"Do not put hair in the hundi."

It is against Hindu law to do so.

Some apparently very emotional and not very literate Hindus every once in a blue moon do put their hair in there, but that hair is less than even an insignificant minority, and it is also totally not avodaso bekach.

The reason for the change in Rav Elyashev’s psak from 15 years ago is because Rabbi Dunner provided him with supposedly eye-witness testimony that opposes the information that Rav Elyashev was provided when he issued his lenient psak. Based on the information given to him by Rabbi Dunner, Rav Elyashev discarded the information that he previously heard, and prohibited the shaitlach.

Rabbis Dunner and Efrati both made public the information that was provided to Rav Elyashev, and the reasons that Rav Elyashev chose to make use of the current version of the story rather than the previous one.

However, it is clear from the words of Rabbi Dunner and Efrati themselves, that Rabbi Dunner did indeed provide Rav Elyashev with information that was both flawed and incomplete. Rabbi Dunner’s did as much research and ased as many questions as he felt he needed to ask – but had he asked more and researched deeper, he would have seen that his initial understanding was incorrect.

Unfortunately, he gave what he reported to be the correct and complete picture to Rav Elyashev, who used it to overturn his previous psak. In fact, the picture that was given to Rav Elyashev was neither correct nor complete. In short:

Inaccuracy Number One: "Professors vs. Worshippers"

Regarding the two versions of the facts, Rabbi Efrati (in his drasha on the topic given at “Kol Halashon” 28 Iyar), states that the discrepancy is between “professors and experts”, versus the “worshippers themselves.” Rav Elyashev was given this information and stated that the facts should be established according to the version of the worshippers, not the professors.

“The masses who do this [haircutting ceremony] neither mention nor intend any ‘submission’ [hachnaah], which is [what we heard] from many experts and professors, and the status of avodah zorah is established by the worshippers, not by some experts, who altogether may be trying to beautify our image of their religion, and to make it able to relate to those who are not idol worshippers.”

What Rabbi Efrati is unaware of, and what Rav Elyashev was not told, is that the opposing version of the facts comes mostly from Hindus themselves – worshippers who were at Tirupati – not mere;y “experts and professors.” More, the “expert” himself that gave Rav Elyashev the previsou information, the expert whose version of the story is being contradicted today, is himself a Hindu priest, who describes his own 6-month-old daughter’s own tonsure in Tirupati.

He himself is a worshipper. Yet Rav Elyashev was not told that. Even 15 years ago, Rav Elyashev was merely told that Dr. Mohan is “the world’s greatest expert on Hinduism”. Nobody ever considered it important to mention, nor did Rav Elyashev inquire, that his expertise comes not from outside, academic sources, but he himself is a worshipping, practicing, Hindu priest, whose family has also gone through tonsure at Tirupati.

The baalei teshuva and converts that have come forward to testify are also not “exoperts or professors” but former worshippers themselves.

The issue was presented to Rav Elyashev as a disagreement between “academic experts and professors” versus “plain worshippers”. That is not correct. The great bulk of people who have come forward to testify against Rabbi Dunner’s information are indeed worshippers – of all walks of life: pilgrims, plain Hindus, middle class, and educated – yet that information was never presented that way to Rav Elyashev.

So when Rav Elyashev says to believe the worshippers over the professors, it does not filter out the conflicting information. At the very least, we have differences in the story from among the worshippers.

And unanswered question still remains as to why, of all the dozens and dozens of worshippers interviewed – by Jews, by non-Jews, and those writing and talking to each other various forums – every single account is identical and matches seamlessly with the information Rav Elyashev had 15 years ago, but those worshippers that Rabbi Dunner happened to have met all gave a totally different story.

Had Rabbi Dunner met the little Mohan girl and her mother in Tirupati – they were there – or any of the Baalei Teshuva nad Geirim, or any of the Hindus in our local neighborhoods who described their experience in Tirupati – he would have gotten a different version of the story. But everybody he met (we still don’t know how many people he spoke to!) happened to have understood the procedure completely different.

How does Rabbi Dunner explain the fact that so many Hindus – priests, plain worshippers, and scholars alike – all contradict his version of the facts?

From Rabbi Dunner:

“When I went to see for myself, it became clear that the hair was itself used as an offering to the for idols . . . Hindus don’t like to reveal this fact, because they know that it sounds primitive to the ears of the modern world.” (Interview with Mishpacha Magazine)

Also, from Rabbi Efrati:

“The status of avodah zorah is established by the worshippers, not by some experts, who altogether may be trying to beautify our image of their religion, and to make it able to relate to those who are not idol worshippers.”

