<<So how come Rabbi Blumenkrantz wrote in last week's Hamodia that if your shaitel macher is shomer shabbos you can rely on them for where the hair comes from?>>

<<MODERATOR Posted - 25 May 2004 9:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tekler,

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. >>

Nevertheless, there is still a heter to sometimes believe the shopkeeper in our case exclusively:

Although it is true that a vendor may not be relied upon regarding the Kashrus of their wares, since chezkas kashrus - assuption of honesty - does not extend to business practices, as people are unfortunatley wont to provide opthers with non-Kosher items for business reasons, in our particular case, if you are actually going to buy the wig from the vendor, they would indeed be believed.

This is because even though a person is suspect to lie to you regarding something they are giving you, they are not suspect to lie abotu somethgin they themselves eat. So that, as the Rama says, even though you may not buy their product, you may eat with them in their home, since they are not suspect to eat the treif itme themselves - they will only sell it to you.

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.

<<So how come Rabbi Blumenkrantz wrote in last week's Hamodia that if your shaitel macher is shomer shabbos you can rely on them for where the hair comes from?>>

<<MODERATOR Posted - 25 May 2004 9:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tekler,

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. >>

Nevertheless, there is still a heter to sometimes believe the shopkeeper in our case exclusively:

Although it is true that a vendor may not be relied upon regarding the Kashrus of their wares, since chezkas kashrus - assuption of honesty - does not extend to business practices, as people are unfortunatley wont to provide opthers with non-Kosher items for business reasons, in our particular case, if you are actually going to buy the wig from the vendor, they would indeed be believed.

This is because even though a person is suspect to lie to you regarding something they are giving you, they are not suspect to lie abotu somethgin they themselves eat. So that, as the Rama says, even though you may not buy their product, you may eat with them in their home, since they are not suspect to eat the treif itme themselves - they will only sell it to you.

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.

You say that in Bnei Brak, they retracted teir issur. Where are the tzetlach about this? I luve in Yerushalayim, and did not see it.

ME: Even if we assume that Rabbi Dunner was infallible at reading the minds of the "primitives" that he was seeking out (since they would have no inhibitions), how would one know that these self-selected "primitives" are a representative sampling of the head shavers as a group? He seems to be assuming that they go there k'ish echod b'leiv echod, but only the primitives are not in on the vast conspiracy to misrepresent what all pilgrims are all thinking.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Let's say your wife calls Rav Elyashev with a shailah about a milchig spoon that she used to cook fleishigs. Rav Elyashev tells her she can't use the spoon until she kashers it.

You come home and, before your wife has a chance to tell you this, you use the spoon to mix you spaghetti. Your wife walks in and screachers that the spoon is treif and Rav Elyashev said so himself.

You ask her what happened to the spoon that it became treif.

"I used it to cook fleishigs," she says. "Then I called Rav Eyashev and told him that I used a milchig spoon to cook fleishigs and he said i have to kasher it."

"That's great," you say, "except for one thing."

"What's that?" your wife asks.

"This spoon is fleishig," you say.

Do you think that you are nto allwoed to use the spoon? Even if your wife doesnt blieeve you and insists on kashering it - if you know that she is wrong and the spoon was fleishig - are you going to tell me that youre not allowed to use the spoon because of a "psak"?

I dont think so.

You are absolutely correct - his "proof" does not prove anything. There are tons of possibilites about what the haircutting means, and his notion that there are only 2 possibilties, and process of elimination elminated one and so the only thing left is takrovos, is incoherent.

You are also right regaridng the random sampling. Rabbi Dunner gives us no reason to believe that the pilgrims that he encountered (he did not tell us how amnhy they were) represent the hundreds of thousands that do the tonsure - especially since - and Rabbi Dunner does not realize this (see my next post) - Hinduism does not have a unified way of doing things.

mashkiach,

The Chazon Ish supposedly said that Hinduism is not avodah zorah. And supposedly Rav Elyashev told Rav Feivel Cohen that we dont hold like that. Incidently, the fact that the Hindus believe in a Creator does not preclude their religion from being a"z.

Osher,

Rabbi Belsky is writing a Teshuva - maybe he's done wiht it, I dont know - and is planning on sending it to Rav Elyashev.

intro,

The Rama says there that the usual rule - that any shomer shabbos Jews has believability - is not applicable in this case. Here, you need "huchzak b'kashrus", meaning, the person hs to be specifically established and found to be reliable regarding the Kashrus of their wares. Rabbi Blumenkrantz said that all you need to be relied on here is the usual, shomer shabbos status. That is not correct.

benzee,

The issue over here is not whether someone can disagree with Rav Elyashev. Let's all follow Rav Elyashev! And therefor,e if you come across a shaitel that was sacrificed to an avodah zorah in the way that Rav Elyashev said is assur, dont wear it! Rav ELyashev was not paskening what the facts are, but rather what the halachah is assuming the facts. Nobody is disagreeing with that (please see the analogy in my last post about the fleishig spoon).

For the record, though, it is absolutely true that a qualified Talmid Chacham can disagree with Rav Elyashev - Rav Moshe himself writes that even in Bnei Brak, you are allowed to pasken against the Chazon Ish (and Rav Moshe's psak on that is itself apparently in opposition to that of other achronim, but onyl because of the "bnei brak" factor - asra d'rav - but that any posek nowadays has exclusive rights to pasken, everybody agrees is not so).

That having been said, if someone is in doubt regarding who to follow, he should follow the bigger posek, and since Rav Elyashev is the bigger posek today, the fact that others disagreed with him would not entitle the ublic to follow the one who disagrees.

Of course, if it is your rebbe or rav who is the opposing posek, that complicates matters. But it is not relevent to our situation since, as I said, NOBODY here is disagreeing with Rav LEyashev at all. All anybody is saying is that the spoon is not milchig, and the woman who asked the shailah made a mistake. I hold it is countrproductive and confusing to discuss whether one can or cannot argue with Rav Elyashev - it only serves to imply that someone is arguing with him. Which nobody is.

In addition, although there can be someone who is "the greatest posek" in a given generation, there is no such thing as "posek hador" in any Halachic sense. The phrase is a coloquialism - but it is meaningless in any halachic way. I avoid it because it confuses people into thinking that there is some kind of official status called "posek hador", which in reality does not exist.

PS - I do not give out personal information about myself.

osher,