“Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist?

Home › Forums › Bais Medrash › “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist?

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • May 8, 2018 11:22 am at 11:22 am #1517674
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    It has been advertised on this site, it piqued my interest, so I listened.

    Before listening, according to what I thought I’ve learnt and according to what I heard about the facts, I thought it was a non-issue.

    However, although the podcast host fought for his cause like a fourth grader, I heard the other side very clearly. Either he couldn’t or he didn’t want to understand them. He didn’t seem to understand what the Indian priest was telling him, and chose to rather have him say ‘yes’ to his own custom definition.

    May 8, 2018 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm #1517739
    Joseph
    Participant

    Haleivi: which side of the issue did the podcast host take?

    The podcast sometimes has real rabbonim on the show (I think he gets them on by making a donation to their mosdos) and sometimes he has on the show clowns who use the title rabbi.

    May 8, 2018 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm #1517733
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    I listened.
    Most of his podcasts follow that format

    May 8, 2018 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm #1517734
    Takes2-2tango
    Participant

    Please enlighten us instead of talking in circles

    May 9, 2018 8:16 pm at 8:16 pm #1518785
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    T2t, and anyone else who would rather read a summary than go through what I did, I’ll try to capture it.

    There are three disputed points.

    • whether most of our hair comes from Indian tansurs (hair cutting as a preparation to visiting their deity)
    • whether the practice of tansuring is a religious rite or merely a means of self perfection (and what about if the religious leaders understand one while practitioners understand it another way)
    • whether their intention constitutes Avoda Zara and/or Takroves

    The Matirim say that only a small portion of world exports of hair is from the tansurs, and that it is not a religious expression but rather an expression of ridding oneself of his ego.

    The Osrim say that a significant amount of hair is from the tansurs and that the hair is given up for the sake of a deity. Additionally, they say, that doing so constitutes Takrovess Avoda Zara.

    May 9, 2018 9:45 pm at 9:45 pm #1518812
    apushatayid
    Participant

    The Matirim say that only a small portion of world exports of hair is from the tansurs…
    The Osrim say that a significant amount of hair is from the tansurs

    Matirim – it is not a religious expression
    Osrim – the hair is given up for the sake of a deity

    So, your summary tells us that they dispute the facts. Wouldnt it be better to jointly try to ascertain the facts ratsher than “debating” them?

    May 9, 2018 11:06 pm at 11:06 pm #1518817
    YW Moderator-29 ๐Ÿ‘จโ€๐Ÿ’ป
    Moderator

    Why? You dont like it like this?

    May 9, 2018 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm #1518814
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Moderator: please edit my earlier post and add

      tag before my list and

    after. That should set the page straight.

    May 10, 2018 7:15 am at 7:15 am #1518818
    Chacham
    Participant

    Comments on the second show that I recieved in an email from a friend.

    He apparently sent it in to the headlines show, and they didn’t post it for some odd reason.

    Hi, I just finished listening to this past weeks show on the sheitel controversy, and I would like to makeseveral crucial points.
    1- Emma Tarlo keeps getting quoted about the majority of hair from India not being sourced from the temple. In an exchange of emails, she explains that 80% of the hair is what comes from comb collected hair, and only 20% from the temples. Yiyeh aich sheyiyeh, even if a professor in anthropology is actually a trade expert, this isnโ€™t very helpful for our discussion. All comb hair is non remi hair, and all temple hair is remi hair. 90% of sheitels are made from remi hair, this can be checked very easily by feeling if the hair cuticles are intact. That being the case, If a sheitel is indeed made from remi hair it will not help at all that 80% of the hair in India is comb collection, being that you can know bvadai that the sheitel in front of you is not from those hairs.