Also from Rabbi Dunner:

“Their priests … are sworn to secrecy”

Rabbi Dunner apparently did not understand what the Hindus were saying. They did NOT say to him that their religion does not involve idol-worship. What they said was, that the tonsure hair-cutting practice is not idol worship.

The fact is, that the Hindus -– priests and worshippers, Baalei Teshuva and Geirim – all have indeed freely stated that they do indeed worship idols, that they do indeed sacrifice objects to their god, but hair is not one of them. To quote the very “expert” that Rav Elyashev relied on previously, the one that we are supposedly discrediting by saying that he is motivated by a desire to make his religion look like it is not idolatry:

“The haircutting is done outside, then they take a bath and go inside and then they offer coconuts and fruits to the god, but the haircut is nothing holy it is nothing sacred, not at all, my wife took my daughter when she was 6 months old to Tirupati, and the hair was offered, and if you talk to these pilgrims they will say whatever they say but what they mean is that they are renunciation their prized possession and the gods accept their renunciation, meaning the gods agree and are happy about it.”

Not a single one of the Hindus interviewed denied that their religion involves offering items to the god in sacrifice – every single one confirmed, and often even volunteered the information that they do indeed sacrifice to the gods. All they say is that hair is not one of those items.

In the Brooklyn last week where Rabbi Dunner spoke, a Baal Teshuva told him that he did not understand what the pilgrims told him, and that the tonsure practice is not a sacrifice to the gods. Rabbi Dunner replied that he (the baal teshuva) has no believability, because he has a vested interest in denying that he ever worshipped idols (he quoted a Teshuvas HaRosh).

Rabbi Dunner did not understand what the man was saying – the man did not discuss at all whether he worshipped idols or not – had he stated that Hinduism is not avodah zorah this could be discussed. But what he was saying that this particular practice is not avodah zorah. Rabbi Dunner did not ask him whether he believes Hinduism is idolatry. As a matter of fact, the man does indeed admit that it is idolatry.

Please note that this idea, that Hindus, or Hindu priests, do not want people to know the truth about their religion is derived by Rabbi Dunner on his own, on his own volition, by his own assumption – he did not hear this from any Hindus or Hindu Priests. And the idea that the priests are “sworn to secrecy” is his own assumption out of thin air. He did not claim to see any priests begin sworn to secrecy; he did not claim to know who in fact swears these priests to secrecy; he does not claim to have heard priests admit to him that they were sworn to secrecy; he does not even quote pilgrims as saying so. All these are his assumptions, presented to us as fact. And they are utterly false.

When Rabbi Dunner was told by the pilgrims (and again – we do not know how many) that they “sacrifice the hair to the gods” he did not understand what this means. One of the Baalei Teshuva told this to him as well, but he dismissed the person as having no ne’emanus. I posted this before, but for the sake of clarity I will re-post. The following is a conversation with one of the Rabbonim involved and Dr. Mohan, the practicing Hindu Priest and Profeessor that Rav Elyashev used previously in his lenient psak:

Conversation with Dr. Anand Mohan
5/21/2004

Q: I understand from what you told me that the tonsure hair cutting practice is absolutely not a sacrifice to the gods. Last week a someone I know was in Tirupati and asked some pilgrims explicitly what they mean when they say the hair is an “offering”, and they said that they mean the hair is an offering to the god, and even when asked a few times they insisted that it is indeed an offering to the god and by that they mean a real offering, that the hair is going to the god.

A: There are twenty languages spoken by the pilgrims, they come form India, from various places, and to Westerners the meaning of “offer” is different, no matter how you explain it a westerner won’t understand it the way it really means. The meaning of “offer” is not the same in the ancient languages and in Indian – “offer” means “surrender” “renunciation” so they are saying yes they surrender to the gods and the gods “receive” the surrender, but that means that the gods are happy with it, like you may say someone “got the meaning” of what you say it doesn’t mean he physically gets it, it means he understands it. The same thing when a pilgrim says they “offer” to the gods it means they surrender their inner selves to the gods and the gods understand and accept their surrender – “accept” meaning agree …

If you want to call it an offering it makes sense but what it means in the Hindu religion is different.

Q: Like we might say G-d “accepts” our repentance
A: Yes, yes. It is like that. There is no parallel word in the West for “offering” in this sense. It means “we surrender our ego”. The pilgrims they don’t know English well, they say it the way they can.

