As far as I can tell I'm the only one who brought sources in this argument. So instead of being vague and making up things in the name of "many poskim" or "most poskim" or in the name of R Eliyashev without backing it up, why doesn't someone on your side bring a source. Anything at all. I have not seen a single printed source brought down here to support your side of the argument. Very suspicious, almost seems like some people glean their halachic knowledge from YWN and Matzav.
So just to recap, all I said is that there is no vadai chiyuv krisus to go on Har Habayis, as per the Rambam Tomei Mes is mutar in Machna Leviya, and all other tumos can be remedied. I even explicitly said that I hold not to go up, and don't like that people do, I'm just trying to point out a rampant am haratzus shita that going on to Har Habayis after toiveling in a maayan is not vadai kares according to virtually any shita. I never said it is mutar to go on Har Habayis.
Now if you have a printed source to contradict that I'm all ears, but to just make up halachos, whether or not you're blaming it on a specific rav or just on "poskim" is not a valid counter to my argument. Neither is just "maching up" without even making a point. So if you have something reliable and substantial please post. Otherwise what is the point?
In fact I will not be posting again in this thread until someone posts an actual source to contradict what I just wrote
I don't know much about this topic, and it seems possible to me that it would 'only' be a safek kares (and still ultimately assur to go up). However, I read back through this thread and you wrote nothing remotely like the line I bolded above. In fact, reading your comments in context, it seemed more like you were arguing that it should be mutar to go up.
Now that you mention it though, no one in the whole thread said that there would be a vadai chiyuv kares. You said it's only a safek, and maybe you could find a sfek sfeika - which everyone took to mean that you were saying it should be mutar. Either way, the fact that the issur under discussion is an issur kares (which is what Baruch wrote that appears to have set you off) is certainly a major part of the reason for the prevailing psak.
