Rabosai,

I wanted to send out this email a while ago but I haven't had a chance.

As you all know, 15 years ago I had demonstrated to Rav Elyashev that the human hair shaitlach from India were not considered takrovos avodah zorah, and based on the information I sent him, wrote a Teshuva permitting the shaitlach. Rav Shlomo Zalman ZTL, ybdl"ch Rav Sheinberg, and all others who were involved permitted as well.

The only Rav that insisted on prohibiting the shaitlach was Rav Moshe Sterembuch shlita, who had already had information many years before then, that the shaitlach are created through some kind of idolatrous practice that involves alters and burning hair to idols. I spoke to Rav Shterenbuch on the phone then, but he was unconvinced; I sent him a letter with transcripts of testimony by Hindus as well as the Teshuva of Rav Elyashev. He wrote me back a Teshuva, which he later printed in his Teshuvos VHanhagos Vol. III, stating why he still did not want to permit the shaitlach. Because all the Rabbonim involved then, both in America and Eretz Yisroel, were satisfied that the shaitlach are permitted, with the exception of Rav Shterenbuch shlita, I did not continue to debate by answering Rav Shterenbuch's letter. The matter seemed closed.

As we all know by now, people have rekindled the entire tumult, claiming that the information Rav Elyashev received then - the information that I had provided - was not representative of the facts on the ground. One rabbi went to Rav Elyashev and testified that he interviewed some worshippers in Tirupati and the story is different than previously known. Other Rabbonim did their own research and realized that this rabbi misunderstood what he heard and saw, still others found serious contradictions in the rabbi's story, and so they had a meeting where they asked him questions about his findings. They saw that he was unable to defend his position and that indeed he had misinformed Rav Elyashev.

At that point, Rav Elyashev was approached with the refutations, and his response was that - and I paraphrase here - that he is not the FBI and he did not conduct and investigation and he is ruling on the halachah given a certain scenario, and not whether that scenario is accurate, and that if someone knows that the information that he received was indeed incorrect, he surely is entitled to permit the shaitlach.

Rav Shterenbuch has also renewed his prior psak prohibiting the shailtach in still another teshuva on the subject.

Not surprisingly, this episode has left many people unsure of what to do. I spoke about this in Shul a few times. There is no question that the accurate facts are those which Rav Elyashev has said results in a lenient ruling. The shaitels are permitted, whether they come from India or not.

Because of the renewal of the shailah, I sent Rav Shterenbuch a teshuva to his last letter to me, as well as corrections of the errors made by the rabbi who visited Tirupati, and an explanation of what caused his mistakes.

My letter to Rav Shterenbuch is attached, as are (b) his letter to me explaining why he won't accept Rav Elyashev's heter, (c) a transcript of my telephone conversation with Rav Shterenbuch, (d) a transcript of my interview with Dr. Anand Mohan, Hindu Priest and Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Queens College. This is the actual document upon which Rav Elyashev based his previous heter (e) A letter from Dr. Diana Eck, Professor of Comparative Religions in Harvard University, to Mrs. Judy Resnick, explaining the Hindu hair cutting procedure.

Please bear in mind that these are only a small sampling of dozens of documents and interviews from different sources, all confirming to the letter, the exact same understanding of the Hindu haircutting practice. These samplings represent an accurate picture of what the Hindu haircutting practice is about. Upon clarification of the facts on the ground, the Halachah is clear that the shaitlach are permitted, including the ones that come from the temples.