Everything they do, it’s an “offering” to god. By worshipping god you become one with god so you give up your ego to god in that sense. The first prayer is SHIVA – “we become one with you”.

The haircutting is done outside, then they take a bath and go inside and then they offer coconuts and fruits to the god, but the haircut is nothing holy it is nothing sacred, not at all, my wife took my daughter when she was 6 months old to Tirupati, and the hair was offered, and if you talk to these pilgrims they will say whatever they say but what they mean is that they are renunciation their prized possession and the gods accept their renunciation, meaning the gods agree and are happy about it.

Rabbi Efrati “proves” that the tonsure practice is idolatry:

“When (women) come and say that they do not want all of their hair to be cut off, they do not tell the (women) “Well, then why are you coming here?” Rather, they tell them, “All right, cut off at least some strands of hair”.

From this, Rabbi Efrati proves:

“This means to say – the main thing by them is to give something to the god, not that they should be bald!”

This “proof” was submitted by Rabbi Dunner as well, in the Brooklyn meetings last week.

Of course, this is meaningless – the fact that the Hindus allow some sort of symbolic hair cutting, or that they allow a woman to be fulfill her tonsure with a few strands shows absolutely nothing about anything. When it was pointed out to Rabbi Dunner by the rabbis that he really is not offering a proof to anything, he was unable to defend himself in the slightest.

It is difficult to understand what Rabbi Dunner’s train of thought was when he said this Nevertheless, he has never changed his mind about this being proof of Avodah Zorah.

It is clear that Rabbi Dunner misunderstood the concept of “ego-sacrifice.” The idea is described in Rabbi Efrati’s speech repeatedly as somethgin to the effect of “giving up Olam Hazeh”, and that by being bald, they are giving up Olam Hazeh. Thus, if they are not going to be bald, but merely cutting off a few strands, that is clearly not giving up much of anything, and therefore, the only explanation is, they intend to sacrifice the hair to the idol.

Note: The author has provided his name to the Rabbonim who are actively involved in this matter, but does not wish to be inundated with the inevitable EMAILs and phone calls that will result from his letter being posted on the WEB. We have therefore removed his name and contact info.

May 18, 2004 / 27 Iyar 5764

Dear ,

The question that I am addressing in these notes concerns ritual hair cutting (called “tonsure”) performed at the Hindu pilgrimage center at Tirupati. My understanding of the issue in question is whether hair that is incorporated into wigs has been used in any way in rituals of idol worship, which would render it unsuitable for use by Jews.

My area of expertise in the study of Hinduism concerns religious practices at sacred places, especially places of pilgrimage, of which there are many in India. I did my doctoral studies at Oxford University on Hindu pilgrimage and, as a result, I have authored and edited several books on pilgrimage, including “Pilgrimage in the Hindu Tradition” (Oxford University Press). I do not claim any special expertise in Tirupati per se, though it is inconceivable to me that a temple of this great size and national importance would in any way contravene the general and clear guidelines for ritual purity that are fundamental and common throughout the Hindu world.

As is well-known, pilgrims to Tirupati consider the cutting or shaving of their hair to be one of the two most important customs they can perform on their pilgrimage (the other being anointing the image of the deity (named Sri Venkateswara) with camphor (karpoora), saffron and musk). The place where pilgrims perform tonsure at Tirupati is called Kalyana Katta. Upwards of 500 barbers operate in three shifts at Kalyana Katta to perform tonsure. The building is equipped with two big tonsure halls and two side balcony tonsure halls with platforms to seat both the pilgrim and the barber. There are four waiting compartments and also16 mini Kalyana Kattas at important nearby places, to perform tonsure for pilgrims staying in cottages and guesthouses. Pilgrims can also request to be tonsured at the cottages where they are staying. Most pilgrims have their heads shaven completely, though a variation of cutting only three locks of hair has emerged, as a kind of minimal level required to fulfil the ritual tonsure.

Although tonsure is considered a particularly important custom at Tirupati, it is by no means unique to that temple. The cutting of the hair in rites of passage (such as from infancy to childhood and on entering widowhood), in fulfilment of vows, and as an aspect of pilgrimage is known and is quite common throughout Hindu India.

At Kalyana Katta, bathrooms equipped with hot water are provided for the pilgrims who have their heads tonsured. Pilgrims are directed to follow up their tonsure with an immersion in the tank in the temple grounds (Pushkarini) after which they proceed to the temple for their encounter with the shrine deity.

