Total Pageviews

..

Thursday 23 January 2014

Dayan Y Y Lichenstein - CH fabricated Kulos in Hilchos Nidah

Below is an email received from goldersgreen100@gmail.com 

Dear Sir,

Please find attached some teshuvas including a teshuva from R' Padwa ZTZ'L supporting R' Chaim Halperns psak.

I hope this attachment finds its way to the blog. 

See link below how they are having a go at  R' Y Y Lichenstein



90 comments:

  1. funny. i always found him to be quite machmir..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although knowing the person involved, the story could be true, I doubt that this letter is genuine. First of all the signature looks pasted in and there are several mistakes in the letter. I would have expected that a letter of this importance would have been carefully checked before going out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If this is true, the implications are significant!

    How can he stay a rav?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Key word in your post is "IF".

      Delete
  4. LAST 5 RECENT GEDOLEI HADOR NIFTAR (over less then a month time & at young ages) and Moshiach is still not here!!! yet.

    Rabbi Shimon Cohen of Ashdod ZT”L,-Rosh Yeshivas Torah Ohr-December 8 2013-67

    HaRav Binyamin Batzri ZT”L-Rosh Yeshivat Beit Yosef & Rabbi of Kiryat Chareidis-December 16 2013-57

    the Sokolover-Kotzker Rebbe, Rav Mendel Meir Morgenstern zt”l, -December 23 2013-92

    Rav Asher Zelig Rubenstein zt”l,-rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Toras Simcha in Yerushalayim-December 29 2013-71.

    Rav Ephraim Greenblatt zt”l, the Revivos Ephraim-renowned senior posek and longtime rov of Memphis, Tennessee.-January 3, 2014-81

    Look at their ages & how we are losing our Gedolim constantly

    May all of Klal yisroel start doing teshuva NOW-before tragedy strikes again C”V-& THEN mashiach will come b’karov

    May His Neshama have an Aliya & May we STOP judging Talmiday Cachomim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Round about now is the every day the yahrzeit of about 40000 kedoishim in Sobibor, Belzec and Treblinka. It is about 70 years since then and Moshiach still hasn't come.
      So what's the solution? Clearly not missas tzaddikim on its own.

      Delete
  5. Now we know why the Chaimisten are such mechutzofim...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is this really news? The guy is the lowest of the low. Can anyone be surprised that he didn't pasken with yiras shomayim?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Has anyone got proof this letter is not a fake?

    ReplyDelete
  8. יהודים יקרים רחמנים בני רחמנים!
    כולנו ביחד נעצור "עכשיו" רגע, ונחשוב, איך אנחנו יכולים לעזור למשפחה החשובה.

    אמא ואבא צעירים שלא יודעים איפה להיות. בהלווית שתי הבנות הקטנות, שנלקחו בחטף, או ליד מיטת שני בניהם הנאבקים על חייהם! אפשר להבין? לקלוט? אפילו להתאבל ולשבת שבעה אין ביכולתם!
    עוד 2 בנים יקרים, שנלחמים על חייהם. בואו נקבל קבלה טובה. תפילה אחת. בקשה אחת מאלוקים. שיחוס וירחם ויקרע את רוע הגזירה. שיהיה להורים במי לקחת נחמה. בבקשה עצרו הכל!
    שימו פרוטה לצדקה וקראו תהילים ששאר המשפחה תשרוד בע"ה!

    שמות הילדים: רפאל יצחק אייזיק בן מיכל, וחיים מיכאל שלמה בן מיכל, ההורים שמעון עוזר בן צפורה, ומיכל בת רחל. דחוף מאוד!
    לא להתביש, כל מי שרואה את ההודעה שיעשה חסד גדול וישלח את ההודעה לכמה שיותר אנשים בלי לשבור.
    * * *
    כידוע לכולנו [בין אם נאשר ובין אם נטמון את הראש בחול...], האינטרנט הפרוץ הוא הגז והרעל הקטלני ביותר, ברוחניות ובגשמיות. ידוע שלפעמים נלקחים אנשים טובים בגלל מעשי האנשים ה..., קרבן ציבור בגלל עוונות הדור. מי יודע אם אין קשר בין נגע האינטרנט למקרים המזעזעים. מי יודע חשבונות שמים.

    רמב"ם הלכות תענית (פרק א) וזה לשונו הזהב:
    דבר זה מדרכי התשובה הוא. שבזמן שתבוא צרה ויזעקו עליה ויריעו ידעו הכל שבגלל מעשיהם הרעים הורע להן ככתוב (ירמיה ה כה) 'עונותיכם הטו' וגו'. וזה הוא שיגרום להסיר הצרה מעליהם. ואבא שבשמים יואמר לצרותינו די!!!

