Here's a link to a site that distributes Jacquelyn wigs. Jacquelyn Human hair wigs are of Indian hair; if you click on human hair wigs, you'll see that the most expensive ones are remy hair.

From Rabbi Dunner: "The Indian people may practice idolatry but they are nto stupid. They know that what they do is problematic with regard to Jewish law, and are careful not to reveal too much when confronted by Israelis, or individuals dressed as Orthodox Jews. I disguised myself as a Christian . . . even when Rav Wosner and Rav Karelitz recently sent emissaries to research the subject, they weren't able to gain as much access or as much information as I was."

But also from Rabbi Dunner: "It became clear that the hair itself was used as an offering to the idols . . . Hindus don;t like to reveal this fact, because they know that it sounds primitive to the ears of the modern world."

Also form Rabbi Dunner: "The priests are sworn to secrecy."

So first he said that the Hindus dont want to reveal that they are idolators because it sounds bad to the modern world, but then he said that they will reveal it to Christians, just not to Orthodox Jews.

Elsewhere, Rabbi Dunner used a third version of the story. He aid that the Hindus that he met are very "unsophisticated" and therefore not sharp enough to hide the facts that the other Hindus that everyone else on earth has heard from have hidden. Only his Hindus - the ones he spoke to - are sufficiently primitive so as not to hide what they need to hide.

And those primitive pilgrims who dont know that the Westerners look upon idolatry as backward, the pilgrims who know nothign about the civilized west, still know enough about Jewish law that they know that to Jews - and to Jews only - they will not reveal the truth.

Which version is the right one?

The truth is, Rabbi Dunner has not presented a strand of evidence that the Hindus are knowledgable in or are concerned about Jewish law; that they dont like telling westerners that they worship idols; that they hide anything; that thep riests are swon to secrecy. All of it - all! - is just his speculation, and his own theiries regarding why everybody in the world has access to Hindus - priests, worshippers, and scholars - yet his version of the facts is so radically different than the one version that every Hindu in the world says is true.

These ideas are pure speculation out of thin air and yet they were presented as facts.

More, as I posted above, these ideas are contradicted by the facts, since not a single Hindu that was interviewed by any of the Rabbonim hid the fact that they sacrifice items to the idols.

From Rabbi Efrati:

"Nobody there [in Tirupati] knows that the hair is unclean and forbidden to bring into the Temple."

And from Rabbi Dunner:

I went into different rooms and spoke with other priests. They told me there is a whole "order" to their ritual. They have "kavanos" and they sway their heads and bodies to all directions so each one receives the required intention. People who had their haircut here because 'the idol loves the hair'. They even have a ritual bath after they"re done.

Rabbi Dunner completely misunderstood the meaning of this "ritual bath". The fact that the Hindus take a ritual bath after the haircutting was understood by Rabbi Dunner - and used as evidence by him - to sow that the haircutting is an idolatruous practice.

The truth is just the opposite. Any Hindu - priests, worhsipper, or scholar - and any piece of literature on Hinduism will tell you that the reason for the ritual bath is actually to purify themselves after they took the haircut, because the hair is unclean and haircutting is unclean they need to take a ritual bath in order to undo the effects of the haircut so that they may enter the temple.

Rav Shterenbuch wrote in his "das vhalachah" that after cuting the hair, it is suppsoed to be burnt on a Mizbeach as a sacrifice to the gods. That scenario has since been completey disregarded. When Rabbi Dunner was in Brooklyn, he described his reasons for holding that the hair is Takrovos a"z, but not a single word about hair being burnt to idols was mentioned. Indeed, in his Mishpachah interview, he says:

Their religion is the epitome of Avodah Zorah and removing hair and 'sacrificing' it to the gods is a central religious practice for them. Unlike other sects and religions, the Hindus dont burn their offerings to their gods, but instead sell them and use the money to support the priests."

Never mind that until some businessmen came up with the idea to sell the hair, Hindus for centuries would simply throw the hair in the garbage - hardly a "sacrifice to the gods".

Yet this is also from Rabbi Dunner:

"Someone called me up and told me that I've caused great finnacial harm to Jewish wig importers. I told him I merely conveyed the facts, as I saw them, and our rabbinical authorities ruled based on the evidence. I saw people burning their hair to idols."

