The exact text of what Rav Elyashev himslef used - word for word - is posted above.

One of the big problems with Rabbi Dunner's position about the unreliability of the goyim and Hindus is that is invalidates Rav Elyashev's original Teshuva. Maybe Rabbi Dunner doesnt realize that the unnamed "expert" Rav Elyashev was quoting was actually a Hindu Priest....

In any case, ALL the accounts we have --- from books, tapes, internet sites, as well as every single professor and Priest and Swami, all provide, not only to us, but to themselves, the same exact same version of the story. This includes tapes of Hindu classes themselves, which have nothing to do with the outside world, as well as Hindu religious books designed for Hindu priest wannabes.

Rabbi Dunner is trying to say that everybody in the world has and had the wrong story except him - and that includes Rav Elyashev having the wrong story, because he did in fact rely on one of those Hindu priests who Rabbi Dunenr says are not reliable.

Rav Elyashiv writes, paraphrased in English,
"However, all of the above is based on the description of the afore-mentioned expert. Obviously I cannot ascertain how much his description matches the facts because according to your own description there are inconsistencies and contradictions about the nature of the shaving ceremony. The matter therefore requires further investigation."

How you can say that Rav Elyashiv accepted Mohan's description is puzzling...

Those URL's only say that the Temples sell the hair - not that the hair is brought into the temple proper.

Dov,

Rav Elyashev permitted that shaitlach, despite the "contradictions", because the "expert" testified as we saw. The "contradictions" that Rav Elyashev was referring to was Rabbi Sterenbuch's version of the story which was also submitted to Rav Elyashev at that time, i.e. that the hair is sacrificed on a Mizbeach and the pirest steals them etc. He is saying that he is relying on Mohan, but his psak depends on the Metzius which he cannot swear to.

He did NOT say that Mohan's testimony is invalid because he has some vested interest in making sure Westerners don't think Hindus are idol worshippers like Dunner says; and he did't say that we should invalidate his testimony because he is unreliable. He is saying that eh cannto confirm or deny the facts given to him, and his psak is based on those assumptions - which is always true - a posek cannot confirm the facts given to him; he can only pasken based on those facts.

In this case, he paskened for the American Rabbonim - Rav Shimon Schwab ZTL was foremost amonst them - who wanted to prohibit the wigs, that they may allow the wigs to be worn. He adds that this of course is assuming that the informaiton is correct.

First, lemme note: Dayan Dunner does not have an anti-shaitel attitude, so please nobody think he is biased.

Rabbi Dunner was in Tirupati and Madras, in India to see the tonsure, and these are just several short notes from his speech which do not tally with previous information, and seem to cause problems of tikravos:

1. The tonsurees believe they are giving the hair to the idol. One said "This idol loves the hair" when asked to explain what use the hair is to the idol. They cannot explain why the idol needs the hair, but they believe the idol in some supernatural way enjoys the hair. It does not make a difference to them that the hair is sold or thrown out. They said "We bring food for the idol which is thrown out too. But the idol enjoys it." This seems to qualify only as matanah.
2. During the tonsuring, the person must put their hands on their heart, and they chant the name of the idol while being shaved. Which brings up point 3
3. The barbers: While they are paid employees, they enforce the "ceremony". The tell tonsurees to put their hands on their hearts. So they may have a more active "religious" role here, = shochtim.
4. This avodah zarah gets prayed to by chanting its name, which is what they do while being shaved.
5. If according to their own version it's a self-sacrifice, what kind of self-sacrifice is someone offering who is only giving 3 hairs? Seems like matanah again. These guys are 'karg', they only give 3 hairs.
6. In the tonsuring rooms, there are 3 floors. Floor 1 definitely has an idol in it. Rabbi Dunner thinks he remembers seeing pictures of the idol on Floors 2 and 3.
7. The tonsurees all said they came to the temple to tonsure and would not do it at home because, even though the actual shaving was not in the temple, all the area around was "the idols place". "The idol lived here, married here, died here"...yada yada yada. And the grounds around the temple too are full of all sort of little avodah zara sideshows. (Rabbi Dunner is really funny on this one!) So basically, in the tonsurees mind at least, they were doing it by the idol.

etc, etc, etc.

<<And by the way, you may not rely halachicly on informaiton provided by vendors to determine the kashrus of their products. Even though aid echad ne'eman b'isurim, merchants are an exception, since people are suspect on violating lifnei iver lo sitain michsol.>>

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.

brother,

I did see that tape. there is nothign on it to make the shailtach takrovos a"z.

1. Rabbi Dunner did not understand properly what the pilgrims meant by "giving" and "enjoying" the hair. This was explained above. It means the god enjoys the process of their removing the hair and the fact hat they have no hair - we knew this 15 years ago when it was investigated a lot more thoroughly than Rabbi Dunner did now, and it is also confirmed by every single Hindu and authority on Hinduism that is being asked, even as we speak, daily. Even though none of them are aware of what the other authority has said, they all come back with the exact same explanation, which fits into the Indian language nuances and their understanding of English.

2. Nobody is quesitoning that the tonsure is done in order to bring "nachas" to the avodah zorah. That does not make the hair takrovos. In order to do that, the hair itself has to be liek a korbon, and none of those prayers or heart requirements indicate any such thing.