    אבל אם לא יזעקו ולא יריעו אלא יאמרו דבר זה ממנהג העולם אירע לנו וצרה זו נקרה נקרית [-במקרה], הרי זו דרך אכזריות וגורמת להם להדבק במעשיהם הרעים. ותוסיף הצרה צרות אחרות. הוא שכתוב בתורה (ויקרא כו-כז) 'והלכתם עמי בקרי' (ויקרא כו-כח) 'והלכתי עמכם בחמת קרי'. כלומר כשאביא עליכם צרה כדי שתשובו אם תאמרו שהיא קרי אוסיף לכם חמת אותו קרי.
    * * *
    ידידים יקרים!
    בואו נקבל על עצמינו להתחזק בצניעות ולהתנתק מהאינטרנט הפרוץ. ולמי שבס"ד כבר מנותק מהאינטרנט, יקבל על עצמו להשפיע על מינימום עוד יהודי להתנתק מהאינטרנט, ולקרבו לתורה ומצות. ובזכות זה יאמר השם יתברך לצרותינו די בקרוב ממש.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lets ask Dayan Lichtenstein to confirm it; I'm sure he reads the blog!

    ReplyDelete
  10. With all due to respect to Dayan Lichtenstein, a careful perusal of the Maharsham (3:250) reveals no mention of his hetter applying to the first day only. Neither does the Chelkas Yakov (YD 100) state as such in the name of the Maharsham. He merely gives his own opinion that the Maharsham may be relied upon only on the first day. Surely in a case of extreme exigency, a Posek could not be faulted for relying on the Maharsham. As to the other allegations, see Pesachim 112a. It is therefore quite foolish to publish such a letter in the public domain, unless one's intentions are not that leshem shamayim after all

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chaimist - that's it. Every rov in NW London is conspiring against your beloved fondler. Wake up you deluded fool.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hate to disappoint the anti Reb Chaim guys, (im not from london) but asked a top rov in my town, once the same shallo, and got told the same thing as Reb Chaim paskened (7th day) (obviously people circumstance may differ) so guys dont use this site for ur halachic rulings!

    ReplyDelete
  13. chaimist - i dont understand you. are you really trying to argue with r' weiss, r' moishe halberstam and r' padwa in halacha? you're an idiot. a better argument (if true) would be that when r' chaim said that he had heter from both mentioned rabbonim he was telling the truth and r' lichtenstein was lying, but to accept the story as portrayed and argue back on halacha is just idiotic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chaimist,
    What other chiddushim were said on Tuesday nights in the shoivevim shiurim?
    Perhaps you also want to give shiurim

    ReplyDelete
  15. you are missing the main point - how you choose to learn the CY or Maharsham is irrelevant - the important thing is - he lied (allegedly!)

    ReplyDelete
  16. That is Dayan Lichtenstein's letter... That is his signature.. That is his writing style... That is the Federation letter heading... The Dayan was asked a few days ago if it is really his letter, and he is said it is... It is no hoax... The Dayan is very approachable... and available for queries 24/7.... If you still don't believe, you can call him and he will say the same thing yet again....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Chaimist - I see you've inherited your rebbe's derech in sheker or perhaps you just don't know how to learn. The Maharsham says it's muttar to be maalim ayin me'issur in a chumras hageonim not in the ikkar takono of bedikas techilo or soif.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Whilst I am well aware that this sordid blog is not the appropriate venue to debate sensitive matters, I feel compelled to point out several facts. 1. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the Maharsham (3:250) himself makes no distinction between day 1 and day 7. 2. The Chelkas Yaakov (YD 100) understood the Maharsham in the same way (see end of Paragraph 6) but decided to be stringent on day 7 for two reasons which he had already formulated before having seen the Maharsham (see Paragraph 5). This is his own personal opinion to which he is certainly entitled, but is NOT the opinion of the Maharsham. 3. The eminent Posek and prolific author Rabbi Gavriel Zinner in his Nitei Gavriel (1:56:5, page 473) is of the same lenient opinion in cases of extreme exigency, and traces his ruling to Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (1783–1869). Again, Dayan Lichtenstein is entitled to his stringent opinion, but this hardly makes one who is lenient “totally untrustworthy…” 4. I would be pleased to read a response

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done in sounding so reasonable. Shame you haven't actually bothered to read these sources. These and the other lenient shittos being thrown around by Chaimistim refer to either hefsek taharo, a medical requirement to wash or in cases of bedieved. There is not one poisek who brings down this "hetter" on DAY SEVEN regardless of the circumstances. If you're so confident of your interpretation of the Maharsham, nittei Gavriel et al why don't you go ask one poisek to put in writing that under extreme circumstances it is muttar to do a bedika immediately after washing on day 7.

