisted by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the leading posek of his generation; he was hosted and given a rare tribute by Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, the leading rabbi of the religious Zionists; he was solicited to join the political party of Menachem Begin; he was hosted in America by such mainstream rabbis as Haskel Lookstein and Shlomo Riskin, and joined, on some occasions, by rabbi-professors ranging from Saul Berman to Moshe Tendler. Above all, Kahane was a long-time columnist for The Jewish Press.

https://jewishbookreview.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/rabbi-meir-kahane-his-life-and-thought/

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Q: Ha-Rav Meir Kahane asked this question of Ha-Rav Moshe Feinstein, who answered that there is room to permit such a person to ascend, whether he removes his shoes or not. This is because if he does not ascend, there is a concern that people may call into question his status as a Cohain. And the reason Cohanim do not wear shoes when Duchaning is because there is a chance that his shoe will rip and he will sit down to tie it while the rest of the Cohanim are reciting the blessing -  and because he has not ascended, people will call into question his status as a Cohain). So better that the person ascend, even with shoes, than not. Shut Igrot Moshe (Orach Chaim 2:32.  And there is a Teshuvah in Shut Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 4:36 to Ha-Rav Kahane regarding celebrating a Bat Mitzvah in Shul.  Both Teshuvot were written on the same day – 2 Sivan 5719 – when Rav Kahane was serving as a Rabbi in New York.  And see Piskei Teshuvot 128:66).

http://www.ravaviner.com/2013/01/shut-sms-192.html

[Zelhar]

That makes sense, he wanted to clear this matter in every way even though it is in any case midrash agada which cannot be taken as halacha.

Could be that HaRav Kahane ZTL HYD had to explain the oats in a more "literal" way in order to knock down that argument from all angles. If he would say that its purely theoretical and/or just a Midrash and non- binding then their could be those who would claim that that isn't true and it is (somewhat) literal and Halachically binding. He came from the argument made by those who took (or take) it as binding. Besides Satmar their were also others who read it that way. Rav Kahane made an excellent argument with proofs against them being binding certainly today. therefore which ever way one takes them its still a non-argument for not having a Jewish State.