One of the things Dr. Mohan et al had pointed out - which was not told to Rav Elyashev - was that even if you see some Hindus doing the tonsure a certina way, or saying certtina prayers, or whatever, it does not mean that that is what the Hindus in general do. Hinduism has no Bible, and not even an official "church" that proveds instructions. Instead, everyone does basically as they see fit, within the very borad parameters of Hindu beliefs. So you cannot determine normative Hindu practice from observing the practices and behaviors of individuals.

This question was posed to Rabbi Dunner in his interview: "The Hindu religion, unlike other religions, has no written law. So maybe people are just doing what they feel like?"

This is Rabbi Dunner's answer:

"This is a mistaken assumption. They may not have a written law, but they have an oral law and it's carved in their hearts."

There is no such oral law. They dont even have a church that makes consistent laws. The whole idea is false.

Harvard University
Committee on The Study of Religion
Philip Brooks House, 3rd Floor
Cambridge, Massachusets 02138 USA
(617) 495-XXXX, 495-XXXX, 495-XXXX

October 20, 1989

XXXX XXXXX
213 Dane Hall
22 Evert Street
Cambridge. MA 02138

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your letter of inquiry on the South Indian tonsure practices. They are not, strictly speaking, called “Dravidian Hindus.” Most are Vaisnavas, who worship Visnu in one form or another.

There are several major pilgrimage shrines in India where tonsure is part of personal preparation for worship. The primary such shrine is Tirupati in Southern Andhra Pradesh. It is a hilltop shrine and has a flourishing and very clear, well-organized support structure. On festival days, 20-30,000 pilgrims come to Tirupati.

There are “hair offering” centers at Tirupati, as it is a common vow to undergo complete tonsure before worship at the temple. These large barbershops are in the bazaar, not in the temple, and are run by barbers not priests. Hair is never presented in the temple precincts at all: Indeed it would be highly impure to do so, and the point of tonsure in Hindu culture, as in many others, is to purify oneself completely before presenting oneself in devotion to the Lord.

The first haircut of a child is often a complete tonsure and is usually done at a religious center if at all possible. Tonsure also accompanies life cycle rites, such as the initiation of an adolescent into sacred learning (the counterpart of a bar mitzvah) and death rites. The widespread tonsure of men, women, and children – indeed the whole family – is practiced only at major pilgrimage centers such as Tirupati, Palni, Simhachalam, etc.

The hair which has been cut off has no religious value whatsoever. It is the tonsured, purified person who enters the temple, not the hair. AT Tirupati, where there is so much discarded hair, the hair is sold for wigs, which is the concern, as you know, of Orthodox Jews. I have spoken with several rabbis about this issue and assured them that tonsure is a totally “secular” rite, so to speak, like bathing and putting on fresh clothes, before entering the temple for the worship of god.

I hope I have answered your questions. Please feel free to call if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Diana Eck,
Professor of Comparative Religion and Indian Studies

<<MODERATOR Posted - 25 May 2004 9:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tekler,

Rabbi Blumenkrantz is mistaken about the halachah. It's clear in Yoreh Deah 119 in the Ramah and the poskim that discuss the issue (who demonstrate that, at least nowadays, even the mechaber agrees), that you cannot rely on merely a "shomer shabbos" vendor regarding the kashrus of his wares. >>

"Nevertheless, there is still a heter to sometimes believe the shopkeeper in our case exclusively:

Although it is true that a vendor may not be relied upon regarding the Kashrus of their wares, since chezkas kashrus - assuption of honesty - does not extend to business practices, as people are unfortunatley wont to provide opthers with non-Kosher items for business reasons, in our particular case, if you are actually going to buy the wig from the vendor, they would indeed be believed.

This is because even though a person is suspect to lie to you regarding something they are giving you, they are not suspect to lie abotu somethgin they themselves eat. So that, as the Rama says, even though you may not buy their product, you may eat with them in their home, since they are not suspect to eat the treif itme themselves - they will only sell it to you.

T\making money) then you may believe them that it is a "kosher" shaitel, since if they are fooling you, they themselevs will be violating the issur as well as you. That puts it in the catagory of "misarach etzlo" - eating with them, nto merely buying it from them."

