I fully see the point that in such a far-reaching and contentious matter a further investigation would be very good- also that further questioning as to what “my god loves my hair” etc. meant would have been good.

More than that: How many of the pilgrims said this?

I read your words carefully but found:

1.no refutation to the possibility that there are two streams in tirupati, those who cut hair as an avodoh and those who don’t – which would answer objections.
I told you - if there are two streams then that should have been told to Rav Elyashev. it was not. He was told there is only one stream. And the main point here is that I dont need to prove that there arent 2 streams: Rabbi Duner needs to prove that the second stream exists. And he hasnt. We have the whoel world saying one thing and Rabbi Dunenr saying he discovered somethign different. Not only has he no viable explanation as to why this attitude that he said the pilgrims have has been disclaimed by every single source of research that has been done, but he falsified a few contradictory (but all equally false) reaosns that he stated as facts. At the end of the day, there is no proof form Rabbi Dunner that there exists anybody who holds this tonsure practice is avodah zorah. Whereas we have dozens of pople on records who claim it is not. In fact, see R. Menashe Klein';s Teshuva on the matter - he spoke to Rabbi dunenr he writes and then did his own research - pretty well it seems - and he, too, has found all sources to contradict Rabbi Dunner. All rabbi Dunenr has come up with is ambiguous statements that he interprets one way. That is useless in this discussion.

(2. no refutation to my statement that r donner never forbade sheitel before his journey and you claim to the contrary was simply incorrect. I am afraid on this point there was a choshed bikesherim.
Not so - Rabbi Dunner has stated both in the meeting with Rabbonim in Brooklyn and in the tape he made in England that the human hair shaitels are not tzniusdik and (to the rabbonim) that we should take advantage of this matter to prohibit them altogether as they deserve; in the hisachdus harabonim meeting in Brooklyn, in fact, in fact, a discussion ensued regarding whether they would be allowed to say that the shaitels are takrovos in order to prevent the women from wearning them because they are not tzniusdik. (The halachha, by the way, is that they can). On Rav who was present, a friend fo Rabbi Dunners from England, walked out of that meeting then, saying "all they want to do is asser the shaitels".

3. no refutation to the statement that whereas the edoh charedis are anyway against sheitels horav donner has always allowed them, yet you lumped them together!

see above

4. no refutation to the argument that the claim that r wosner changed his mind is simply in conflict with his written statements. You just proved – quite rightly -that he did not asser mishuras hadin. But nor did he asser min hadin in his first letter. In fact the second letter is a coroboration of the first letter.["yishtadel me'od" and then "bechol oiz".] Where is the so-called “chazoroh”??

I said I heard of that from Rabbi Belsky - but it doesnt matter if you call it a chazorah - if you prefer that Rav WOsner always permitted mishuras hadin, then fine. Bottom line: Rav WOsner's Bais Din did not prohibit the shaitels l'halachah.

5.no refutation of the possibility that horav morgenstern had informed horav eliashiv long before rav donner’s report that the pilgrims do not do it leshem avodoh – and yet horav eliashiv ruled le’issur after the report.

Rabbi Morgenstern did not have much evidence that they do or do not so it l'avodah. And there are those close to Rav Elyyashev who claim that some of his evidence - i.e. people who were Hindus - were not allowed to be presented to Rav Elyashev due to Rabbi Efrati.

Wrong on facts (1): You quoted rav donner as saying that hair is given as a gift when in fact he explicitly and publicly said that this is not the case. [listen to tape of london and hisachdus shiruim] you did not answer this and I suppose you agree.
When I said gift I did not mean gift as opposed to korbon; i meant gift as somethign the god gains from as opposed to garbage. He holds the hair is not garbage, when in reality it is.

Wrong on fact (2): you quote me as saying that r donner spoke to 200 pilgrims. This is incorrect. I wrote that the bne brak shliach spoke to about 200 pilgrims, rav donner did not.

Sigh. So?

Wrong on fact (3): you claim that no shliach found contraction’s to the tonsure reason of “breaking ego”. In fact they did: Listen to r donner’s presentation to hisachdus horabonim, new york. He says that he actually put this reason to them and they explicitly rejected it. Also get hold of bne brak’s shliach’s report in hebrew. [If you cannot, please provide fax no. and I will fax transcript.]