    2- I hear quoted Rav Elyashivโ€™s letter where he writes that 75% of the hair in India is sourced from the temples and you naturally claim that the psak was made based on misinformation. Very silly. Rav Elyashiv did indeed write that, and the information was based on what the Israeli Consulate in India reported based on what they heard from the Finance Ministry of India (should be a decent source in my opinion, much better than an anthropologist who doesnโ€™t study international trade). Attached is a link to that file (removed)
    But for some reason you left out the continuation of Rav Elyashivโ€™s teshuva. He never paskend based on those numbers, rather he writes explicitly:
    ื’ื ืื ื–ื” ืœื”ื™ืคืš, ื“ื™ืŸ ืงื‘ื•ืข ืœื”ื ื›ืžืฉ”ื› ื‘ืฉื•”ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื—”ื‘ ืกื™ ื ”ื– ื•ื–ื” ืœืฉื•ื ื•, “ื›ืฉื”ืงื•ื ื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื•ืžื‘ืงืฉ ืžืžื ื• ืžืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื™ ืฉื™ืฉืœื— ืœื• ื›ื•”ื› ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืœื— ืžื‘ื™ืชื•, ื‘ื›ื””ื’ ื”ื•”ืœ ื›ืœืงื— ืžืŸ ื”ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืœื ื™ื—ืœื•ืง ืข”ื– ื–ื•ืœืช ื—ืกืจ ื“ืขืช”
    He writes that the hair from the temples have the din of a kavua, and therefore even if only 25% comes from the temples it will still be a problem. Yes, there are those that argued on Rav Elyashiv, but honestly if it is not a Shayla in metzious rather a Shayla in Hilchos Kavua, there is a lot of weight to the opinion of Rav Elyashiv. This also fully disregards Rabbi Kuberโ€™s point (agav we are all still waiting for the source of his numbers).

    3- The Shayla whether or not it is possible to make Tikrovos Avoda Zara in a way that the galachim do not serve this Avoda Zara is a very basic Shayla that is lechoirah discussed in a mefurashe Mishna.
    Markulis was an Avoda Zara that was served by throwing stones at it. However, the Mishna writes that if you find on it Grapes or wheat stalks, it is assur because we are choshesh it is Tikrovos Avoda
    This is the lashon of the Rashba 51b
    “โ€ฆื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืœื›ืื•ืจื” ืืคื™’ ื‘ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ื›ืš ืžื™ื™ืจื™ ื“ื”ื ืžืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ืกืœื™ืง ื•ืกืชื ืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื• ืืœื ื‘ื–ืจื™ืงืช ืื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืคืจื›ื™ืœื™ ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืกืœืชื•ืช”
    It is mefurosh that although it is not the way to serve markulis with anavim and flour, it is still tikrovos Avoda Zara.
    This is also clear from the Gemara there that says:
    ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœืงืœื™ืŸ ืืคื™’ ืžื™ื ื•ืžืœื— ืืกื•ืจ
    Meaning that anything we find by the Avoda Zara is tikrovos, and there is no condition that it must be something that it is the derech to serve that way.
    The Rambam furthers this rule even more, that anything, even if it is not ke`in pnim, is assur because of Tikrovos Avoda Zara, if it is found in front of the Avoda Zara, see Rambam Hil. Avoda Zara 7, 21-22.

