Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur

OK mr. goan, you claim that the chshash that sheitels are from avoda zara is baseless.
which of the following points do you tayne?
1- Rav Karp Rav A. Auerbach Rav S Rosenberg Rav M. Sternbuch etc. don’t know what they are talking about, and they just want klal yisrael to loose money for no reason.
2- since there are people involved with an agenda, even if there is no good answer we can disregard anything and we can make believe that thosse who are pro-heitels have absolutely no agenda in making sure they aren’t assur, even though it is a loss of thousands of dollars.
3- Rav Elyashiv Rav Wosner Rav Karelitz don’t know how to learn a sugya, and really there is no chshash even if the facts are as they claim.
4- the temples websites and other sources are not neeman to tell us what the goyim believe’ and although they all say precisely what Rav Elyashiv heard from Dayan Dunner, we can disregard what they say and be somech on certain jews who are bigger mumchas than the temples website.
5- Most hair doesn’t come from India, and The UN comtrade that claims that most does is just anti sheitels

“הכתר הכבוד לחי עולמים”

I had a look at the sefer, (just google it) it seems like another one of those with an agenda and misquoting/applying irrelevant teshuvos and psakim.

Many of those have been circulating here and there and, some by some previous poster/s. From what I see its mainly quotes (or misquotes) and stories, that should not be relied upon when considering psak.

You should really learn through the sources thoroughly and then comment.

No one will like this. I seriously think we should drop this subject. It is amazing in this day and age that women cover their hair altogether. If nice, natural long sheitels are permitted, more women are willing to cover their hair when they get married. Men should look away when outside, if they have a problem with those sheitels.

Chochm,

“but to disreagrd the view of rav elyashiv rav vosner rav karelitz ‘

Asides that in this situation, there is no psak in place, as above. I carefully worded it:
“all who are “campaigning” against Sheitlach – i.e. campaigning NOT the ones that are against leHalacha., There are definitely people here and in other places campaigning against any Sheitels, and are campaigning against the AZ as well, just follow the commentators and you will see. (Note, they will comment under diff names as well).

This is an ongoing issue as many have spoken about it, more in EY, about the heavy campaign against all sheitels, including the families of Rav Elyashiv and R SZA. Read the earlier comments.

I will re-quote from an earlier post:

“The reason why married women cover their hair”
“Do you know why the Halacha is that women must cover their hair?”

I will quote one of the previously great Gadolim who lived 250 years ago – The Rav of Mitz and was a Talmid muvhak of the Shages Aryeh (who was also previously Rav of Mitz):

:הגאון רבי אהרן וירמש זצ״ל, רב ואב״ד בעיר מיץ בספר ״מאורי אור’

״נשים לעולם מכסו. בחיבור הגאון באר שבע, מוכיח מהנה לאסור פאה נכרית ,דא״כ גם הן שחורי הראש וצווח מאוד להחמיר, נגד הרמ״א בדרכי משה.. .ולדברינו ב״באר שבע״, לכ״ע שרי בחיבור בגד הנראה בחוץ ולא גרע ממלבוש, ואף שהגאון חשבו לדוחק, אך שפיר קאמינא התם שהכל משתעי בציבור שיער ולא בחיבור רצועה ובגד כהני דידן, וא״כ אזדו כל תלונותיו

וגם החוש מכחיש, דשיער אינו הרהור כגילוי שוק וקול זמר – והלא לא אסרו לקרות כנגד פנים יפות. אלא על כרחך – שיער [נאסר] מטעם כמוס, שליטת הקליפה, ואינו תימהון דוקא במחובר. וכמו בשיער אשה מונח לפניו, אינו כלום .וכמה דברים שלא נגלו טעמם… אלא טעמם ונימוקם עמם.
והאליה רבה באורח חיים סי ע״ה בשם מהר״ם אלשקר מתיר לגלות חוץ לצמתם, וזאת לא מסתברא .דבפ״ו דשבת ״כליא פרוחי״, ובדף ס׳ פרש״י ״מחט לצניעות, דשיער באשה ערוה״, ואדרבה ראוי לאסור.

