You are both mistaken.

<<If you don't have to follow a single posek in halacha (and you don't), then you surely don't have to follow a single person's in hashkafa/da'as torah, when there is disagreement.>>

This kal vachomer - this "surely" - is wrong, and represents a commonly held view in many Modern Orthodox circles, that when it comes to "halacha" you have to listen you a rabbi, but "hashkafas" are "opinions" that are more subject to individual prefreence.

This is plain Kefira. Just as there are correct Halachos, there are also correct Hashkofos, and it is mandated by the Torah that you have to have them - lo sasuru acharei levavchem - "This means heresy", says the Gemora. "Any idea that disagrees with the opinion of the Torah - the "daas Torah" - is included." Says the chinuch, and the Mishna Brurah after him. Please see the "halachah vs. hashkafa" section.

This foreign concept originated with that enemy of Torah, Moses Mendelsohn, who said that in Judaism it doesnt matter much what you believe, but rather what you do and how you behave.

The idea that Hashkafa is a free for all is a modern day strain of that piece of Mendelson's Apikorsus, which was a battle cry of the Maskilim.

The truth is, that Torah Hashkafas and Torah Halachos are both the possession of those who have Torah knowledge and those who have Torah knowledge only.

A violation of Torah Hashkafa, even if it does not violate any specific Halachah, is a sin and punishable in the same way. This is because the Torah demands - al pi halachah, if you will, that you have the Torah's hashkafas.

What I understand Benzee to mean when he says that there are more options in Halachah, is not that Halachah per se has a less authoritative role c"v, but rather, new Halachic questions arise almost every day, and therefore you will have contemporary Torah authorities debating and disagreeing over them. These new Halachic quesitons have not been discussed by our predecessors, and are first being dealt with today. Therefore, there is no explicit precedent or prior authoritative decision. Torah Hashkafa is different - although there are sometimes quesions of how to apply estaboished Torah Hashkafa to individual situation, the core Hashkafas do not necessitate from-scratch analysis; what the Rambam and the Rashba believed, Hashkafaically, applies to us today. The Mesorah is much more clear when it comes to proper Torah beliefs than proper Halachic decisions, sicne new technology and circumstances do not necessitate a new evaluation of Hashkafa.

Secondly, and more importantly, Torah Hashkafa depends much more on Mesorah than Halachah does. The Rambam's 13 Ikarim are nowhere to be found in the Gemora, and nowhere brought down in Shulchan Aruch; yet the Rambam says that if you do nto believe in one of them, or you are even doubtful regarding one of them, you are an Apikores, and for all practical purposes kicked out of Klall Yisroel.

Hashkafic issues were not codified like Halachic issues were, but rather were relegated to the Mesorah and left tot he hands of those whose skilsl go beyond merely looking up a Halachah in the Shulchan Aruch to determine the proper course of action. Issues - to mention just two that come up daily nowadays - such as how to properly conduct ourselves when in conflict with the Goyishe nations - hisgaros b'umos - or whether we should allow or tolerate compromises or heteirim in order to reach out to our as-yet unregliisou brethren (or even the relgigious ones) -- things such as these are clearly delienated in our Seforim, black and white as much as any Halachah, but not codified in the Halachic works.

Therefore, you will not be able to look up in a "Yalkut Hashkafos B'Inyan Hisgarus B'Umos" and find a footnote that says "Hameikel yehs lo al mis lismoch", or something like that.

Such thigns were left for great Torah scholars to decide, and the reason is because whereas every day Halachos are relevent to every day people, decisions such as these are decisions ofr all of Klall Yisroel, and therefore, are made by those who are in charge of making such decisions for Klall Yisroel, and they do not need such codifications.

That is why the Chofetz Chaim wrote his Mishna Brurah on Orech Chaim and not Yoreh Deah - Orech Chaim is those halachos that pertain to every Jew every day, such as davening, brachos, shabbos and yom tov. Every Jew needs to know them. Yoreh Deah, as the name indicates, are those halachos that you generally do not need to know every day on your own, but can ask a rabbi - such as shechitah, kashrus, taaruvos, basar b;cholov etc. That is why Semicha is essentially given for knowledge of Yoreh Deah, even though Orech Chaim is more relevent - Orech Chaim you need to know even if youre not a rabbi.

Even Haezer and Choshen Mishpat are generally not even included in the usual Semicha ordinations because they are even more specialized and relevent to batei din, not even plain rabbis.