    The Rashba also writes that Parcheilei Anavim are only assur if we know that it is the derech to serve this Avoda Zara by cutting the anavim for it, but if it is not from the laws of this Avoda Zara, it is not assur unless we know it was cut. Meaning the Mishna is discussing the laws of what is found, and something that it is in the laws of this Avoda Zara to cut lishma is assur because we are choshesh that it was cut lishma, but if it is not in the laws it is still assur if we have the yediah that it was cut lishma. Zos Omeres, it is possible to serve Avoda Zara by cutting it and it even creates Tikrovos Avoda Zara, even if it is not included in this Avoda Zara laws.
    This is his full lashon:
    “ืคืจื›ื™ืœื™ ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื•ืขื˜ืจื•ืช ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืœื™ื. ืคื™ืจืฉื” ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื‘ื’ืž’ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื‘ืฆืจืŸ ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœื›ืš, ื›ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื—ื•ืงื™ื”ื ืœื‘ืฆืจืŸ ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœื›ืš, ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืœืคืจื•ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื“ืื™ ื“ื‘ืฆืจืŸ ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœื›ืš ื“ื”ื ืžืฆื ืงืชื ื™, ื•ืื•ืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื”ืจื‘ ื ”ืจ ื“ืืข”ื’ ื“ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื ื›ื ืก ืœืข”ื– ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื ืฉื—ื˜ ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœื›ืš, ื”ื›ื ืฉืื ื™ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืฆื•ืจ ืืœื ืžืžื” ืฉื‘ื•ืฆืจื™ืŸ ืžื›ืจืžื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืœื›ืš ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืชื•ืš, ื•ื”ื™ืœื›ืš ืืฃ ื‘ืคืจื›ื™ืœื™ ืขื ื‘ื™ื ืื™ ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ื ื ืงืคื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืงื™ื”ื ืœื‘ืฆื•ืจ ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœื›ืš ืืฃ ื”ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื”ื ืžืฆืื™ื ืฉื ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืขื“ ื“ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ืฆืจื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ืœื›ืš”.
    ื•ืžื‘ื•ืืจ ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืขืœ ืืฃ ืฉื›ืชื‘ ืฉืชืœื•ื™ ื‘ื—ื•ืงื•ืชื™ื”ื, ืž”ืž ื›ืœ ื”ื”ื™ืชืจ ืื ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื—ื•ืงื•ืชื™ื”ื ื”ื•ื ืจืง ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืื– ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืœื”ื ื™ื— ืฉื ื‘ืฆืจ ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื›ืš, ืื‘ืœ ืื ื™ื“ื™ืขื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืฆืจืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื›ืš, ืืคื™ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื“ืจืš ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื‘ื—ื•ืงื•ืชื™ื•, ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืฆืจืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื›ืš ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื”

    Another basic raya is the actual case of shviras makal, since it is talking about an Avoda Zara that the derech is with kishkush makal, and even so if one brakes a makal it is Avoda Zara and he is chayav misah even if the galach isnโ€™t maskim. Vsu lo midi.

    Now let us examine the rayos you brought otherwise.
    1- The gemara that says that a woman who accepted to serve every Avoda Zara in the world asked the comrim how do they serve baal peor. You brought a raya that you must do like the comrim.

    But it is not a raya bichlal, this woman wasnโ€™t trying to make tikrovos and make up a new Avoda Zara, all she wanted to do was to serve baal peor the way the “right” way, from where do you see that if she were to have served it contrary to galachโ€™s opinion it wouldnโ€™t have been Avoda Zara.
    2- The gemara that says that Savta ben alas served bal peor in a new way and the galachim praised it
    Again, there is no raya that if they would not have praised it that it would not constitute as Avoda Zara.
    So, what is the inyan of derech avodaso mentioned in the gemara and Shulchan aruch? Very simple. The halacha is that if you do the maysa of Avoda Zara even without accepting it as a god you are still chayav. The lashon of the gemara is:
    ื”ืคื•ืขืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื• ืืข”ื’ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ื–ื•ื™ ื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื• ืืข”ื’ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืžื™ืจื’ืžื™ื”
    Meaning that if you do the act of Avoda Zara without kavana you are chayav. See minchas chinuch 26,1 barichus. So, this is nogea only if you do derecho avodasa, like throwing a stone to markulis. But if you are mechavein to accept the Avoda Zara as a diety, no matter what you do, it is definitely Avoda Zara as the rambam writes about picking up a leveina. Vdoiโ€k.

    May 10, 2018 7:17 am at 7:17 am #1518819
    Chacham
    Participant

    4- Rabbi Bohm says that most of the Indianhair used for sheitels is not sourced from the temple, rather from hair combings. This is not true, as the hair combings are non-remi hair, and almost all sheitels are remi hair as was already pointed out.

    5- Also Rabbi Bohm indeed claims to know the story of their Avoda Zara loosing hair, but he claims that the say that the reason for tonsure is to make themselves bald similar to their Avoda Zara. Well, I have seen the story in countless places [I found a link to a PDF file with all the sources in the Mareh Makom page for show 167], and I have yet to see even one place that interpreted the way Rabbi Bohm said, so I challenge him to show us some of his โ€œoverwhelming majority of sourcesโ€

    6- Rabbi Bohm also claimed that only black hair comes from India, this is not true since they treat the black hair with an osmosis bath, which naturally changes the color without removing any of the cuticles. This is not to be confused with dyed hair, as this hair is much higher quality and lasts much longer. There is one company called Great Lengths that only buys temple hair from India and yet they have every color and shade of remi hair available.