Yes except that is his interpretation of what happened, not his tesimony. He decided that what they said rejected self-sacrifice. But their words were ambiguous - especially since he did not really ask the quesitons properly. And dont forget - Rabbi Dunenr has already been discredited. he said things that are not true. his reliability is shattered.

Wrong on fact (4): you quote me as saying that r donner claimed that the hair is certainly (vadai) ossur. You assumed that my statement must have been heard from r donner. In fact i did not quote r donner on this at all. Please check my letter.

Rabbi Dunner said this - not you. It is in his letter, as I quoted above.

wrong on fact (5): you write that there is no indication that the hair was compared to the ketores. Please get tape of r donner's shiur to hisachdus in new york whre he reported that the pilgrim [or some, at least] explicitly compared their giving of the hair to their burning of the incense.

Then he changed his story form time to time, because in other places he did nto say this at all. In addition, when Rabbi Dunner quotes things in other people's names, he has proven to allow himslef the liberty of interpreting the statements said to him and making believe that they were really said. ANythign he said needs exact quotes, not, as he did at the meeting, merely say that "this is what they said." Under scrutiny, Rabbi Dunenr has been proven to do this. This happened at the Brooklyn meeting when he was told that he did not understand what he heard, and responded that the Teshuvos HaRosh says that nobody is allowed to say that?!

Wrong on fact (6): you write that r donner did not entertain the possibility that some indian hair comes from non-temple places. Of course he considered this possiblity. He also spoke to traders there about this [and has reported that he received conflicting answers]
Thats funny. I have written documents fomr the 6 leading exporters of hair from India, as well as individual importers in Korea - and every single one of them says the same thing. Obviously he did not do hi homework well.

interestingly horav belskhy in his letter quoted mumchim that most indian hair is not from temples. Horav eliashiv in his reply quotes that 75% comes from the temples. [this is a letter from the israeli embassy to a rov in jerusalem quoting indian government figures.] Of course a clarification on this point would be most helpful.

The problem is, they did not consider the difference between wig hair and non-wig hair - I discussed this above. In any case, at the very least, there is ample documnetation to support the idea that the majority is not form temples that at the very least it would be contradictory evidence - not all in one direction.

The bottom line is that Rav Elyashev said - mpre than one - that he is not verifying the facts, and if somoene knows the facts to be different, he is surely entitled to pasken mutar. Clearly, we know the facts to be different.

Wrong on fact (7): I like your logical deductions from the letter that horav karelitz cannot possibly have forbidden the hair min hadin. However, they fly in the face of facts. Don’t take it from me, you can have this checked yourself in bne brak.

WHat the people in Bnie Brak understand this to mean is not the point - the point is that clearly, Rav Wosner did not asser the shaitels as takrovos, nto even safek takrovos. He said that if you cant afford a new shaitel or if it is difficult to change it, you can wear the Temple shaitel, even though you know for sure it is fomr the Temple. This is impossible is there would be even a safek issur d'oraisa here.

If you are so concerned about r donner’s testimony why don’t you check out somebody else who was there for longer and is familiar in india, namely the bne brak shliach. You might be surprised what he reported!

You havent been following. I have spoken to dozens of people who were there - as have many others. Every single report contradicts Rabbi Dunner, although they agree with each other. This is why Rabbonim all over have been paskening that the hsaitlach are muttar. Believe me - this happened 15 years a go - when the investigations started, the similar statements that Rabbi Dunenr and some others are sayignwere heard. But then, ovre 6 months of drisha v'chakira was done. In the end, cross-examinations were done, one story was questioned against another, and the several rabbonim and investigators that were spending alot of time on this - for some, it was most of their time for a half a year - the bottom line came out that it was not an avodah at all.

Rabbi Dunner should have done more and better research. What he has was already found and rejected over a decade ago. He has no chidushim, just confusing misunderstandings, which were already found and clarified back then.