And so, with issues that need to be determined not for individual laymen and not even for individual rabbis and not even for individual batei din, but for all of Klall Yisroel as a whole, the documentation of the material need to make those decisions was let in a form that those who need to make such decisions are able to access.

Many in the Modern Orthodox world have this backwards - they think that because the Shulach Aruch and Shach and Taz dont contain this information, that it is LESS formalized or less subject to Torah authority. Nothgin could be further from the truth.

Of course, that is the only way, even theoretically, for Rav Elyashev to even possibly know who is telling the truth. I just hope if it happens, that it happens the right way. It's not easy.

It is important to note, at this point, that the phrase "Din Torah" in this context is only a figure of speech. This would not be a "real" Din Torah in the common sense of the word. There is no plaintiff here and no defendent - this is Issur V'Heter, not a court case. And a psak of such a Bais Din would not have the authority that a psak of a Bais Din normally would, but rather the psak of a Rav, or in this case, Rabbonim, paskening the shailah. But a final psak is not the goal here - rather, the goal is to simply have some objective panel listen to all the evidence and see if they can sort out the lies from the truth and the misunderstandings from the facts. In other words, the purpose of this Bais Din is investigative, not judicial or litigative. It will hopefully find some clarification in the matter, but a psak in such context would not be binding on anybody any more than Rav Elyashev's psak or anybody else's.

Your entire response to me is based on a misreading. I said "When there is disagreement." You took that to mean disagreement among anyone speaking in the name of torah. I meant disagreement among g'doilei torah, which there of course often is in the area of hashkofah, particularly applied hashkofah (to coin a phrase).

I was referring to your "kal vachomer" - the idea that Hashkafaic issues are more flexible than Halachic issues. There is no such Kal Vachomer - Halachah and Hashkafa are equal in this matter.

The Mishna Brurah was not mechadesh anythign here. The Gemora says that Lo sasuru acharei levavcham means apikorsus ("minus" and apikorsus are used interchangably), and the chinuch says that it means any thoughts that are against those upon which the Torah's opinions are built. The Mishna Brurah is just giving you a nutshell version of what the chinuch says. And incidently, there are no dissenting opinions about this.

I didnt say you were Modern Orthodox - I said the idea that you expressed - that Halachah is more strngent than Hashkafa in this regard - is a common Modern Orthodox concept, and it comes from the Maskilim.

For the record, though, both in Halachah and in Hashkafa you usually do not have a right to follow whoever you want. There are guidelines regarding who to follow in a machlokes. This is discussed in several places all over the site.

The problem is simply that peole have no idea what Emunas Chachamim is, what Daas Torah is, what the role of a Godol is, what a Psak Din means, etc. We have battle cries and cliches and sound bites but the average sound biter has no clue what it is exactly that he or she is saying. The equation is simple: If simple and fuindamental issues, such as why we believe in our religion, why Hashem cares if we are frum, and things like that are so unknown to the public that they have to hire outside organizations such as Project Chazon to come in to our Yeshivas and Bais Yaakovs and teach it - and there are only a handful of people who indeed can teach it - then more complex and advanced issues such as the role, authority and scope of a Psak of Gedolei Yisroel are surely not properly understood.

This issue is not limited to just this topic: outside organizations are called in to schools when r"l tragedies occur and the students - and teachers! - have trouble dealing with it from a Hashkafa point of view. The issue is not rocket science - they do not have to hire the Rambam to do this job; merely people who, because it is their job, make it their business to educate themselves in this Hashkafa.

And I tell you what I tell so many people who ask me what to say or how to react when things like this, or when physical tragedies, or other rattling experiences happen:

Don't wait for the problems ot happen before you start learning what the Torha has to say about the matter. By then, if it is not too late, its late enough - emotions and negiyusin and personal interests arise, and it becomes the worst time for objectivity and education.

Teaching people how to deal after something like this happens constitutes damage control. The proper way to do it is to know how to react form the beginning so that when this happens nobody will be traumatized or disillusioned.

Here's what I have told numerous people, including one Rosh Yeshiva, who told me they were disillusioned because of this whole shaitel mess:

You can't be disillusioned unless you were under illusions to begin with. So the way to prevent yourself from being disillusioned is to make sure you are not "illusioned" in the first place.

