vochindik- I am glad to see the Copy/paste on your computer is working fine.
But how come when this guy whos is so into the Satmar rebbe’s understanding of the Arizal he fails to point out that in Divrei Yoel 44,3 the Rebbe says that according to the arizal it could come back before the binyan habayis?
It should be noted that if a navi were to tell you that a mitzva is not nogea bizman hazeh it is assur to listen to him, kal vchomer the arizal (if chas vshalom that is what he meant) Reb Yaakov Hillel explains the derech of the Arizal in Vayeshev hayam siman 20
???”? ???? ??? ????”? ??? ????”? (??’ ?) ??? ??? ??? ?????”? ???? ???? ?????? ?”? ???? “??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?????”
As for the case being presented to Rav Elyashiv zt”l in that teshuvah he writes “???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??”?” which means that the fullcase was not presented before him.
As you can see from his teshuva the only thing asked “????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????” Rav Elyashiv responded that being that this is the 3rd proposal ???? we don’t have to believe the ??????. (which is really not the case)
It’s important to point out Rav Elyashiv was addressing Rav Feivel Cohen’s question about ?????? ???????, not the specific proofs for the murex trunculus (Rav Feivel Cohen said that at the time he didn’t even know the arguments and it certainly not part of his question).
As for his list of chumras I was literally laughing out loud as I read them.