      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    2. Not only so they need to show that but it also needs to be in a case where a woman knows she is staining and therefore purposely does not do a single proper bedika. Not on day one and not on day seven.

      Delete
    3. No-one ever suggested that the hetter applies “regardless of the circumstances”. Au contraire, in cases of EXTREME EXIGENCY, בשעת הדחק גדול מאוד which is by definition “a case of bedieved” there are many Poskim who are lenient ON DAY SEVEN. I am pleased to rise to your challenge and hereby quote a preeminent Posek who states clearly “that under extreme circumstances it is muttar to do a bedika immediately after washing on day 7”:- תעשה כך ביום שתפסק בטהרה אז לעת ערב טרם בדיקתה תרחץ פניה שלמטה והשערות וגם תיקח העד במים ותרחץ גם בפנים עד מקום שהשמש דש וזה העד תשליך אותו ואח״כ *** תיכף *** תבדוק עצמה בעד יבש ולדעתי אם תעשה כן לא תמצא עוד וכן תעשה אח״כ ביום ראשון של נקיים וכן תעשה *** בשבעה *** בו בבקר ובימים שבנתיים לא תבדוק כלל ולדעתי בעצה זו לא תמצא עוד (קנאת סופרים השמטות לשירי טהרה סימן טז) I rest my case

      Delete
    4. That's probably a good thing. If you bothered actually reading the shaalo you'd see it has little in common with the case Charlie boy lied about.

      Delete
    5. So Alex, your mendacious comment implies you “actually read the shaalo.” Go ahead then, and quote it for us, and explain why it is dissimilar. I somehow think you’ll find that quite difficult והמבין יבין

      Delete
    6. Mendacious is not a word that pervert supporters are advised to direct against others. I have read it and you are still wrong.

      Delete
    7. Errmm, I could not find the shaale, only the teshiva. Alex could u pls bring us the loshen of the shaale so we can all see that Chaimist is wrong?

      Delete
    8. Chaimist - I am prepared to concede in part. From your quote the Kinas Sofrim does indeed appear to give this hetter although I haven't had a chance to look it up. That said, the Halichos Chanoch and Minchas Yotzchok quoted by your rebbe and the Maharsham, NG and Chelkas Yaakov quoted by your good self do not give this hetter under any circumstances. The bedieved they refer to is when a woman has mistakenly washed herself during the 7 days as she was confused between the din of a Hefsek and that of the 7 days. They do not refer to shaas hadchak godol.

      Nonetheless although they do not allow this, the Kinas Sofrim would appear to. Well done.

      Delete
    9. The kinas sofrim is talking about "kartin" where we are talking about proper blood . I am not taking sides just want to point this out as someone may be mechalek ( I am just asking)? You seem to have learnt it properly maybe you could answer.

      Delete
    10. Being מודה על האמת is a most admirable trait, yet it beggars belief that you “haven't had a chance to look up” the Kinas Sofrim. The Kinas Sofrim is one of more than 100 seforim authored by Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brod, the preeminent Posek of his generation. I will only respond to sources that I myself have brought. NOT ONE of my sources refers to “when a woman has mistakenly washed herself during the 7 days as she was confused between the din of a Hefsek and that of the 7 days”. Kindly explain where you found that explanation. The Maharsham (3:250) is responding to the following query: ע"ד שאלתו באשה א' מבנות כפרים הסמוכה לקהלתכם שאינה יכולה ליטהר זה כחצי שנה לאשר שבכל פעם שמפסקת בטהרה ובודקת את עצמה נדמה לו על העד בהיותו לח כמראות אדומות וכו' ולדעתי נראה דקודם בדיקה תעשה קילוח מים לתוך הרחם כמה פעמים ואח"כ תבדוק ואז יש תקנה שתעלה יפה בדיקתה. The Chelkas Yaakov was not adduced as a lenient opinion – he is indeed stringent on day 7 for two reasons which he had already formulated

      Delete
    11. What a laugh - supporters of that beast talking about being modeh al ho'emes!