There are two facts to be emphasized from this summary of tonsure at Tirupati. One is that the hair cutting and shaving takes place in specially dedicated facilities, separate from the temple. The second is the pattern of bathing following tonsure.

These two customs clearly reflect Hindu notions of purity and impurity. Maintaining ritual purity is a constant concern for Hindus, a concern that underlies the hierarchical caste system that underpins the social order. The primary source of defilement is contact with death and organic wastes, primarily those from the human body, including faeces, saliva, urine, perspiration, hair, menstrual blood, etc. Cut hair, like all organic body wastes (including the body itself, after death) is unequivocally and universally classified as impure. Therefore shaving and cutting hair entails pollution, which can be remedied by bathing.

The separation of tonsure facilities from the temple proper reflects not only the impurity of the hair but also the impurity of the haircutters. Because barbers (of the Mangali caste in Andhra Pradesh) come in contact with polluting substances like hair and fingernails, they are classified as impure and occupy a low status in the hierarchy of castes, similar to launderers and shoemakers. Higher-ranked castes practice untouchability with reference to barber, in so far as they do not accept polluting cooked food from them. Because people of all castes contact barbers during tonsure at Tirupati, the custom of bathing afterwards reflects the need to repurify not only from contact with cut hair but also to remove the impurity of having been touched by such a low caste person.

These reflections on caste, purity, custom and location all point to the fact that the cutting of hair at Tirupati would not itself be part of the sacrament of the temple. Ritual purity is a pervasive concern of Hindu society, and this concern is, if anything, exaggerated in regard to preserving the pure status of a temple compound. Keeping hair and those who cut it from sharing their impurity with the deity would be of significant concern.

Why do the pilgrims cut their hair? This question is important because, even though the strictures of Hinduism are clear about the impure status of hair and hair-cutters, tonsure at Tirupati would still be a feature of idol worship if the pilgrims themselves thought of the cutting of their hair as a feature of their ritual offerings and sacrifice to the shrine deity.

It is easier to comment on the general tenets of Hinduism than the motives of individual pilgrims. I found in my own studies (in which I interviewed hundreds of Hindu pilgrims as to their motives for making pilgrimage) that the motives cited were very varied, and while never contradictory to Hindu values, they did tend to be much more practical than the high-minded spirituality espoused by the spokespeople for the religious tradition. Nevertheless, it has to be recognized that there is a difficulty in venturing what is in peoples’ minds.

This qualification having been stated, nothing I have seen imputes any motive to tonsure at Tirupati that is unique from the general patterns of hair cutting in conjunction with Hindu religious rituals. The main motives pilgrims cite for tonsure can be summarized, as follows:

1. To mark a rite of passage. As such, the act itself is a marker of a change of social status.

2. To demonstrate submission of the pilgrim’s ego to the deity. Hair is considered a symbol of vanity, and in order to prepare him- or herself to receive the full benefit of pilgrimage, the pilgrim takes a step like tonsure to manifestly give up vanity. Overcoming the ego by showing humility invites the deity to demonstrate his own power by acceding to the wishes of the pilgrim.

3. To fulfill a vow. In the former case, the hair cutting was done in anticipation of divine intercession. In this case, hair will be cut only after the deity has been seen by the pilgrim to have granted a wish, as if in completion of a transaction that has satisfied the “customer.”

In none of these cases is the hair itself made into an offering or a sacrifice to the deity. The substances which are offered to the temple god are closely circumscribed in order to ensure that ritual purity is maintained. In every case, the cutting of hair represents a kind of self-sacrifice, a personal giving up of something very close to the person, in the hope of, or in gratitude for, a parallel giving on behalf of the deity.

In conclusion, while I do not claim special knowledge of Tirupati, from my knowledge of Hinduism throughout India, and of pilgrimage rituals in particular, and given Tirupati’s position as a major orthodox shrine of the mainstream, I can find no evidence to suggest that the hair itself is incorporated into ritual offerings. It would be a vast exception to the rules of ritual purity for tonsure to be included in an act of worship; it is, rather, preparatory to acts for worship, or an outward act that symbolizes a personal change in the pilgrim (whether of social status, ego-status, or life circumstances). The fact that there are special sites for tonsure, and that bathing is interposed between hair cutting and the visit to the temple shrine emphasizes the need, in fact, to keep tonsuring and ritual worship separate, in the interests of purity.

I hope this information is of help.