    7- You keep mentioning Emma Tarlo as the one who researched the topic of Hindu hair for 30 years. Well, not exactly. She is an anthropologist, but mostly studied the code of dress by Muslims, and spent 3 years researching hair in all the religions. But this is not important.

    What is important is whether she has any neemanus lhalacha. If she was masiach lfi tumo it would be one thing, but all she is, is a liberal jew who is very bothered that the Rabbis should dare interfere with the way women wish to dress. This is extremely clear in her book many times. When contacted by email to request info, she wrote explicitly โ€œI sincerely hope that Jewish women will not be prevented from wearing wigs on the basis of mis-informationโ€ She also said in a recorded phone conversation: โ€œ…How terrible it would be if the poor Indian people would lose their income from the hair- how they need it so badly.โ€
    So first of all, she is not masiach lfi tumo, so zero neemanus. Secondly, she clearly has an agenda. And to top it, in various places she is soiser what she now claims.
    For example, in her book she writes: (of course she didn’t mention this at all in her interview):

    “โ€ฆthe official legend behind tonsuring at Tirumala. According to this tale, recounted on the temple’s website, the god Venkatateswara was wounded on the head by a blow from the axe of a cowherd. The injury left him with a bald patch which was soon covered by hair given by Princess Neela Devi, who cut some locks from her own head. Touched by the gesture, Venateswara declared that from that day on devotees would be tonsured at the site and their hair would be dedicated to Neela Devi.”

    She also wrote: (p. 78)
    Hair is a womanโ€™s beauty,โ€™ a woman with shoulder-length hair tells us as we step outside. โ€˜When she gives it to God, her beauty goes straight to him.โ€™
    She also wrote extensively that china does not import comb waste, since it is illegal, rather it all goes to Myanmar. now she was suddenly choizer, and all the hair in china from india is non remi hair.

    In an interview with BBC [Untangling where your hair extensions really come from, 11/1/2016]: “In terms of marketing it’s up to the integrity of traders all the way along the line to specify what hair is what. Quite a lot of mislabelling goes on and often the people buying it don’t ask questions anyway.”
    She also says there: “Hair from India was a staple supply for wig makers in Orthodox Jewish communities across Europe, the US and Israel – until 2004”

    What happened? Sheforgot to mention that it was really brush hair??
    She also mentions in her book: (p. 101).
    โ€˜It was a really bad time for us,โ€™ George Cherian of Raj Hair Intl tells me in India. โ€˜The Jews were important clients because they bought good quality remy hair, which is what we were getting from temples. In India, women love their hair and would never sell it. Instead they donate it. But the rabbis made a fuss, and that was the end of that.โ€™
    She also writes: (pg 102-103)
    As another Indian trader tells me, โ€˜I sell the hair as Indian but what the buyers do in their own countries, we cannot say. Those rabbis made it very difficult for Jewish women when they introduced the ban on Indian hair. Nowadays, hair has to travel a very long way before it gets to them!โ€™ It is not inconceivable that some of the hair sold in Europe as โ€˜Brazilianโ€™ or โ€˜Ukrainianโ€™ began life on Indian heads.

    Basically, when she wrote her book she was masiach lfi tumo and didn’t understand the ramifications of her words and she was very clear that sheitels did once use temple hair, and that the official reason for tonsure is that story. But when she understands the toikef of her words and is not masiach lfi tumo, her tune switches, vโ€™al zeh neemar, keivan shehigid shuv aino choizer umagid.

    May 10, 2018 7:19 am at 7:19 am #1518820
    Chacham
    Participant

    7- Last week Lee Weisman (who btw admitted in a phone conversation that he is totally unaware of the story of Avoda Zara loosing hairโ€ฆshoin a reyusa oib her iz taka aza groiseh mumcha, also you keep on changing whether he was in India for 6 years or six months. Make up your mind.) said that Indians answer a question the way that the asker wants to hear. Im kein, there is no significance to the whole interview with the priest, specifically because you put the words in his mouth.

