R' Elyashiv's final point is hard to hear l'aniyas daati. R' Belsky argued that the person has to be meyached the object for avodah zarah. R' Elyashiv wants to prove otherwise from chatas ha'of, which a person can turn into takroves even though he doesn't have a zechus to change the status of the bird, since it belongs to hekdesh. But what does that have to do with anything? R' Belsky is not saying he has to own it; he's not talking about changing the status of the thing in a way relating to ownership; he's simply saying that it can't be takroves unless the person says that it's meant for the a.z. Why can't the person say that about a bird owned by hekdesh?

You should know that this forum is really making an impact on the entire world, regarding this issue. Zev Brenner got a hold of Dr. Mohan from your site and put him on his radio show last night. He clearly explained that:

1. There is no sacrifice (korbon) invovled in cutting the hair
2. The cutting of the hair is not done in the temple. The only reason they do it near the temple is because right after the cut the hair they go to the temple to give sacrifices and pray.
3. The cutting of the hair does not involve any prayers or ceremonies. Its just "cutting."
4. The hair does NOT go into the temple after it is cut. Someone called in and asked if the hair goes into a special utensil in the temple, and Dr. Mohan said "not at all, not at all!". Then the caller asked what about the Hundi, and Dr. Mohan said "THAT'S what you mean? The hundi is for gold and offerings to the god, NOT for hair. Hair is unclean and not allowed in the temple or the hundi."
5. Just about every detail of Dayan Dunner's story was discredited.

I just heard a tape of the braodcast. He said that the cutting of the hair is a "giving up" of something a person owns - NOT giving it TO the gods, or giving it to ANYONE in particular. As far as the Hindu religion goes, and as far as the practice of tonsure goes, the hair is considered garbage after it is cut.

It so happens that this hair, which is garbage form a religious perspective, has monetary value. That monetary value is cashed in by the temple administrators. In fact, it would be prohibited for the woman herself to cash in on the hair, because if she would, that would defeat the idea of "giving up" the hair - what kind of giving up is it if you make money on it - but the hair is never, ever, considered a sacrifice to the gods.

The person who reported to Rav Wosner did nto say that he saw the hair being put into the Hundi, but rather, that was his understanding of how the process works. This is not testimony, but his havanah. Why he thinks this, he did not say - merely that it his understanding of what happens. His understanding is not of concern to us; only his testimony is. It is very likely that someone told him that the offerings go into the Hundi - which is true - and since he was told by the worshippers that the hair is an "offering" - which he did not understand the meaning of - he concluded that the hairs go into the hundi. In fact, in the transcript of Rav Wosner's Bais Din's interview of this witness, they translated the word "offering" automatically as "korbon", which is the crux of the error here.

Secondly, even Rabbi Dunner said that they do NOT as a rule bring the hair into the Hundi. That is one of the consistent points among all the different stories that Rabbi Dunner presented.

benzee,

No, that wasnt his point at all. First, he wrote specifically that it is not the worshipper's intent that counts but rather that of the barber, since he is the one cutting the hair.

Second, what he said was, that we should nto rely on professors and academicians to determine what their religion says, but rather the worshipeprs themslves - meaning, in this case, the barbers' intent, as opposed to what the professors say the barbers mean. This was his main point, and this is one of the places that they gave Rav Elyashev wrong information. Those testifying against Rabbi Dunner's story are not "professors and acdemicians" but worshipeprs themsleevs. Dr. Mohan is, besides a professor, a real Hindu priest, who was in Tirupati, and whose wife and daughter both had their hair cut there. The Baalei Teshuva and Geirim who testified also were "worshippers", not outside "experts." And the hindus on the streets who are constantly being asked about this even as we speak are also "worshippers", and every single one of them contradicts Rabbi dunner's story.

Never mind that his story contradicts itself.

Breg,

It is indeed a simple issue. But the quesiton is, what was Rav Moshe told regarding the facts? A psak over here, as we well know, doesnt mean much unless the shailah was asked accurately.

<dasi
On the issue of temple vs. nontemple hair, there are many sheitls that are made b'davke of temple hair. The higher quality Indian hair is remy hair, and although the bulk of temple hair is not remy hair, most if not all Remy hair of Indian origin comes directly from the temples.
Remy hair is usually labeled; it's selected purposefully, and remy hair sheitlach usually sell at higher price than similar sheitlach made w/non-remy Indian hair. >

Just to be sure I understand, you understand that the rambam is talking about buying when there's ch'shash stam yaynom, but not if there is only ch'shash yayin nesach?

"As far as your next question, there is a disagreement in the poskim if I hold somethign is mutar and you hold it is assur, whether I can give it to you or not. That surely would apply in this case, but even more so - if I hold that your opinion that it is assur is simply an error because you dont know the facts, everyone would agree that I could give it to you (do you think if someone thinks an apple is treif, that by giving him the apple you violate lifeni iver?). "

This is the point *I* was trying to make. As a practical matter, what reason is there to believe any sheitlmacher, even one who is muchzak b'kashrus? Regardless of how persuasive your arguments l'heter are, there will be those who will want to follow rav eliyashev's p'sak. Even if the sheitlmacher is a muchzak b'kashrus not to be over l'fnei iver, or even (as you originally argued) if there is no ch'shash that the sheitlmacher will be over an issur han'oh'ah with the sale, the sheitlmacher may simply think that there is no issur of l'fnei iver in selling to those who want to abide by rav eliyashev's psak, and that there is no issur hanoah. In this case, I think you would need some kind of personal trust that the sheitlmacher wouldn't lie, no matter her personal opinion on the entire shaaloh.

You wrote this:

"Therefo,re since we are talking abotu issurei hanah in our case - a prohibition not only to wear the shaitlach but to beenfit from them as well, therefore, if the shopkeeper will benefit form selling you the shaitel (by 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.

This is of course true only if the salesperson benefits from the sale, such as if they own the shop, or they get paid on commission. But if they she is merely a salesperson, then you may not believe her, since the only violation she would be performing by lying is lifnei iver, against which there is no assumption of honesty. "