אבל פאה נכרית מסתברא להיתר, כדין רבינו הרמ״א. ונהניתי שמצאתי המג״א שם כתב להתיר, שדברי הגאון באר שבע הם דברים דחויים. וגם מתני דשבת פאה נכרית מוכח דשרי, דאין לפרש שמכוסה מתחת הסבכה, דהא מוכח בדף ס״ד ע״ב שמגולה כפירוש רש״י שמחכו עלה״

– מאורי אור חלק קן טהור, דף קצ״ד ע״א-

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=10108&st=&pgnum=392

As you cans see he clearly states that there is NO specific reason why it’s considered an Erveh:

אלא על כרחך – שיער [נאסר] מטעם כמוס, שליטת הקליפה, ואינו תימהון דוקא במחובר. וכמו בשיער אשה מונח לפניו, אינו כלום .וכמה דברים שלא נגלו טעמם

Gaon, the reason the girls go with uncovered hair is like the Aruch Hashulchon 75:7 allows a man to daven in front of a married woman with uncovered hair but not anything else because we are used to it, so there is no hirhur. If hair is a true erva, what is the difference?

The Aruch Hashulchon above brings the sevoro of the Mordechai in the name of the Ravye. He applies the logic to married women which the Mishneh Berurah argues but for girls they agree.
Check their view where they start with erva finish with hirhur.

“goan”
“It is strange that IF it is true indeed, where are ALL the Gedolim? Where is Rav N Kareltz, Rav Chaim K. etc.”

Rav Nissim Karelitz is not well. however his beis din did indeed write a letter recently, and they too hold it is a vry big cshash now.
“Again, the main issue are indeed the facts, Rav Belsky and others disputed Rav Dunners version. In fact, to have a clearly understanding you do have to be a “Mumcha” in the facts. You can not decide just by asking a few individuals and the sites.”

Rav dunner, as well as another shliach sent by Rav Karelitz said that the avoda zara likes hair. Rav Belsky claimed that they are doing it to remove ego and nothing more. Today, as opposed to 2004, if you want to know what a religion believes you can use the internet.
on wikipedia it says :
“Many devotees have their head tonsured as “Mokku”, an offering to God. The daily amount of hair collected is over a ton.[26] As per legend, when Lord Venkateswara was hit on his head by a shepherd, a small portion of his scalp became bald. This was noticed by Neela Devi, a Gandharva princess. She felt “such an attractive face should not have a flaw”. Immediately, she cut a portion of her hair and, with her magical power, implanted it on his scalp. Lord Venkateswara noticed her sacrifice. As hair is a beautiful asset of the female form, he promised her that all his devotees who come to his abode would offer their hair to him, and she would be the recipient of all the hair received. Hence, it is believed that hair offered by the devotees is accepted by Neela Devi.”
that is clear that the getchka wants the hair, not that it is only an avt o fremoving ego.
you don’t need to be an expert to figure that out

GAON,
you don’t have to rely on wikipedia, my point is how available the info is.
Chances have it that the temples management has there own website, which says the same thing, and there are countless other sources.
but either way what you wrote is such a horrible cop out.
seriously, a temple that 25 million people visit a year, there is a neemanus, if somebody switches it it will be swiitched back. besides, even if there is no neemanus, do you have a neemanus Farkert??? is it punkt by chance that wikipedia says the same thing Dayan Dunner said??

” you have to be choshesh hair from anywhere is a taaruvos of indian and you can’t even be somech on the hechsher.”

That is not what most other Rabanim held at the time of the Issur, incl Rav Nisim K, Rav S Wosner.. All paskened that you can rely on a Hechsher.

Again, is there any new development in this issue that has changed since then, as per these Rabanim who relied on Hechsherim?

I didn’t see any proclamation from Rav Moshe sternbuch as well.

please if you are totally not knowledgeable on the subject it is ok, but don’t claim that there is no makom to be choshesh. and if there is a makom to be choshesh, obviously the correct approach is to burn them.

Chacom,

No way can you rely on Wiki anything religious as a representative ! especially if you have no clue of any inside info. Perhaps there are many other sects and this represents only a fraction, or it is only some Myth. Even Rav Belsky agreed there were “some” who ‘offered’ their hair, no one denied it, the issue in concern was IF “Avodoso BeKach” or is it the individuals own interpretation …

Here are quotes from other sites on why they preform the above:

“I do not know the mythological significance & I too gave my hair To The Lord. But I have my own interpretation to this tradition. You would agree if I say hair are the most loved parts of our body & it applies more to women.
When you sacrifice your most dearly thing it shows that you you love God above all the worldly things. Thus it confirms your devotion to the Lord as well as increases your will power.”