    8- In interview with Rabbi Paskesz, you keep getting back to Rashi in Yevamos that says Tikrovos is a Doron. Indeed, rashi says that, but this in no way means that tikrovos is only a doron, rather the case of that shoe is that it was a doron to Avoda Zara, but there are also cases of Tikrovos Avoda Zara even if there is no Doron.

    The rayas for this is that any Shechita to Avoda Zara assurs the entire beheima as Tikrovos Avoda Zara even if there is no intention of giving beheima to AVODA ZARA.
    ื‘ืžืฉื ื” (ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื—:) ืžื‘ื•ืืจ ืฉืœื“ืขืช ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉืกืชื ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ื ื›ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืœืข”ื–, ื•ืขื•ื“ ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืคื ื™ื, ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ื›ืฉื ืฉื‘ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ [ืœื“ืขืช ืจ”ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™] ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืœืคืกื•ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ืŸ, ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืื•ืกืจืช ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืฉื•ื ืชืงืจื•ื‘ืช ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื”. ื•ืœื›ืŸ ืื ื™ืฉ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื—ืœืง ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉืœ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื”, ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืกืชื ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ื ื›ืจื™ ืœืข”ื–, ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ืชืงืจื•ื‘ืช ืข”ื–, ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื•ื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉื•ืชืฃ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืžื—ืฉื‘ืชื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืืกื•ืจ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื”. ื•ืืžืจ ืจ”ื ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืฉื “ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื—ื˜ื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ื’ื•ื™ ืžื—ืฆืจ ื›ื‘ื“ ืฉืœื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืคืกื•ืœื””, ื•ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืฉื ืฉื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืืฃ ืื ื”ื’ื•ื™ “ืื•ื›ืœ” ืžื”ื—ืฆืจ ื›ื‘ื“, ื•ืœื ืžืงื˜ื™ืจ ืžืžื ื• ืœืข”ื–, ื•ื—ืฆืจ ื›ื‘ื“ ืœืื• ื“ื•ื•ืงื ื›ืžืฉ”ื› ืชื•ืก’ ืฉื, ืืœื ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื—ืชื™ื›ื” ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื”. ื•ื›ืŸ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ื’ืž’ ืฉื ืœื˜: ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ืื ื”ื ื›ืจื™ ืจืง ื ืชืŸ ื–ื•ื–ื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืข”ืž ืœืงื‘ืœ ื—ืœืง ืžื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื”, ืื ื”ื•ื ื’ื•ื™ ืืœื™ื, ืื– ืžืขื•ืช ืงื•ื ื•ืช, ื•ืžื—ืฉื‘ืชื• ืคื•ืกืœืช ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”, ื™ืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื.
    ืžื‘ื•ืืจ ืžื›ืœ ื–ื” ืฉื”ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืœืข”ื– ืฉืื•ืกืจ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืื ืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ื•ื ืชื• ืœื”ืงื˜ื™ืจ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื”, ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืื ื›ื•ื•ื ืชื• ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืื•ืชื• ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื’ื•ื™ ืื•ืกืจืช ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื”. ื•ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขืœ ืจ”ื ืืœื ืื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืฉืžื ืกืชื ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ื ื›ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืœืข”ื–, ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื”ื’ื•ื™ ืžืคืจืฉ ืฉื”ื•ื ืขื•ื‘ื“ ืœืข”ื– ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”, ืœื›ื•”ืข ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ืชืงืจื•ื‘ืช ืข”ื– ื’ื ืื ืœื ื—ืฉื‘ ืขืœ ืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉื” ื”ืงืจื‘ื”, ื”ืจื™ ืฉืฉื™ื™ืš ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืชืงืจื•ื‘ืช ืข”ื– ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื’ื ืื ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืœื”ืงื˜ื™ืจ ืžืžื ื” ื›ืœื•ื.
    ื•ืขื•ื“ ืฆื™ื•ืจ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ืชืงืจื•ื‘ืช ืข”ื– ื‘ืœื™ ืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉื” ื ืชื™ื ื” ื”ื•ื ืฉื›ืฉื•ืš ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš. ืœื“ืขืช ื›ืžื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื (ืขื™’ ืจืฉ”ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื ื‘: ื“”ื” ืžื ืกืš, ื•ื›”ื” ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื. ื“”ื” ืฉื ื™ืกืš, ืชื•ืก’ ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉื) ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืฉื›ืฉืš ื™ื“ื• ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ืฉืœ ื”ืข”ื– ื ืืกืจ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ืขืœ ืืฃ ืฉืœื ื ื™ืกืš ืžืžื ื• ืœื”ืข”ื– ื›ืœื•ื. ื•ืขื™’ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืจื”ืฉ (ืข”ื– ืค”ื“ ื”ืœื›ื” ื™ื’) ืฉื›ืชื‘ “ืขื™ืงืจ ื ื™ืกื•ืš ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ื’ื‘ื”ื” ื•ื”ื•ืจืงื”… ื“ื•ืงื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื”, ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื”, ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ืœืฉืคื•ืš ืืœื ืœืฉื›ืฉืš” ืขื›”ืœ. ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ืชื‘ื• ื”ืจืื‘”ื“ (ืข”ื– ืขื“.), ื•ื”ืจื™ื˜ื‘”ื (ืข”ื– ืขื‘: ื“”ื” ื“ื ืจื’ืžื•ื”), ื•ื”ืืจื™ืš ื‘ื–ื” ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉืช ื—”ื ืกื•ืฃ ืกื™ืžืŸ ื›ื.