Rav Elyashev writes that even if the pilgrims themselves bleieve that the cutting of their hair is avodah zorah, it is the understanding of the barbers, nto the pilgrims, that counts, since it is the barbers that are doing the cutting - it is their "korbon" so to speak.

Rabbi Dunner claims, however, that the barbers also understand the haircutting to be avodah zorah, and he "proves" this by his testimony that the barbers tell the pilgrims to put their hands on their hearts before the cutting takes place.

I have just spoken to a Hindu who tells me that this is completely untrue. they do no such thing. I have been provided with pictures showing the harcutitng in tirupati and the pilgrims have no hands on their hearts.

These pictures are differnt than the ones Rabbi Menashe Kleim mentions in his Teshuva. He, too, however, was provided with pictures form a Baal Teshuva who used to live in India and was in Tirupati. This Baal Teshuva also denies that they put their hands on their heart, and has provided pictures to Rabbi Klein proving that.

The Baal Teshuva sais that what the barbers do is, they tell the p[ilgrims to put their hands down so that they would not interfere with the cutting.

Yet Rav Elyashev was told that the pilgrims do put their hands on their hearts during the cutting and are instructed to do so by the barbers themselves. The entire thing was false, and was presented to Rav Elyashev as the truth.

Rabbi Menashe Klein writes that he spoke to Rabbi Duner at length, and also found things that he said to be either untrue (such as his falsehood that the Hindu priests do not tell the truth about the tonsure practice because they are "apikorsim," and want to beautify their religion in the eyes of Westerners) - as well as statements that have been contradicted by other witnesses. He also mentions in the name of the former Hindu Baal Teshuva that Rabbi Dunner did not understand the expression and language that he is quoting.

The bottom line is, theree is a dispute here between the Hindus themselves - Priests, pilgrims, professors and even those who are no longer Hindus - versus Rabbi Dunner. And whereas the Hindu story is consistent across the board, both in terms of each story being consistent as well as every story consistent with each other, Rabbi Dunner has been found to have misstated several key facts, contradicted himself, and been proven to have stated as facts things that are merely his own interpretation.

The Hindu's version of the sotry is also consistent with what the Gedolei rabbanim, inclduing Rav Elyashev and Rav Shlomo Zalman, paskened with 15 years ago, where much more research was done than was done by Rabbi Dunner this time.

Rav Elyashev himself, after being told this sttaed that he is not verifying Rabbi Dunner's story, but merely paskening according to what he heard from him, and if anybody knows that the facts are different, they should pasken differntly.

There is no shailah here at all.

<<a discussion ensued regarding whether they would be allowed to say that the shaitels are takrovos in order to prevent the women from wearning them because they are not tzniusdik. (The halachha, by the way, is that they can). >>

Are you saying that it is permitted lechatchilah for them to lie purposely and say that the shaitels are takrovos, when in fact they are not?

That is quite hard to believe, as you yourself said many times on this site that it is yehoreg v'al yaavor to fake a Halachah for any cause.

But if it is true, then we just hit the jack pot. That would possibly explain why Dayan Dunner said those things about the shaitels that make them look like takrovos, even though they are completely false.

The Gedolim of prevous generations did not all permit shaitlach. In fact, the majority of poskim probably prohibit them - but the prevailing behavior in most frum communities is to allow them. Prohibiting shaitels is not a chidush.

Plus, the Aida Hachareidis wrote explicitly that (a) their community holds like those who prohibit the shaitels altogether and (b) even according to the poskim who permit shaitels, there is no heter at all according to anybody for the shiatels that are being worn today.

So I dont understand what you mean by "if the gedolim of previous generations permitted shaitels, who am I to prohibit". The Gedolim of previous generaitons, according to the Aidah, never permitted the shaitels that are being used now.

Thats as far as Tznius goes. As far as Takrovos, Rav Moshe Sterenbuch, the head of the Aidah, prohibited Indian shaitels as Takrovos almost 40 years ago, and reiterated his issur when he put out his Teshuvos Vehanhagos. Even when Rav Elyashev permittted the shaitels 15 years ago, rav Shterenbuch came out agaisnt the heter, disagreeing with Rav Elyashev on many points, and declaring the shaitlach takrovos.