“Similarly, tonsuring the head and offering hair at Tirupati Balaji’s temple is done with a special purpose. While offering hair, a devotee casts off all the vices, vanities and sins from his whole being. By doing so, he/she wants to become a complete devout. This is laso done so that, Shri Balaji, who is all benevolent, showers all his love, benevolence, affection and piety over the devotee by fulfilling all his/her desires.”

“Nothing. It is just their belief or opinion of elders or a custom adopted. It is symbolic.
The real mundan is removing false thoughts from the mind. False thoughts or thoughts of the lust, anger, greed, etc, have to be shaved off.”

“nymous
Answered Nov 13, 2014
I had once asked a priest in Tirupati Temple regarding this and he said that hair is a symbolism of power and pride. In olden days, kings used to grow long hair it seems. So when a devotee gets his head shaved for the sake of god, he is renouncing his pride and power.”

“In older days, people followed the tradition of offering hairs in their own houses but now-a-days people visit a place close to Shri Balaji’s temple, known as Kalyan Katta, for a ceremony to donate hair. After the ceremony, devotees take a plunge in the holy river of Pushkarini and visit the temple to offer prayers and to receive Shri Balaji’s blessings. ”

NOTE : the above is an important factor, as it indicates that the originality of the ceremony was not even performed within their houses of worships. Which is a significant factor to determine the above question if is Takrovat AZ or not, as written in all responses at the time..

Just search “Why is it believed to do Mundan (donating Hair) to Lord Tirupati Balaji? What is the story/significance behind it?”

To Be Cont.

It is beating around the bush to make this a shayla how accurate wikipedia is. do some research yourself. google “tonsure tirumala temple” and see what the results are.
And then tell me it is a total coincidence that both, rav dunner, and rav karelitz’s shliach came to the same conclusion .
Vadai the pashtus is like what i wrote that the getchka wants hair, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise
and btw what is written on upsherin’s is actually quite accurite, aval ain can mekomo

your only hochacha is because that you never heard anybody say anything, therefore Rav Chaim Meir Vosner is no longer neeman to proclaim what his fathers position is?
Rav Gross gives a hechsher, and rav Moshe shternbuch holds it isn’t good. but that isn’t really the nidon being that 90% of sheitels don’t have a hechsher to begin with.
and there are plenty of new michtavim from this year. I can’t help if you are uninformed

“And then tell me it is a total coincidence that both, rav dunner, and rav karelitz’s shliach came to the same conclusion .”

As I said, NO ONE denies that there are some who think so, and no one is disputing that Rav Dunner heard such talk. The question is if that is the overall official belief or some myth etc, which will make that “sacrifice” as Ayn Avoduso B’kach and thus invalid as Takruvot AZ.

“Vadai the pashtus is like what i wrote that the getchka wants hair, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise”

Wiki is again NO Vadai, Rav Belsky and many others did thorough research at the time and found the facts NOT like Rav Dunner.

At the most we can assume its a Safek and thus apply it to all that are Safek Sheitlach.

Here is another quote from a professional Indian :

““Caitanya Charan[official], Spiritual mentor, author of 1600 articles on Gita & 16 books on Vedic philosophy

Originally Answered: Why do people give their hair when they go to Tirupati Balaji?

We offer our hair to Balaji to express our love for him.

Love is expressed in two ways: by what we give to our beloved and by what we give up for the sake of our beloved. For example, children can show their love for their parents by studying well and giving them a glowing report card. And they can also show their love by giving up playing before exams so as to focus on studies. Similarly, we can express our devotion for God by giving him precious things like jewels and also by giving up for his sake those things that distract us from him.

One prominent distraction is hair. Though we may say that hair is dirty, we consider it dirty only after it is cut off from the head. As long as it is on the head, we consider it a sign of beauty – a part of our hairstyle. We often obsess over it, arranging it, combing it and peeking frequently into a mirror to see if it needs to be re-arranged. Our obsession with hair makes us more infatuated with our body and thereby distracts us from deeper spiritual contemplation.