    That being the case by shechita, it follows that any cutting which is the tolda of shechita, also makes it tikroves Avoda Zara even without any mayse of giving like what Rabbi Paskesz said. Other cases of tikrovos Avoda Zara with an action of cutting making it assur without having any nesina to the Avoda Zara include:
    ื- ืคืจื›ื™ืœื™ ืขื ื‘ื™ื
    ื‘- ืื‘ื ื™ื ืฉื—ืชื›ื• ืœืฆื•ืจืš ื–ืจื™ืงืชืŸ ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก [ืžืื™ืจื™]
    ื’- ื”ื“ืก ืฉื ื—ืชืš ืœืข”ื– [ืจืฉ”ื™ ื™ื‘: ืข”ืค ืžืื™ืจื™ ืžื“:, ื•ืขื™”ืฉ ื‘ืชื•ืก’]
    ื“- ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื‘ืฆืจืŸ ืœืฆื•ืจืš ืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก [ืžืื™ืจื™, ื•ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื ื”]
    ื”- ืžื ืขืœ ืฉื ื—ืชืš ืœืฉื ืข”ื– [ืฉืื™ืœืชื•ืช ืคื—, ืžืื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉ ืชื•ืก’ ื—ื“ ืžืงืžืื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ืงื’:]
    ื•- ืฉื•ืคืจ ืฉื ื—ืชืš ืœืฉื ื”ืข”ื– [ืžืื™ืจื™ ืจ”ื” ื›ื—]
    ื–- ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื ื—ืชืš ืœืฉื ืข”ื– [ืจืžื‘”ืŸ ืจืฉื‘”ื ืจื™ื˜ื‘”ื ื‘ืฉื ื”ืจืื‘”ื“ ืข”ื– ื ื‘.]

    9- Rabbi Paskesz says that sheviras makal is an act of serving the Avoda Zara, you jump on him and say it is only tikrovos and not actual avoda. Rabbi Paskesz was only quoting the gemara, which you apparently are unaware of:
    “ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘, ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืžืงืœ, ืฉื‘ืจ ืžืงืœ ื‘ืคื ื™ื”, ื—ื™ื™ื‘, ื•ื ืืกืจืช
    The word chayav means that the one who does it is chayav misa, meaning he served the Avoda Zara. Any act of giving tikrovos is an act of serving the Avoda Zara. Being that he is only quoting a gemara which you are unaware of, it is extremely unfitting of you to tell him to go learn the sugya and that he doesnโ€™t know what he is talking about. I am sorry for saying this, but he actually spent some time on the sugya and the Rishonim and he isnโ€™t the one who has no clue about the sugya and is parroting the mareh mekomos prepared for by someone else.