I don't think this can be correct. The makor for the rama is the rambam, hilchos ma'acholos asuros, perek 11, halacha 25. The rambam says that bzman hazeh eyn loykchim yayin bchol mokom elo m'adom she'huchzok b'kashrus etc. If it's correct to assume that a sheitlmacher might be choshud on l'fnei iver, but wouldn't be choshud on the issur hano'ah of selling the sheitl, then it would follow that there would be no ch'shash that someone who isn't muchzak b'kashrus would sell yayin nesach. The rambam would then be saying that it's ossur to buy wine from someone who is choshud to sell stam yaynom, for which there is no issur hanoah, but that there is no ch'shash that you will be sold yayin nesech. That seems a very unlikely reading of the rambam.

And no, it's not hotzaas shem rah. Its not even loshon horah - I am not saying anything about him that he himself has not purposely publicized already. It's just a question of whether we should believe his version of the story or the version that the entire rest of the world has.

It should be noted as well, that Rabbi Dunner's eyewitness testimony is contradicted in many aspects by the eyewitness testimony of the person who testified for Rav Wosner's Bais Din. So we have two different "eyewitness" versions, which mathematically cannot both be true. Rabbi Dunner recognizes this, but and he says:

"I was able to speak to people, witness rituals, and gatehr informaiton that no one else before me has been able to do. Even when Rav Wosner and Rav Karelitz recently sent emissaries to research the subject, they weren't able to gain as much information as I was. That may be one of the explanations for the discrepencies between the various psakim issued until now, necessitating further research."

The "other psak" that he refers to was not really a "psak" at all, but a simple discretionary caution from Rav Wosner's Bais Din which said that since they are not sure what the story with the Indian hair shaitels are, you should in the meantime, until further information is obatined, try to exchange your Indian shaitels for others if you can (his some explained that what he means by this is, if you can afford another shaitel, fine, but if it's difficult to buy a new one, dont bother), and going forward, buy non-Indian shaitels.

Obvisouly, they are not saying the shaitels are assur or even safek assur, else the "try if you can" to exchange them makes no sense. The yare not even issuing a psak. They are telling you how to act because they had not yet made a psak.

But besides that, Rabbi Dunner's explanation as to why he has better information than Rav Wosner doesnt work, since the discrepencies are not merely in things that he saw and theo ther witness could not see, but also regarding things that they both claimed to have seen, yet saw them differnetly.

This is obviously a breif overview of his conclusions but the point is clear. Rav Elyashiv holds by his p'sak. I won't go into the points Rav Elyashiv makes as they involve the complicated lomdus surrounding the issues.

If I get the chance I will scan the 1-page teshuva (and Rav Belskys 3-page shaaloh) and post it on the web and then post a link here (assuming MOD lets).

In fact, Rav Elyashev told Rav Feivel Cohen last week that if indeed someone knows that the facts he used in the case are not correct, then he would be completely entitled to pasken differently because his psak assumes the facts are correct.

Rav Elyashev did not pasken that you have to believe Rabbi Dunner's information, and so he said that if you know the information to be faulty you may entirely pasken differently.

The 80 imnute battle that Rav Feivel had with Rav Elyashev was all based on the asusumption that Rav ELyashev's information is correct - Rav Feivel wanted to claim that even if it is all as Rabbi Dunenr says, the shaitlach should still be permitted. Rav Elyashev did nto budge on that.

But Rav ELyashev is Godol Hador of the Jews, NOT Godol Hador of the Hindus - and what makes him Godol Hador is (among other things) his knowledge of Judaism, NOT his knowledge of Hunduism. And thus, he can only rely on the information given to him, and as he said, if you know that information to be faulty, then do differently!

Rav Elyashev did not conduct a din torh here, summoning all witnesses to bais din and grilling them; he did not claim to have done any independent research. Someone comes to him and says "Rebbi - this is what I saw - what is the Halachah?" And he will answer. He will tell you what is the Halachah but he cannot vouch that that is what you really saw. He never claimed to do that.

If a woman calls him and asks a shailah about some milchige sponge and flaishige dish, he is not going to swear that the dish is in fact fleishig, and the sponge milchig. He will pasken based on the information. And if you know that your wife made a mistake, and the spoinge was in fact fleishig, you will surely not be "going against" Rav Elyashev's psak if you were to use the dish without kashering it.