      Delete
  19. The Nitei Gavriel is talking about dam petzoim not dam nido. The Maharsham says you can be maalim ayin from a takonas hageonim not.from the ikar takono of bedikas techilo or sof.

    The only thing that's sordid is that we're still discussing the halachic competence of the perverted lowlife named Chaim Halpern.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “The Nitei Gavriel is talking about dam petzoim not dam nido.” A brilliant lomdishe chilluk! However it is patently obvious from the first line of the letter that the subject at hand was indeed דם מכה and not דם נדה. “The Maharsham says you can be maalim ayin from a takonas hageonim not.from the ikar takono of bedikas techilo or sof.” Untrue! Please reread the teshuva inside where the תקנת הגאונים referred to is מראה הנוטה קצת לאדום. The chiddush of the Maharsham was to ensure שתעלה יפה בדיקתה in the majority of cases as he states clearly towards the end of his first paragraph. Don’t take my word for it; look it up yourselves. As to the alleged denials of Rabbi Y Padwa and Rabbi Halberstam, surely לא ראינו/שמענו אינו ראיה. Why not a denial from Rabbi Henach Padwa “who was alive at the time”?

      Delete
    2. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. I would encourage you to call Dayan Lichtenstein for clarification but he's had enough threatening phone calls in the last couple of days from your ilk. Let's see this fake hetter in writing from a Charedi posek.

      Delete
  20. And the issue is not just his fake better but the fact that he lied about it. Even the biggest Charlie-leckers know that he's always had a rather complicated relationship with the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am sure this too was done under the auspices of the Amshinover Rebbe.
    For every psak Dayan Lichtenstein brings R Chaim will bring 10 farkert. just like Chaimist is doing right now,

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't understand why DL didn't ask R Padwa himself and instead relied on his son RYP. Surely if you are worried that another Rov you check with the source he quoted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erm, cos Rav Padwa was no longer alive?

      Delete
    2. Erm, the letter says that he was still alive

      Delete
  23. chaimist you are an idiot who is missing the whole point of the letter. it is not a debate in halache. r' chaim gave a heter - he didn't use a single one of your reasons. the reason he used was that he has a kabbala from the minchas yitzchak and r' padwa. this has turned out to be a total fabrication - a lie. it has been shown that both these rabbonim do not give such a heter. end of story. you can debate peshat in the maharsham and bring 100 other rabbonim to back you in what the haloche is - it is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  24. he was matir this woman so he could bed her as part of his sholom bayis techniques.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Chaimist - be careful, you may give away your identity. There are only about five people on Earth who are both Charlie supporters and capable of writing a coherent sentence in English.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It canno be believed that DL knew for many years that CH is totally untrustworthy and did not find it neccessary to issue this letter till now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matthew - good to see you again. I'm glad you are finally coming round and are disappointed that action was not taken against Charlie Menuvel sooner.

      Delete
    2. Dayan Lichtenstein has made known for years that he regarded RCH as unreliable. You can say whatever you like about Lichtenstein, you can agree with his piskei halocha or argue against them, but his honesty cannot for a moment be questioned.

      Delete
    3. If the Dayan had made his views known why is it that over the years hundreds of our yungerleit took their niddoh questions to RCH without having any qualms about his reliability ?
      Is the obvious answer that DL did not make his views known effectively?
      I am not questioning the Dayan's honesty,but it appears to me that even if he had certain reservation about RCH,he thought that he was competent to pasken for such a large section of our community,otherwise he surely would have been more vociferous in expressing his opinion.

      Delete
    4. Pointless argument in my opinion. Even if DL had his doubts about RCH, nobody imagined the extent of what was actually going on and no doubt the vast majority of his decisions were in accordance with accepted halocho.

      With the benefit of hindsight we can understand the extent of the numbers of people coming to him and how far he had sunk in dealing with these issues to make him totally unreliable.

      Delete
    5. From your last comment it is apparent that you have not read the Dayan's letter.
      The Dayan writes that because of a psak that Reb Chaim gave to a lady(at least 13 years ago)he came to the conclusion that he is totally unreliable to pasken hilchos niddoh.
      This opinion is therefor not connected to the unsubstantiated recent rumours about inappropriate behavior

      Delete
  27. is the bes din coming back

    ReplyDelete
  28. Can someone please explain to me what the shaaloh was and how the heter is applied. As far as I know if a woman sees 'dam' she can never be tohor. Maybe it was dam makko. Since you mention the shaalo and I dont believe I am the only am hoorets reading your blog it would be correct to explain it better.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Alex
    I don't think many readers will be misled by your understanding of my previous comment.
    It does not infer any negative sentiment with regard to RCH.
    You should be ashamed of yourself for deliberately misconstruing my message.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The guy who sent that email apparently can't read Hebrew. Rav Padwa allowed washing before a hefsek as many many poskim do. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. Charlie Molester - is this what you've been forced to descend to? Sad...