    10- Your whole argument the whole time is that it is tallui in the way the priest think it is fitting to serve it. That being the case, when Mrs. Berger quotes the TTD who actually run the temple, you canโ€™t get a bigger clarity than that. Even if there is a tzad that Avoda Zara is really talui in the way the galach thinks, there is no tzad that it is tallui in what biased Emma Tarlo from London thinks. And the TTD who actively run the temple, have a lot more of a de’ah in what the Avoda Zara is than some random priest living in America.

    11- You mention quickly in the beginning of the show that there is two taaruvos, and therefore it is muttar. Basic mistake. The case of 2 taaruvos is only when a ring gets mixed into 1000 rings and one of the rings separates, and then falls into another taaruvos. But when the 1000 rings fall into 10,000 rings, it is still the same taaruvos. Following, since the hair mixed in India is never porish from the taaruvos, rather the whole taruvos gets remixed, the hetter of 2 taaruvos does not apply. ื•ื›ืŸ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื™ื•ืกืฃ (ืกื™’ ืง”ืž), ื•ื–”ืœ: “ื•ื›ื‘ืจ ื›ืชื‘ืชื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื’ืžืจื ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืง”ื™ (ืงืขื“. ื“”ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื) ื•ื ืชื‘ืืจ ืฉื ื“ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื•ืงื ื›ืฉืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ื”ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื ืชืขืจื‘ ืขื ืื—ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืื ืจื•ื‘ ื”ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื ืชืขืจื‘ ืขื ืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืกืคืง ืกืคื™ืงื, ื•ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื›ื•ืœื ืืกื•ืจื™ื” ืขื›”ืœ.
    There is much more to be maarich, but I will stop here.

    May 10, 2018 7:21 am at 7:21 am #1518824
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    The arguments about the amounts are a bit confusing. It seems like nobody can follow the actual trail, for some reason. The Matirim mention the fact that the type of quality coming from these sites should be very expensive and it doesn’t match the prices of the hair we get. Also, experts on the matter quote a small amount of hair being produced by this center.

    Osrim say that the inports/exports aren’t traceable since they can be redundant. Global numbers for exports can include what was sold and resold. Also, that there are many places that do the tansurs and the experts’ number are about one of them. Additionaly, one Rav says that the experts is openly biased on the matter and is therefore trying to keep the sales going.

    May 10, 2018 7:25 am at 7:25 am #1518833
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    As to the intention of the practitioners, it seems like there is more than one story. Westerners who have spent time there say that they only do it as a means to cleanse themselves and to help them get rid of their ego and pride.

    There is, however, some mythological ideas that surround the practice as well. They have a legend about a deity that got hair from another co-deity and that it promised something to all who ‘donate’ their hair.

    The Osrim point to this legend as proof that it is being donated to the deity. The retort to this is that the hair never goes inside to the deity and it used to be discarded, and only recently had they begun selling it.

    I haven’t heard a satisfactory response to the fact that this legend does exist, other than just saying that it’s not the main reason or real reason. Although he had a Hindu priest on the show, he didn’t ask him about this legend and its prominence. On the other hand, the Osrim say that the idea of cleansing and humility doesn’t take away from the Avoda aspect; it’s an added reason. We have such examples in Judaism as well.

    Another point to be Mattir is, even assuming the idea is religious, it still isn’t a gift to the deity the way the present candy etc. to it, they do it in a separate area from their idol, and it is part of the preparation of visiting the idol.

    The Osrim point out that to be considered Takroves Avoda Zara it doesn’t have to be in the presence of the idol. Additionally, Takroves doesn’t have to mean that it is presented to it and placed there. Just breaking the item for it is already a Takroves.

    So, this leaves room for a discussion of whether or not any religious rite (of an idol-worshipping religion) that includes breaking is a Takroves or only when it is done as a means to give it up for the idol.

    The issue of the multiple motivations for tansuring has to be cleared up. So far, it hasn’t been cleared up, other than discrediting the other side and pulling rank.

