more on wigs

Question

Here's more info from the moderator: MODERATOR Posted - 18 May 2004 15:39 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rav Elyashev holds - and put in writing - that it is the intent of the barber that counts, not the woman. He compares this to an idol worshipper who offers a sacrifice to avodah zorah, which a Jew shechts for him. Such a sacrifice is not considered avodah zorah, since it is the intent of the shochet that counts. The Hindu god is Vishnu, not Budha, and the tonsure practice is NOT avodaso b'kach - it is not the way of Avodah Zorah of Vishnu or the Hindus. What the Temple used to be doesnt matter. The shaitlach are made today. The idea that The fact that woman consider their hair a "sacrifice" is what caused confusion the first time around, and it seems to be doing so again. Please see above: > In the original interviews with the Hindus and their priests, they did say that - that they look at the tnsure as a "sacrifice" or "offering" to their gods, but upon further examination it emerged that they did not mean sacrifice in the Korbon sense but rather that they were sacrificing something - losing something - to ifnd favor with their gods. All the epxerts that were interviewed, when asked to expound on the meaning of the phrases "sacrifice" and "offering" made this distinction explicitly. The hindus use these terms differntly than we do. Dayan Dunner apparently did not think to make such a distinction, and he did not ask for a clarificaiton of the term because he did not imagine that he would need to. And as I mentioned above, this is where the confusion came in 15 years ago, when various Rabbonim prohibited the shaitlach. Deja vu. Today I found on the internet that Professor Dr. Diana Eck, who I mentioned above as one of the sources for Rav Elyashev's original heter, was contacted this week, again, for her opinion. This is what she said: "I responded at length to an inquiry of this sort from a group of rabbis some ten or fifteen years ago. They were concerned then that hair is "offered" to the deity, which is quite untrue. The hair is shaven, whether at Tirupati, Sinhachalam, the Christian shrine at Vailankanni or elsewhere in order that one present oneself to the deity hair-less, so to speak. The hair is not "offered" to the deity, but is a by-product of a religious rite in which hair is left behind. The locution "hair offering center" which is often used for the tonsure centers at the periphery of these shrines, is something of a misnomer and it is this that is most-likely at the root of the present concerns." Rav Moshe Sterenbuch held that the intent of the woman herself would matter - not that that matters in the end, since "sacrifice" doesnt mean korbon to them - but Rav Elyashev insisted that it would only be the intent of the shochet - the barber - which would count. At that point in time, Rav Sterenbuch did not see Rav Elyashev's teshuva, where he cites his proofs for this point. If Rav Elyashev indeed he was made to understand that the woman - and maybe even the barbers and the Priests - are referring to this hair as a "sacrifice" or "offering" to their gods, I can understand what happened here. In any case, a certain Rosh Yeshiva is currently in the process of independently investigating the veracity of the facts that were presented to Rav Elyashev, as well as the facts of this matter in general - a very, very good idea. I am waiting to see the reults. But as of now, although I can understand the confusion, nothing so far that has emerged would, based on the criteria that Rav Elyashev himself set, seem to make thse wigs takrovos. Maybe something as-yet unbknown will be revealed, but once again, I say that Rav Elyashev's psak was based on the informaiton provided to him, and if - IF! - you happen to know that the information was faulty, then the psak does not apply to the current situation. I am not saying that the facts were or were not faulty - I have not heard 100% what the facts presented to Rav Elyashev were; I am saying that if a Rav comes and says he does know in fact that the facts that were used were wrong or incomplete, that is a perfectly legitimate reason for him to permit the shaitlach, and that would not be considered disagreeing with Rav Elyashev. So far, though, I have not heard anything mentioned that would create a situation of takrovos a"z, according to the guidelines that Rav ELyshev himslef has provided. Therefore, I reiterate: Speak to your own Rav. Another confirmation of what we already know. This one from Robert Zydenbos of the University of Munich: ...The way the Indian hair is obtained as a rule has some ritual aspect to it; but as I have seen it, the hair is not cut in a temple, not before a murti, and there is no priest present who performs rituals. It is rather a matter of a vow individually made by the devotee, who privately promises the god that s/he will go to a particular temple and have him/herself shaven (either as penance, out of a sense of guilt over something, or as part of a supplication, or as a sign of gratitude after the coming true of a wish). S/he then goes to a kshetra, has a barber shave her/his head, and then s/he goes to the temple to present her/himself before the god. The barber's shop (which in some kshetras can be quite large, for this purpose) can be a street or two away from the temple. If this is correct, then there is no takrovos avodah zorah involved, according to Rav Elyashev.