Rabbeinu Tam writes in Sefer Hayashar that you shoudl prepare for tragedy in your life by learning how to react to it before it happens, so that by the time it strikes r"l, you will be prepared.

Rabbeinu Tam's context is life tragedies r"l, but the concept is true regarding all traumatic experiences, including disillusionment with Torah authority. Again: You cant be disillusioned if you had no illusions to begin with.

But unfortunately, the hamon am, due to their lack of proper Torah knowledge, is not prepared for things like this (not that a godol getting tricked is anything to be flustered about).

He explains that the whole reason for the ruse was not to get the Brachos directly through the trick, as it would be similar to a 'Mekach Taos".
The whole point was that Rivka wanted to illustrate to Yitzchak how EASY it is to be fooled, even by Yaakov the Ish Tam, so much more so was Yitzchak fooled by Eisav (the trickster)over the years.
This would cause Yitzchak to rethink his giving of the Brachos to Eisav.

There are obviously also much deeper concepts in the whole story of Yitzchak being fooled etc., but Rav Hirsch knew that as well, yet explained that Rivka's whole intention was to illustrate how easy it is to be fooled, even if you're the Gadol Hador.

ArtScroll is not the issue here. This issue is not infallibility, for nobody "fell."

This issue, does not touch upon sages missing a Gemora - a "neelam mimenu". Here we are talking about simple physical facts that the Gedolim themsleves (a) dont even claim are necessarily true, as opposed to a psak where they hold the halachah to be as they see it, so nobody is being chozer from anything really - remember our focus: the spoon was really milchig! Thats not a chazara form a teshuva. Its a chazara from a shailah, and the Godol wasnt the one who made the shailah, and (b) if were to ask these people, "DO you believe that Yitzchok avinu was fooled into thinking that Esav was someone he really wasnt?" they would say "Of course, every school kid knows that"; and "Do you believe that Elisha the prophet did not know the facts about the shumanis's son?" they will say, "Of course! We all believe that! Its in the Navi!" - so now if you ask them "Do you believe that Rav Elyashev was presented a shailah with the wrong facts?" they will say "No! Emunas chachamim!"

The issue is not that people think Gedolmi are infallible. They dont think so - they admit it. The issue here is that they dont think at all!

I'ts an emotional-psychological for them. It's "safe" for them to say that Yitzchok avinu or yaakov avinu or Elisha were uninformed, because that doesnt make them vulnerable. But when you tell them that a Godol of their generation was uninformed, they feel unsafe, vulnerable to tricksters who can present things to Gedolim in manners other than reality, and so how do they know when they follow what is reported in the Yated in the name of Godol so-and-so, that that is really what the godol thinks?

In other words, if we cant blindy rely on Gedolim being private investigators and one-man FBI forces who are omniscient regarding all the things that they are being told, then perhpas many of the things we are hearing from Gedolimn are not really what those Gedolim hold, or would hold, if they would be properly informed?

Well, welcome to the world of Pnei Hador kepenei hakelev - it means, in short, that the people will be fooling and manipulating Gedolim like this - you can call it "godol abuse" if you want - and it does happen.

And Chazal say it is a major symptom of Ikvesa d'meshicha.

Im not saying it happens all the time or even every day, or even that you have to suspect everything you hear form a Godol. Of course you dont. The onus is on the one who says that someone - anyone - lied. BUT - if you happen to KNOW that a Godol was given the wrong facts, then there is nothing at all to freak out about. It happens.

Answer to Criticism of Dayan Dunners Testimony:

hello
firstly, i appreciate your very detailed and most knowledgeable discussion of the sheitel issue. Your erudtion and analysis of the hashokofo issues of da’as toarh etc. is also most revealing and emesdik. In particualr the quotes from dr. mohan and the first letter to rav eliashiv are most valuable.

now a few critical comments: [since I see that you are mevakesh emes you will surely not take them amiss.]

sacrifice-self sacrifice etc.
you repeat many times that rav donner may have misunderstood the meaning of the word sacrifice. you don't seem to realize that he himself mentioned at length in his talk to ladies in london, available on kol halachon and on a video, that one has to be very careful not to misinterpret the word sacrifice.

you mention that rav wosner retracted. where is the authority for this?? at present we only have fully authentic letter requiring literally everybody to be mishtadel meod to change his sheitel. that is much more stringent than rav donner's letter to his family which hangs out in london shuls and says that basically it is permitted but those who are very medakdek in their mitzvos should also be stringent in this.

