dunner in india...fool!!

Question

Rabbi Dunner was in America, in 2 meetings with various Rabbonim, to explain what he saw that changes what we know about the tonsure process from 15 years ago. After hearing his case, you may assume that the Indian hair shaitlach from the Temples are not takrovos avodah zorah. As far as I am concerned, until we find some surprise that we do not know of yet, this issue is clear. The shaitlach are muttar. Rav Wosner and his bais din, incidently, retracted their issur. Rav Wosner did say that the Temple shaitlach are a “davar muas” (repulsive thing) and so you should try to stay aay form it if you know that the hair is form the temple, but as far as Halachah goes, now that the issue has been clarified, they retracted from their issur. Various Rabbonim are writing letters to Rav Elyashev to try to tell him the real story, and one is even planning to tentatively go to Rav Elyashev. And yes, they do have the information on this site. All Rabbi Dunner said was that he spoke to some pilgrims – he was only there for a day – and asked them what the explanation of the tonsure process. They said it is an offering to the god. He asked them what that means and they said they love their god and therefore they are offering their hair to the god and other things in that direction. But, first, Rabbi Dunner said absolutely nothing to indicate that the barbers themselves have any thoughts of offerings or avodah zorah of any kind whatsoever. And Rav Elyashev said that it is the barbers intention that would prohibit the hair, even if the women themselves had avodah zorah in mind. Some women do tonsure at regular barbers; not temple-appointed barbers. And everyone – the women and the barbers – know that. SO everybody knows that the barber’s rols in this is not one of worship – sometimes he isn’t even a Hindu! And thus, according to Rav Elyashev’s own standards, the hair is muttar. But perhaps more importantly, the language was the obsdtacle to understanding what these pilgrims meant. Rabbi Dunner is not familiar with the Hindu culture, languages, nuances of expression, and so he missed the boat here. Dr. Anand Mohan was contacted again this week. First regarding the article in the NY Times where it was mentioned that perhaps the tonsure practice changed. He said the whole thing is nonsense, and there is no element of holiness or worship in the cutting of the hair at all. He was then asked if he laughed when he saw the article. He said, “No, I did not laugh. It is not the rabbis’ fault that they do not understand what it [tonsure] means.” The second time, he was contacted regarding the reaction of the pilgrims interviewed last week by Rabbi Dunner. The next post is a transcript of what he said. Rabbi Dunner also claimed at the meeting as proof of the new, idolatrous practice, that even though tonsure is supposedly a sacrifice of ego, he witnessed that women were told that they only have to cut a few hairs – this proves, to him, that it was a new ceremony, not a self-sacrificing one, but an idolatrous one. Rabbi Dunner could not defend this when asked the obvious question: A certain Rish Yeshiva (and Posek) who was there mentioned that this proves nothing, for the Hindu self-sacrifice practice may only require a few hairs. And besides, Rabbi Dunner was apparently unaware that this “few hairs” law has always been in effect – it is not a new practice. The books and articles on tonsure mention it frequently. The reports of a “holy basin” that the hair is put into after cutting were false – nobody saw such a thing; and the hair cutting is NOT done inside the Temples – Rabbi Dunner did not claim such a thing. So nothing changed. A Baal Teshuva who used to be a Hindu, or into Hinduism, or something like that, was present, and also explained that Rabbi Dunner’s understanding is flawed, and the flaw is due to his not being aware of the culture and nuances of expression. Rabbi Dunner stated that this person’s information is inadmissible because the Teshuvos HaRosh says that a person has to rule Torah law based on Torah principles and not “foreign wisdom,” and this Baal Teshuva’s information came totally form “foreign wisdom.” Rabbi Dunner is wrong. If you want to know about another religion, youre not going to find the avodah zorah in shulchan aruch – usually not, anyway. We always avail ourselves of information form secular sources. Never mind that by saying that he invalidated Rav Elyashev’s psak halachah of 15 years ago, which was based totally and completely on the testimony of non-Jewish, secular scholars and Priests. At the end of the meeting, a rav said “OK, so what are we going home with? We still have no reason to say that these shaitlach are takrovos avodah zorah?” It is clear that Rabbi Dunner did not understand the process, and who knows how he explained it to Rav Elyashev. I hope that these rabbonim who are going to try to conact Rav Elyashev are successful. There is a Ger Tzedek in Insrael who used to be an Indian Hindu who is saying that Rav Elyashev received totally false information about the tonsure practice, and one of Rav Elyashev’s talmidim tried to get him in to Rav Elyashev. But they wont let anybody in. But people are trying. Let’s hope they succeed. There may be a surprise here that we do not know about; it may be that Rav Elyashev will say that he has some reason to prohibit the shaitlach that nobody know right now. But until that happens, there is no reason to prohibit these shaitlach.