    ReplyDelete
  31. The insane rant on Shaulson was written by Treitel Brandsdorfer (son of Hagers rosh kollel) who is known to favour a bit of 'touchy feely' himself....

    ReplyDelete
  32. Who gives a flying fukk about all this!!!
    Why cant u all just move on?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is he a menuvel, is he not a menuvel????
    Are u all perfect? Probably not
    Will people stick by him? Some will
    Did R C always act correctly? Probably not
    How many of you put there enjoying all this gossip???
    Is this what your creator wants from you???
    How long will this drag on for???
    Was it terrible what he did? Maybe yes maybe not,
    Only 1 god to decide.
    Should u ask him your shulous?
    Do what you wish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you write the questions you ask yourself indicate that it is dawning on you that yes, abuse does matter, and no, people are not just talking about it because they enjoy salacious gossip, they are talking about it because the individual concerned is still in a position to cause exceptional spiritual and emotional harm to others. They are talking about it because they want to remind themselves that there is a difference between the sacred and profane, even if the profane presents itself as sacred; because the injustice of this story brings not just Kedassia into disrepute - it drags all of us into disrepute. Chas veshalom it brings the Almighty Himself into disrepute.

      You ask how long this will drag on. I will tell you - this will drag on for about two weeks longer than he drags on.

      Delete
  34. Anonymous - you misunderstand. The fact that Chaim Halpern still pretends to be a rov in GG is the deepest possible betrayal of everything that we stand for. It's a statement that might makes right and that, if you are well connected and brazen enough, you can urinate on Torah, halocho and basic decency and carry on as normal. He was the one who we looked to to uphold the sacred ideals for which we are moser nefesh on a daily basis and he corrupted every last one of them.

    He is the living embodiment of the evil that the Neviim preached against. He is a dagger in the back of every single one of us and the fact that he sits and laughs while the whole of NW London lays broken because of his vile selfishness should mean that we are unable to rest until the insult that is his continued presence among us is erased forever.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Perhaps one needs a rethink on the efficacy and outcome of all these over fastidious hilchos niddah. Whether in their breach or compliance, constantly mulling over these stringent rules re counting days - calculator anybody? - times for hefsek/bedika (how, when, what, rarely why) they do not appear to have turned otherwise observant, but susceptible Jewish men one iota away from sexual deviancy, and onto the path of living a sexually fulfilled married life. On the contrary, after reading these blogs, one could be drawn to the conclusion that complying with these overzealous stringencies is a temptation towards all manner of sexual deviances/abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The laws of טהרת המשפחה make our marriages so much holier and pleasant.
      They improve us and elevate us.
      They are not overzealous stringencies.
      They strengthen our marital bonds

      Delete
    2. Yeah right. After reading these blogs, it's a wonder more didn't throw in the towel years ago!

      Delete
    3. Idiotic comments like yours spoil any value these blogs may have.

      Delete
  36. *** וכן תעשה *** בו בבקר

    Am I missing something here or is the Kinas Sofrim talking about washing 10 hours before bedika?

    ReplyDelete
  37. The shaalo in the kinas sofrim was about a mesulekes domim with no period. These liars specialise in twisting things to suit their anti Torah agenda. I'm sure they will dig up some farkrocheneh source for Charlie's fake hetter eventually - if that's what he claims this derech in psak is good luck to him

