Dear Moderator,
I myself don't have Internet access, just a computer (in fact I can't even type) but every evening my chavrusa brings me an updated disk of your site. I have also received a few calls telling me that you are the final word on this issue and asking if what you are saying is really true etc. I penned you an answer which someone heavily edited and sent to you – but you refused to post it.
I’ll try one more time to present my version of the facts and you'll either post it or not.
Around two months ago a ‘shmuah’ started to circulate that the hair is part of the rites. At that point everyone started to research the issue (Professors, websites, chat-rooms etc.)
After almost a month of scrambling the results were inconclusive. The more outwardly facing websites – who generally present a more humanistic approach to the religion (similar to reform judaism) and even sell it as monotheism – consider it to be a ‘ma’aseh hachno’oh’. Within the more internal communities however (the fanatics or orthodox), the spin was that the hair is given.
(I hate to discuss Avodah Zaroh but this might be l’toeles. These sites present the ‘getchka’ as living, eating, procreating etc. They complain that the priests are tiring him out by keeping the temple open 24/7, and that his crown in chafing his forehead because he doesn't get any time to take it off. HAHA letzanusa d’Avodah Zaroh),
At this point there was a dead end at the factual level.
Let’s stop for a second and point out, based on the Teshuvas HaRosh 55 – 9 (please look at it carefully, it is important) that this issue has to be decided halachikally i.e. no doctor or professor is going to paskin for me whether or not something is Avodah Zaroh. The maximum that can be gleaned from any goy, especially an oved Avodah Zaroh, are some plain unembellished points.
Back to the facts – I hope in chronological order.
On Tuesday 13th Iyar, R’ Nissim convened a meeting at which R’ Wosner was present, but the results were inconclusive. On Thursday of that week, a second meeting took place with R’ Nissim with testimony from a ger / ba’al teshuva whose father works there (or something to that effect). R’ Nissim came out of that meeting shaken up and went straight to R’ Wosner in order to come out with a p’sak l’issur. (It seems that the fact that sometimes only three tufts of hair are taken – whatever the reason they give – bothered him a lot).
R’ Wosner was still mesupak and therefore on Lag Ba’omer they came out with a joint psak encouraging people a) not to buy any new sheitels containing Indian hair and b) one should ‘yishtadel’ to change old sheitels.
Back to Rav Elyashiv.
By then, Rav Elyashiv was shown (by Rav Karp) the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos which lists ‘Ha’avoras Sa’ar’ as a Derech Avodah. He then said that he needs a few questions answered. At that point he was also told that a Rov was willing to make the trip. (I don’t know what came first.)
He was in contact with R’ Dunner and said that he wanted to know four things (Please excuse me, either I was only told two, or I forgot the other two)
1) Is there any hisyachasus to the place where the haircutting is done?
2) Is there any hisyachasus to the hair as it is being cut – either beforehand or afterwards?
By the way, both R’ Belsky and R’ Abadi argue with Rav Elyashiv and hold that even if the answer to these questions is yes then the hair is still not takruves. You moderator, may also hold like that, but you must be honest and say so – this is legitimate halachic discourse.
R’ Belsky even takes the analogy of k’ein p’nim so far as to require a yichud before the ma’aseh takruves. Rav Elyashiv disagrees.
Agav, in my opinion the best halachic teshuva l’heter was written by R’ Abadi (if you don’t have it, I can get it sent to you). It is just four pages long, but touches every point (yes, he is machria not like the Shach 139:3).
Anyway, l’halacha this is what Rav Elyashiv held is enough to assur and this was R’ Dunner’s only mandate – to find out the answers to these questions.
(With your permission a personal note. At that point yours truly and many of my colleagues were certain that in the end it was going to be muter. I guess we were under the influence of the Ramo and Shach who say numerous times in hilchos yayin nesach that Avodah Zaroh is not common among us – we understood it to be a statement of faith rather than one of fact.)
By the way, R’ Dunner returned in a bad mood and his only comment was ‘Seis bitter shvarts’. He was grilled for over an hour with the results as you know:
Question #1 was decided by Rav Elyashiv lechumra because of a) the barefoot requirement in the barbershop and b) since the worshippers said that the whole mountain is considered to be ‘his house’ (and hence they shave there rather than at home).
The whole issue of the hair being ‘unclean’ is not germane to its halachik status according to Rav Elyashiv.
Question #2 was partially answered by R’ Nissim’s ger / ba’al teshuva who said that some of those shorn of their hair actually pick it up and place it into the special bin for hair (some of them make the mistake of putting it into the ‘hundi’ which is meant for gold and silver etc – but what can you do – A GOYISHE KOP!).
R’ Dunner added to this that they told him that the ‘getchka’ loves the hair. When he asked what do you mean ‘loves’ don’t you know they are selling it? they answered great – he needs the money to pay off his debts.
Now, any expert whether he practices Hinduism or not, can argue on the proper place that hair plays in the Hindu religion but they are not our deciding Halachik authority.
To quote R’ Belsky: ‘Rav Elyashiv holds a big chiddush that even if the cutting is a ‘ma’aseh hachno’oh’, nevertheless, if the ‘getchka’ has nachas ruach from the hair, which they are aware of, that is enough to assur. This is why the issue of the fact that the hair is sold and that the money is used to pay up debt from the ‘getchka’s’ wedding commitments is a svara to assur and not to be matir.
In summation, it is true that in Hindu law, if there is such a thing, the hair is not considered takruves or offering. However, l’halocho Rav Elyashiv holds that the ceremony is such that the hair is ossur. If you want to say that it is too close to call and Rav Elyashiv is only machmir because of the chumra of d’orayso, Avodah Zaroh – that’s OK by me also. I don’t pick the minds of the gedolim.
Now onto R’ Dunner. I didn't hear the tape (or Rav Efrati’s for that matter) but it's not important for me. It could be that his presentation was a bit theatrical and / or exaggerated and that boomeranged back on him, nevertheless, even though he is a main player he is not the only player.
Meaning, that there is also a halachic sugya being decided here and really some of the posts put up are really delusionary. The conspiracy theories about R’ Dunner are amusing. Next thing I’ll hear is that he met Lee Harvey Oswald in
Just to finish by saying against those who wish to portray Rav Elyashiv as an old man who is being manipulated – sorry boys this won't wash. Or as he asked Rav Feivel Cohen (who also argues and says that it's mutter) – what are you thinking – that I'm ‘over bottel’?
To quote – or misquote – Rav Shimon Shkop. “Rav Elyashiv was involved here both in the ‘Din Torani’ - the halachic aspect - and in the ‘Din Mishpati - the factual aspect as it reflects on the Halocho – the Jewish one, not lehavdil the Hindu one.
In Eretz Yisroel the issue is basically over and this presentation (more or less) is the one going down in the history books.
I must add that Rav Elyashiv – in his great modesty – told R’ Belsky that not only can he argue with him l’halochoh – but he also has the right to argue with him on the facts (as to what is going on in Tirupati). He told him that he may convene a Beis Din, accept and interrogate witnesses and come out with any psak that he feels is correct. I am proud to be part of a nation with Rabbinical leadership of such caliber.
Regards.