your discussion of the barber's intention is quite good. but you don't seem to realize that rav eliashiv hold that the barbers are assumed to implicitly intend what their customers want i.e. for avodoh zoroh. See his recent letter to horav belsky and this was said very clearly by him ba’al peh. by the way, although indeed rav eliashiv paskens like rov poskim that the customer's intent alone does not matter the taz certainly forbids it as rav eliashiv quotes, therefore it is certainly far from glatt even if you were to disagree with horav eliashiv’s svoroh about the barber’s intent. those who rely on the shach refer to hlchos shabbos not to the more stringent issues of takroves abodoh zoroh.

Re reliability of dr. mohan:
A] dr. mohan claims verbatim that hair "never never" goes into the temple. this is simply factually incorrect. it was stated by both rav donner and the Antwerp/Bne Brak witness that a small minority do bring it into the temple. [perhaps dr. mohan is not aare of this and he did not intend to lie, is just simply not fully aware of what goes on in tirupati.] I just note this to make you realize that dr. mohan's reliability should be viewed with caution.
B] he also stated: they don't know that the hair is sold. rav donner reported quite clearly in his presentation to the hisachdus horabonim that most [but not all] do know. again, should we believe dr. mohan, or a jewish talmid chochom who was recently there?

your write that rav donner prohibeted sheitels before leaving for india. this is factually incorrect. he did not probihit them at all before leaving and upon return he wrote a public letter in which he stated clearly that mishuras hadin shetiel are permited due to kol deporish merubo porish.

in the light of all this your implication that rav eliashiv was "tricked" is not borne out by any proofs. indeed this is a grave accusation! rav eliashiv was certainly told about the professors view namely by horav morgenstern who has been close to him for a long time and argued in this direction, moreover very likely by horav feivel cohen. yet he reiterated his stand in two signed letters, the short statement and the reply to horav belsky.

now for the most important matter:
apart from rav donner a man and his wife who are residents of eretz yisroel and were sent by an antwerp talmid chochom [who does not belong to the ossrim]. he spent ten days there and interviewed many many pilgrims. he states in his conclusion of the english report, still written india [as opposed to the hebrew transcipt of the bne brak report] that "it seems clear that the people believe they are offering their hair to their god-idol, a very deep believe, they are surrendering it to him and not of hakrovo vebitul atzmiyut." he thus concurs with the london sheliach rav donner in rejecting the claim that the pilgrims want to break their ego. this is a flat contradiction to many experts view. thus it gives you an idea how realistic the experts are of what the ordinary pilgrim feels out there!
Perhaps this statement could still be interpreted as a “present”. But in the hebrew transcript of a conversation with one of the Bne Brak Dayonim [p.7-8] Amir was asked in detail about those who intended the hair as a present as opposed to as a korban. He answered [in translation from the hebrew]: “both options i.e. as present and as korban were mentioned a lot. The sheliach also consulted his wife who agreed to this statement.” While not claiming that all pilgrims intend their hair to be a korban, it is a clear corroboration of rav Donner’s report and claim that galochim etc. who say that it cannot possibly be meant as a korban are simply wrong on the facts. Here we have two religious jews [in fact there were more than two] who researched the matter whilst aware of the questions. Do you believe them or the opposing non-Jewish experts?

upon hearing his report both horav karelitz and horav shmuel wosner signed a public letter asking everybody to be mishtadel meod to change their sheitels. no question that they were more worried by the report than you, the moderator!

by the way, the letter posted by the oxford scholar who had written his doctorate on pilgrimage and is now resident in canada: upon speaking to him [his tel. no. was findable], he was frank: he has not interviewed pilgrims in south india, ie.Tirupati, but is pretty sure that the orthodox version of hindu in tirupati must view hair as tomei and reject the idea of bringing it as a korban. now this does not really contradict rav donner. it merely means that there are many people out there who are not adopting the so-called orthodox version of this religion.
but at the end of the day these pilgrims view it the derech of the avodoh zoroh. This is also rav eliashiv’s answer to those who claim that derech depends on what the experts and galochoim lay down. He rules that it depends on what the actual worshippers think – see letter to horv belsky.

finally, let me assure you that rav donner has nothing in principle against sheitels. both his family and his kehillo all wear sheitels - without exception.

i look forward to your detailed reply simply for the sake of getting at the truth.