    ReplyDelete
  38. My brother is innocent, why u all so jealous that he had a good time.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oh well well, apparently the halpern mafia dont want the beth din back.
    Game is over with you halperns.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Adam, where did you find that in the Kinas Sofrim? Please give us the exact quote, as it isn’t there in my edition. “Alex” still hasn’t managed to bring us the quote either. Or perhaps you are both descendants of Dayan Moshe Zusmann of Odessa and therefore know something that we don’t … The Nitei Gavriel (1:56:5, page 473) writes במקום צורך שיש לה פצע, יש להתיר לשטוף באו״מ קודם הבדיקה עפ״י הוראת הכם and gives as his source the Kinas Sofrim mentioned earlier. An earlier commenter’s contention therefore that the Nitei Gavriel “does not give this hetter” is thus untenable. In fact several other contemporary Poskim also rely on the Kinas Sofrim, for example Rabbi Yekusiel Farkash in his Taharah Kehalacha et al. To summarise, would anyone dare to consider Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, the Maharsham, or Rabbi Gavriel Zinner, “totally untrustworthy in matters of hilchos nidah”? [Dear Blog Master – I realise you may have your own agenda, but kindly do not censor my comments as you have done until now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have asked before ,the kinas sofrim is talking about "kartin" which is a certain way(3dots in a certain way) where you know it is definetly a petza and he is matir even if these 3 dots are on the bedika ,and even with other dam he is matir because of chezkas haguf and ein machzikin meissur leissur as you will see in the shirei tahare of which the kinas sofrim goes on.
      I am not taking sides just asking.

      Delete
    2. As you, unlike many of the others, appear to be honest, I will answer you. I must admit I was at first mystified as where you had the notion that "kartin" are "3 dots in a certain way." It would appear you are referring to שירי טהרה Siman 190:3. This is a responsum to Rabbi Meshulem Yakov Rottenberg of Barditchev, hence it is NOT the same as that in Kinas Sofrim, which was addresed to Dayan Moshe Zusmann of Odessa. In שירי טהרה Rabbi Shlomo Kluger writes לא הבנתי מה שכתב שמצאה ג' טיפי דמים אם מצאה רק הקרטין והקרטין *** קורא רו"מ ג' טיפי דמים*** וכו'. From this it is obvious that "kartin" are NOT synonymous with ג' טיפי דמים. In fact "kartin" are discussed at length in the Taz at the end of YD 191, and he regards them as דם ממש. Under extremely specific circumstances the Taz suggests being lenient, but see Pischei Teshuva ad loc. who brings a preponderance of Poskim who are NEVER lenient. It to these "kartin" that Rabbi Kluger refers to in his Kinas Sofrim. I would love to expand on

      Delete
  41. Chaimist - it's a heoro to an earlier teshuva as written there - look it up and see what the case was. And the case at hand was not the same as the one the NG allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I have commented before under anonymous at 22:10 and received no reply.
    Now I read the tshuva. Someone who has to take red coloured 'pills'. So he says dont take them on the seventh day. I could have also answered that.
    Can someone please explain to me what all the fuss is about.

    ReplyDelete
  43. There is something funny going on here. Normally such a shaaloh is a very private and intimate matter. Usually the husband but occasionally the wife has a shaaloh. He/she goes to their trusted dayan, asks the shaaloh, gets the reply i.e. "kosher" or not and that is the end of the matter.
    How did this come out at all? And a key question is that, assuming this letter is genuine (itself somewhat doubtful) how did Dayan Lichtenstein come to hear of it and more important his very first act should have been to call R' Chaim privately and discuss the matter with him. Did he?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Adam has informed us “The shaalo in the kinas sofrim was about a mesulekes domim with no period.” He now attempts to obfuscate the issue by claiming “it's a heoro to an earlier teshuva as written there - look it up and see what the case was. And the case at hand was not the same”. By all means go ahead and cite for us the “earlier teshuva” to Dayan Moshe Zusmann of Odessa so we can see why it “was not the same.” As I have said before you will find this difficult to do והמבין יבין. Perhaps Alex can assist you as he has “actually read the shaalo”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The earlier tshuvo is in his other sefer called "shirei tahare" simen 191 he explains there what "kartin" means as I have explained before, and he is matir even if you find kartin on the ed habedika, the tshuvo in kinas sofrim is a better way for this women with kartin. I am not sure if he would be matir by ksomim, (it may be worse if you know this women has proper dam and you wash it out deliberately) as I asked twice before, do you have a answer or a proof? (I am not saying you are wrong, just asking)

      Delete
    2. I would point out that I am also not taking sides, and the pejorative nickname "Chaimist" has been given me by the Blog Master. As I wrote above, it would appear you are referring to שירי טהרה Siman 191:3. I reiterate that this is a responsum to Rabbi Meshulem Yakov Rottenberg of Barditchev, hence it is *** NOT *** the same as that in Kinas Sofrim, which was addressed to Dayan Moshe Zusmann of Odessa (i.e. we are not discussing the same woman at all). NOR are "kartin" synonymous with ג' טיפי דמים, as anyone who learns the Taz I quoted will know. The Chelkas Yaakov quoted by Dayan Lichtenstein refers to מראות בבדיקה ירוק (געהל) או חום (ברוין) ומתעוררים שאלות. It is clear therefore that this was the level of "shailos" referred to in the Dayan's letter.