Incidently, they dont "have to" do any of those thigns. Some do, and "kol echad kaminhago noheg" - every place, every person and every galach can do it as they please, and they do in fact do it differently. rabbi Dunner did not do enough research to realize that.

3. There is no indicaiton at all that the barbers have anythign in particular in mind. When they cut the hair. Their "enforcing the ceremony" does NOT at all make the hair takrovos - Rav LEyashev states clearly that when a goy gives a korbon to avodah zorah, but a Yid shechts it for him, the korbon is not a"z since we have no reason to believe that the shochet's intent was for a"z.

4. See above - this does not create a din of Takrovos.

5. This claim of his, which he made in America, is absurd. And Rabbi Ysiroel Belsky, who was there at the time, brought up its absurdity, and Rabbi Dunner was unable to defend this claim even a fraction. The fact that they are "yotzeh" by giving 3 hairs or so has absolutely zero indication of the meaning of the tonsure - whether it is a korbon or merely a ceremony. WHo knows, or cares, how the Hindus created their criteria for "Giving of the ego" criteria? Maybe the fact that a woman is willign to have some stranger chop off a few locks of hair is humbling enough (my wife wouldnt like that), or maybe they hold "mesoras avosahem beyadehem" and they are just doing it as a pale reflection of the old custom, but that means the hair is even LESS of a takrovos than if they would cut off all the hair, not more. Kind of like lhavdil our bowing "korim" on Yom Kippur even though we are not in the Bais Hamikdosh - we do it as a "zecher" of what was done. It still has the status of a custom-Mitzvah, but it is not done in its full form. Or countless possibilites. Rabbi Dunner neither thought of these possibilities nor did he check them out.

But they were thought of and checked out - then and now - and it is clear that the intent is NOT any takrovos to the god.

6. As long as the tonsuring is not done in front of the idol, whether or not the floor has one, it is not takrovos. He "thinks" he saw an idol on the other floors?! You're kidding. He went there to specifically check this out and he does not know if he saw an idol there?! There is something wrong with that.

7. None of that talk makes the mountain the Temple of the a"z or "bifnei" the zvodah zorah. L'havdil, all of Jerusalem is nto the Bais Hamikdash even though "Yaakov avinu had his dream here", and "the bais hamikdash is built here", all of which give Jerusalem special holy status that makes it worth visiting more than any other holy places in Eretz Yisroel. But it is still not a Bais Hamedrash.

The problem with Rabbi Dunner;s research is that he asked a some quesitons and did not ask further, and now he comes back and says "There may be a problem." Had he inquired further - as others have done, 15 years ago and today - he would have seen his doubts dispelled.

It is clear Rabbi Dunenr has a total misunderstanding of the entire scenario.

As another example of his lack of understanding, he said in England recently that the "experts" - the priests and hindus - are not believable when they say the hair is not a gift, because they do not want westerners to know they are idol worshipper.s Only HIS research is valid, because he chose "primitive" hindus with no such inhibitions.

Never mind that this psychoanalysis has no haalchic basis, or any basis whatsoever - this is totally his own speculation, both regarding the motives of the hindus in genreral, as well as his ability to pinpoint particular hindus who will disclose the truth - but his theory is simply contradicted by the facts. The priests, hindus, et al are indeed telling us that they do offer items to their gods - see Dr. Mohan's testimony above regarding fruits and coconuts - but they are saying that the tonsure practice specifically is not one of those.

This is not an issue of the Hindus explaining their religion in a way that would be more "westernized." Rabbi dunner doesnt understand this. They freely explain their religion the way Rabbi dunenr insists they dont want us to understand it. The issue on the table at this time is NOT whether their religion is avodah zorah -- it is the meanign of the tonsure practice within that religion.

And he also apparently is disregarding the fact that he is invalidating Rav Leyashev himself, who did not disqualify the testimony of the Hindu priests and professors, and actually used it in a heter, halachah lmaaseh, to Rabbonim in America, 15 years ago.

It is clear that Rabbi Dunner's research is half-baked - he started but did not go nearly as far as the previous research which already put to rest the questions that his research has raised - and his understanding of what he saw and heard faulty.

"Upon request of honorable Rabbonim in America, I herebly make known my opinion: In light of the emerging facts that have been brought back by Rav Dunner shlita, you may not use the shaitlach that are made from human hair from India."

The discussion took over an hour, and involved both Halachic issues as well as the facts. The issue of "rove", unfortunately, was not discussed at length, that is, whether one can permit the shiatlach because the majority are not from the Temples.

>>If according to their own version it's a >>self-sacrifice, what kind of self->>sacrifice is someone offering who is only >>giving 3 hairs? Seems like matanah again.
Maybe it's a symbolic act of self-negation rather than a full act. Maybe there's a difference in kavanos when giving three versus shaving the head. L'shitato, what would the god want with their three hairs? Are these the hairs that wind up in the shaitels?

In the Mishpacha this week is an interview with Rabbi Dunner. I don't feel like going thru every diyuk halashon, but to me he seems to contradict himself several times with regard to whether the people he spoke to are primitive (and thus believable, acc. to him), or not primitive. (This he says to ensure us that they really all understand the nuances of their religion.