Yes, it would be permitted. First let me say that I am not judging Rabbi Dunner nor am I reading his mind or attributing to him nay motives. I have no interest or business trying to figure out why he got his facts wrong. It doesnt matter. The issue here is not Rabbi Dunner; the issue is the shaitels.

However, as far as the halachah goes, if someone holds that there is no heter for human hair shaitlach because lets say they are not tzniousdik, then yes, it would be permitted for them to make up stories or embellish the facts such that people would think the shaitlach are takrovos and thus not wear them, thereby saving themselevs from the aveirah of violating tznius.

This is not the same as the Yam Shel Shlomo's psak that changing a Halachah is Yehoreg v'al yaavor. It would be Yehoreg Val Yaavor is someone were to say for instance that even though the shaitels were nto used in an a"z ceremony, they are assur because you dont need a"z to make takrovos; or for instance if someone were to say that in hilchos avodah zorah, if something is made out of the hair of another human it automatically is assur min hatorah - those would be examples of changing a Halachah, saying that the halachah itself is different than what it actually is.

As opposed to here, they are not changing the Hilchos Takrovos - they are changing the facts on the ground so that the wigs would fit into the haalchos of Takrovos. If they would concede to the facts on the ground and change the halachos, that would be yehoreg v'al yaavor, for tampering with the halachah itself. But since nobody is tampering with the halachah, but rather tampering with the facts such that the halachah - the real haalchah - would say the wigs are takrovos, that is not yehoreg v'al yaavor.

The Gemora in Shabbos 139a says that lying in order to prevent someone from doing an aveirah is permitted. There the Gemora tells a story about the populace of a town called Bashkar, whose people had three halachic shailos. Rav Menashia answered that all three shailos were assur, and no heter is to be found. The Gemora says that Rav Maneshia really knew of heterim, but since the people of Bashkar were not Bnei Torah (thats a quote fomr the Gemora) they would misuse the heterim and end up doing prohibited things. Therrefore, he lies to them and told them explicitly that there are no heterim.

There is also a Teshuva of the Boruch Taam in Ateres Chachamim (EH 29) that brings a Medrash Tana D'Bei Eliyahu (Rabbah 4) about the Posuk by the Egel, "And he [Moshe] said to them, "So said Hashem Elokei Yisroel . . . let a man kill his brother etc." - the Medrash says that Moshe really did not hear that command from Hashem. But he nevertheless said that Hashem did say it, because had he not invoked Hashem as the source fo this commend, people would have had claims against Moshe, who taught that a Sanhedrin that metes out capital punishment once a week is a "destructive Sanhedrin", how much more so when Moshe demands that they mete out capital punishment to 3,000 people at once!

The Ateres Chachamim explains that Moshe simply lied to the people about this. Hashem did not say such a thing yet Moshe said He did. But Moshe was allowed to do so because just as it is permitted to lie for sholom bayis - to make peace between a man and his wife - all the more so it is permitted to lie in order to make peace between Jews and Hashem. And so Moshe had to lie so that the people would kill the guilty and alleviate Hashem's anger agaisnt Klall Yisroel.

Not exactly the same but similar is the famous Magen Avrohom (OH 156 I believe) that states that if you know a Halachah to be true but people will not accept it from you, you are allwoed to quote it in the name of someone who never said it at all - you are allowed in essence to lie - in order that people should follow the halachah.

So - if someone holds that there is no heter for the human hair shaitlach, he would be halachicly entitled to lie and say that they are used in some idolatrous ceremony in order to be mezakeh the rabim and prevent the mass aveirah of violating tznius standards.

This is not at all as much a surprise as it sounds. Imagine, if you will, that someone would be able to convince the Modern Orthodox community that mixed swimming and mixed dancing is a pagan ritual and therefore prohibited due to takrovos avodah zorah. Suddenly all the Modern Orthodox Jews would no longer go mixed swimming or mixed dancing. Only seperate swimming and seperate dancing form now on. The rabbi that tricked them into doign the right thing would be hailed as a hero and a genius for coming up with the idea. And the fact that he lied and fooled people would be looked at as the fault of the pritzusdik community itself, who went mixed swimmign and dancing, and forced us to save them (and who knows what other tragdies in the world were happening because of all that pritzus) through trickery.