      Delete
    3. 1) R moshe Zussman of Odessa had a question on 191:3 where he didn't agree to the heter he gave to R mesulem Yakov in shirei tahare, to be matir a ed bedika with kartin ( the sefer kinas sofrim is hasogos on shirei tahare) but he is definetly talking about that women with kartin as you will see.
      2) In shirei tahare he explains that by kartin he mains gimel tipei domim.
      3) all I am suggesting that our case is worse were you know she normally has ksomim.
      4) I am not having a go at anyone I am just trying to understand.

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately we seem to be going around in circles.
      Before replying to this, PLEASE consult a competent Halachic authority who will be able to explain my points, as you seem to be continually misunderstanding the issue.
      1) "The sefer kinas sofrim is hasogos on shirei tahare". It is neither hasagos nor heoros. It is השמטות, i.e. addenum as you will see on the heading of every page. This distinction is crucial. If Rabbi Kluger had referred to an earlier responsum, he would have given a precise source. Siman 191 in Shulchan Aruch refers to "kartin", therefore this responsum belongs here. Furthermore, the wording in Kinas Sofrim “רק תעשה כך” clearly shows that this is a directive to Dayan Zussman, not a theoretical discussion of an earlier responsum. The FOLLOWING responsum (17) is תשובתי להשגות על חיבורינו שירי טהרה לק"ק קאלמיי. I hope my point is now clear.
      2) “By kartin he [means] gimel tipei domim.” I assure you “kartin” has nothing to do with ג' טיפי דמים. See Taz YD 191:4, and the seventeen responsa quoted in Pischei Teshuva (7) thereto and you may have some idea of what “kartin” really are.
      3) I appreciate your honesty in taking the time to look things up, unlike most of the other commenters.

      Delete
    5. Hi R Chaimist,
      I am willing to take point 1 (although if you look in the first page of kinas sofrim you might see that it was written for questions on his other sforim)
      With regards to point 2 I am aware of what kartin in the remo 191 are, however he is matir bedieved which is against most achronim , so I thought he is reffering to different kartin. So lets accept your position for now as it doesn't really help me:
      1) The kinas sofrim is clearly matir the kartin bedieved on the ed habedika as you will see at the end of the tshuva, were our case is ksomim and even if you accept the chelkas Yaakov ( which you argue on his issur of day seven) that most ksomim are takonas hageonim (yellow and brown) it is still ossur bedieved ( I am also not sure if by R chaim most ksomim are takonas hageonim if you familiar with his kabolo) so who says he is matter cases which are worse then kartin?
      2) if we don't except lehalocho his heter of kartin ,why do we except his heter of washing before bedika?

      Delete
    6. 1. I regret that your entire argument is nothing less than specious casuistry, as I will demonstrate below. I now have grave doubts as to your sincerity and identity, as evidenced by your insertion of deliberate errors [e.g. accept/except] into your comment.
      2. Your assertion that the leniency of the Kinas Sofrim is predicated upon his other leniency regarding “kartin” is simply erroneous. Kindly see Responsum 39 where Rabbi Shlomo Kluger states ע"ד שאלתו בנדון הקרטין הנה שערי ההיתר פתוחין לפניו, כמ"ש רו"מ, אך בני לא ירד עמכם בזה, כי אני *** מחמיר *** בזה and he then proceeds to offer the identical leniency as he gave to Dayan Zussman earlier. He writes numerous times in his Responsa that his leniency in “kartin” is רק להלכה ולא למעשה.
      3. I have no intention of debating with you ad infinitum. I realise that you will persist in having the last word, but it would be more honourable to admit your mistake. At the same time, you might explain the contradiction between the Chelkas Yaakov (regarding bedieved) and what was written in the letter in his name.
      4. As I have said before, this blog is really not the appropriate place to discuss such issues. I have demonstrated incontrovertibly that numerous earlier and contemporary Poskim would be lenient in certain extreme circumstances. [Dear Blog Master – Please cease the censorship of parts of my comments.]