    But, what I noticed while listening to the Hindu priest, was that he was describing the ego removing idea in religious terms. It sounded more like the hair ‘represents’ ego concepts and the head is the seat of cosmological reality… Westerners don’t get this talk and hear words about ego and humans and translate it to western social ideas.

    That’s enough for now.

    May 10, 2018 11:37 am at 11:37 am #1518959
    Uncle Ben
    Participant

    Haleivi: Where does lehavdil the inyan of bitul hayesh figure in this muddled morass or better in this knotted entanglement?

    May 10, 2018 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm #1518987
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    If an avoda Zara had a practice similar to our Saair Laazazel (lehavdil obviosuly). IS that mangled corpse of a goat assur?

    May 10, 2018 1:37 pm at 1:37 pm #1519028
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Ubquitin, I’m pretty sure it would be, even according to the Matirim. Our case is more subtle since it might not be a form of worship per se but only a rite, if the two can be separated.

    Now, the example rabbis Friedman and Paskez gave about the Korban Pesach is not really a good example. They said that although we have a reason for the Korban Pesach โ€” to remember how Hashem spared us โ€” it’s not up to us to commemorate that in another form instead and it is a Korban like any other. From this they wanted to show that even if there is a rationale about ego and humility they still only go about it in a very specific way which tells us that it’s a rite and not merely a means of humility.

    However, although the point has merit, the example from a Korban Pesach is not a good one. The Korban Pesach is a Korban simply because it is actually a sacrifice. It is a Korban eve if I brought it for no reason at all.

    Just to clarify the thing with breaking the stick: The Halachah is that placing an offer in front of an idol will only be considered Takroves Avoda Zara if it fulfills one of two requirements. Either it has to be an item which we would bring inside the Azara to be Makriv, or it has to be the breaking of an item which is recognized by that specific religion.

    Rabbi Friedman, on the show, said that this breaking is Takroves even if it wasn’t done with any purpose. This sounds ridiculous. But rather, although it is not a prescribed ritual to break that item, if one does break that item in servitude and it is an item that is used in some way to worship, then it becomes Assur as a Takroves.

    May 10, 2018 1:37 pm at 1:37 pm #1519029
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Another basic raya is the actual case of shviras makal, since it is talking about an Avoda Zara that the derech is with kishkush makal, and even so if one brakes a makal it is Avoda Zara and he is chayav misah even if the galach isnโ€™t maskim. Vsu lo midi.

    Well, I have a ‘midi’. That is only true because the makal is already part of it’s Derech. In this case, if according to the priests the hair is not part of any Avoda then even breaking it and placing it in the idols hand would not make it Takroves. This is how the Rosh and Tur explain the Gemara.

    May 10, 2018 1:37 pm at 1:37 pm #1519032
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    10- Your whole argument the whole time is that it is tallui in the way the priest think it is fitting to serve it. That being the case, when Mrs. Berger quotes the TTD who actually run the temple, you canโ€™t get a bigger clarity than that. Even if there is a tzad that Avoda Zara is really talui in the way the galach thinks, there is no tzad that it is tallui in what biased Emma Tarlo from London thinks. And the TTD who actively run the temple, have a lot more of a deโ€™ah in what the Avoda Zara is than some random priest living in America.

    Absolutely. This is called argument of authority. When he couldn’t challenge her account of a direct contact he switched to saying how dare you disagree with a professor. He tried to make fun and referred to her ‘Google research’ after she had explained that she spoke directly to them. (Why didn’t he do that, BTW.)

    IF anyone wants to know how well western anthropologists understand their subject matter, just read up on how they describe us.

    May 11, 2018 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm #1519349
    Uncle Ben
    Participant

    Haleivi; I’m awaiting your response to my profound question! ๐ŸŒ
    I now have another question. Should we throw the sheitlach into the ๐Ÿ”ฅ or just the advertisements for the Headlines show?

    May 11, 2018 1:18 pm at 1:18 pm #1519383
    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    I don’t get the argument on most hair coming from combing. There’s no bittul b’rov with avodah zara, is there?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.