So, too, if someone believes with his whole heart that the women who go around with stylish human hair shaitels are doign an aveirah with ne heter at all, they would be justified in lying in order to get them to stop.

So for instance, in the letter of the Edah HaCHareidis prohibiting the shaitels as Takrovos, they preface their remarks by saying that even according to the opinions that permit shaitels - there is absolutely no heter at all according to anybody to wear the shaitels that have proliferated today among the women, that make married women look like single women.

Also, Rabbi Dunner himself has stated that he holds the human hair shaitels are assur - he urged the Rabbonim in Brooklyn to this takrovos situation as an opportunity to get rid of the human hair shaitlach; and in his delivery to the women in London he also stated that besides the shaitels being takrovos and they are also not tzniusdik.

Again, I am not ascribing motives to anyone, as I am not a yodeah machshavos, nor do I have any interest in why the information here was presented wrongly. However, there is a Halacha here: the Halachah is that a person who holds that by making up stories about idolatrous practices in India he will be mezakeh the public by preventing them from wearing non-tniusdik shaitels, is indeed allowed to make up stories.

Thus, whereas normally a religious Jew has a chezkas Kashrus, an assumption of innocence, which gives him a measure of believability regarding what he says he has witnessed, however, in a case where we know someone is permitted to lie, his chezkas kashrus would not give him any believability whatsoever, since he can still lie and remain a kosher, innocent Jew.

<<The Gemora in Shabbos 139a says that lying in order to prevent someone from doing an aveirah is permitted. There the Gemora tells a story about the populace of a town called Bashkar, whose people had three halachic shailos. Rav Menashia answered that all three shailos were assur, and no heter is to be found. The Gemora says that Rav Maneshia really knew of heterim, but since the people of Bashkar were not Bnei Torah (thats a quote fomr the Gemora) they would misuse the heterim and end up doing prohibited things. Therefore, he lies to them and told them explicitly that there are no heterim.>>>

Yoshor Koach on providing us all this valuable info.

I learned that gemara in Shabbos differently. My understanding was that if you have an area in halacha that is very complex and the differences are subtle, then you aser it across board because the people who are not bnei torah will not be able to grasp the nuances and they'll end up being maikel when it's asur. Therefore, when R. Moshe Feinstein was asked about opening cans on Shabbos, he wrote a 15 page tshuva saying that it's sometimes asur and sometimes mutar but since "ainom bnei torah" he asered them across the board. The logic is the same as derabonons: eg. - that if you allow people to carry in a public domain they will confuse it with a reshus horabim deoraisa. So this is like a "standing derabonon,"
sort of embedded in the halacha itself to declare something asur across the board when you are dealing with nuances of variance. But it never meant to say that you can lie about the metzius component of one halacha in order to keep people from violating another halacha. To me, that sounds like something that would fall under the category of "vechi omrim le'adam chatei bishvil sheyizkeh chavercha."

But when a Rav paskens a shailah, he does not make things assur. He only informs you that it is or is not assur. he does nto create issurim or heterim. Therefore, a Rav that tells you somethgin is assur when it is not, or that somethign is assur across the board when it is not, is lying.

What is interesting, though, is that Rav Moshe disagrees with Rav ELyashev regaridng this entire procedure. He says that although there is a heter of kdei lehoros to read the literature and religious works of the idol worshippers, there is no such heter to interview the worshippers themselves.

Herein lies the difference between lying outright and mere obfuscation. Just as the layperson might interpret the answer to be more inclusive than its literal nature, the Rov/Dayan can assume that the question is more inclusive than its literal state, and he can truthfuly Pasken that he can not find a Heter, because his definition of finding a Heter can be to find a Heter for all scenarios to which his P'sak may be applied.

As to why he doesn't specifically outline which exact instances are Muttar and warn that it is a unique case and can't be used as a basis for any further leniency? Many times the differences are technical and would have no bearing to those unfamiliar with the subject matter at hand.