      Delete
    7. Thank You,
      1) Excuse my spelling mistakes they were not deliberate,and as is said before I take no sides in machloikes, certainly not between Rabonim, and I am not having a go at anyone. (choished biksherim?)
      2) regarding bedieved there is 3 stages 1) a women with ksomim 2) a women which was Toivel 3) Lonso etsel baaloh, I am only debating with you number 1 and I never said otherwise, we must be very careful to forbid stage 3 as this would be moitsi laaz on this women (I suspect DL in his letter is talking about stage 1 (although I cannot say for sure).
      4)I respect your desire not to carry on talking here as it is not the appropriate place (I believe you started the discussion).
      I just want to be mesakem our debate : You say that although the kinas sofrim is talking about kartin he would of said the same about a woman with ksomim (which are more chomur) ,I say that although I don't have proof against it I don't think you have a proof from there to be mattir.

      Delete
  45. guys, you are all missing the point - are you blind/stupid/wicked. this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Halocho. had CH just responded 'this is my pesak' nothing further would have happened. it was his trademark cavalier attitude to the truth which caught him out. thats the issue. period. stop discussing halocho! its irrelevant! continuing to discuss the fine point sof Hilchos Niddah might be entertaining for some, but it is distracting from th heart of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The letter is a forgery.
    Otherwise the venerable Dayan would have warned the public years ago.
    We can not think that he would have kept silent on such a serious potential מכשול.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you call the Federation, ask to speak to Dayan L himself and ask if this letter is genuine. I did and he confirmed that this is indeed a legitimate letter.
      Stop with all this nonsense, many people knew for years that this man was a menuval of the highest degree. Everyone was scared to rise above him and make a stand because of the power this man had. Finally the Rabonim in town decided to act (much too late IMHO) and have shown what a fraud this guy was.
      Those that still want to believe in him, good luck to you. To everyone else, keep your heads held high, stay strong and let Hashem give us the strength to forget that this person ever had any impact in our lives

      Delete
    2. If the letter is genuine why did the Dayan only break silence now ?

      Delete
    3. Matthews babysitter30 January 2014 at 23:39

      Seriously.... pick up your phone, dial in 0208 202 2263. press the green button, wait for the ring....someone will pick up. Ask politely to speak with Dayan Lichenstein. When he answers the phone, ask him all the questions you have.... listen to what he has to say without interrupting.....ask some more questions....press red on your phone, put the phone down....digest what he has told you...accept that the man you have been supporting is wrong..........then when you have done all this, get back on the blog an apologies to anyone you may have upset with your defense against the "dark lord"

      Delete
    4. Having nothing sensible to say you do what most fools do.
      You resort to insults.

      Delete
  47. I haven't followed the halachic discussion here but the key point seems to be getting lost. The fact is that Chaim Halpern lied and no source Chaimist digs up will change that. It's not as if that should come as a surprise to anyone either - the rabbonim of NW London wrote that he's a known liar in their first letter to Stamford Hill.

    Chaimist, for his own motives, keeps trying to avoid discussion of this key point, so let's see what he's got. What's your game Charlie-man? Why are you so keen to defend someone who we have every reason to believe did much worse things than lie about hilchos nidda?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Chaimist did anser that point on 26 January 2014 17:39. Is there reealy a thing in haluche that lo roinee einoi raya? What does it mean?
      Lets ask DL to show us Charlie's letter, then we'll no for shure that hes the liar and not DL.

      Delete
    2. 1) Yes there really is such a halocho, in the very first Shach in Yoreh Deah (except in minhagim that occur with daily frequency – see Shach CM 37:38). It was never my intention to enter into a debate as to who said or did not say in the name of whom. Considering that all of the alleged sources are now in the World of Truth, this would be utterly pointless. I did however have serious questions regarding the accuracy of the first paragraph of Dayan Lichtenstein’s letter. 2) His letter states “The chelkas Yaakov … says that this heter … only applies to yom rishon and not to yom shevii *** even b’dieved. *** However, the Chelkas Yaakov himself states when discussing the hetter on Yom Shevii (see Paragraph 3-4), אכן עדיין יש לדון ולומר דבנדון החוו״ד אי״א בענין אחר, מה שאין כן בנידון דידן אע״ג *** דבדיעבד מהני הבדיקה, *** כיון דהבדיקה בעצמה נקי׳ טהורה מחזקינן גם לשארי הימים בחזקת טהרה ואף בלא האומדנא והוכחה, אבל לכתחילה האיך מותר לעשות כן וכו' - חלקת יעקב יורה דעה ק סוף ס"ק ד' ד"ה אבל

      Delete
  48. WHAT IS THE CHIDUSH OF THE LETTER? THAT CHAIM TELLS LIES?????

    ReplyDelete
  49. YES IT IS!!!!

    (CAN YOU HEAR ME?????)

    ReplyDelete