That’s why the Vedic-wisdom tradition urges us to curb this distraction. In keeping with this guideline, monks shave their heads permanently. The rest of us are recommended to at least shave our head when we go on a pilgrimage. By this, we express our devotion to God by giving up for his sake that which is so dear to us: our beloved hair. For women especially, this is no small sacrifice.

When we shave our head thus at Tirupati, what does Balaji see when the door to his house open? He is not baal-graahi; he is bhaava-graahi (He is eager not for hair, but for devotion). He doesn’t see kale baal, saphed baal, dandruff waale baal (He doesn’t see black hair, white hair, dandruff-infested hair). He sees the sacrifice, the devotion, the faith that is expressed through that hair.

Even a swan can separate milk from water and accept just the milk. God is the supreme hamsa, the paramahamsa. Why can he not separate the devotion from the hair and accept the devotion? If we think he can’t, then that’s probably because we can’t see beyond the dandruffs to the devotion.

Does this ritual make a business out of our faith? Not at all.

Anyone with even introductory knowledge of Indian traditions knows that the tradition of offering hair at a pilgrimage long predates the modern business of mass-producing wigs. Due to the popularity of wigs in today’s world, discarded human hair is in great demand. If the hair that for centuries was just being brushed away as waste can be easily recycled to gain money for opening schools,hospitals and orphanages, then what’s wrong with that? As it is, many modern people are going to spend money on wigs. Why not let that money come to God and through him go to the needy? It is not that the ritual of shaving the hair was createdto make money by selling hair. Such a notion arises from one’s ignorance of history. So the practice of cutting hair is primarily meant to give us an opportunity for expressing our devotion to God by sacrificing something dear for his sake. The money that is made out of the hair is just an incidental byproduct.

ye shraddha ka dhanda nahi hai, ye waste ka dhanda hai. akalmandi ki baat hai. (This does not make a business out of our faith. It makes a business out of waste matter. It is an intelligent thing.)” ”

Another link of Rav Dunners accounts vs the facts, written by Rav Menashe Klein:

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13615&st=&pgnum=33

Which point from Rav Belsky’s teshuva did I fail to understand?
[וצע”ג איזה נאמנות יש לה אם היא כבר הבינה שהיהודים מפסיקים לקנות מהם מחשש ע”ז, כמו שאמרה בפירוש] who said:

C,
I will just comment on a few points for now.

“to accuse Rav K ”

Who wrote or mentioned names? Can you please keep names out of it.

Yes – there could be Negios to be Machmir – and Negios is NOT lying, it is an approach on how to tackle the problem.

“the opinion that a mitpachat is better is the opinion of many many rabbanim”

That is not the point. I hope you understand the diff – To go ahead and write an official letter is a diff level. You want to be machmir – Kol haKovod, but you don’t go ahead and write Letters for the public to be ‘machmir’, when the minhag has already been established by all Gadolim of the previous generation, including the Chazon Ish. Briskert Rav and Rav Moshe etc. If one asks you and you know the situation – kol hakavod.
Rav Elyashiv never wrote anything – all they have is conflicting reports, nor has Rav SZ written anything, and rightfully so.

Here is how Daas Torah works:

I will re-post what הגאון רבי יצחק ירוחם בורודיאנסקי שליט”א, משגיח בישיבת קול תורה, ראש כולל “ישיבת הר”ן” בירושלים וחתן הגרש”ז אויערבאך זצ”ל said:

“למי שיש כבר דעה מוקדמת שאסור – קשה מאד לדבר עמו.

למעשה, אספר לכם סיפור שפעם אשתי שתהיה בריאה, עם הרבנית לאה ע”ה אויערבך שהיא בת של הרב אלישיב, עמדו ודברו ביניהן ואמרו – ‘מה עושים מאתנו – מורדות בהורים שלנו’? הדבר הכי גדול זה שרואים על הבנות של הרבנים איך הן מתנהגות, רק שלפעמים בנות הולכות בכיוון הלא נכון – אז אנו יודעים, אבל אצל שני הגדולים האלו – הכיבוד אב היה חזק מאד, אז בעצם המעשים יותר גדולים מדיבורים.
…….

נחזור לעניננו מה שנוגע למעשה – הפאות היו אצלו לכתחילה, אין בזה שום בעיה, ולבנות הטובות שלו הוא נתן פאות ולא הסתייג מזה, בתנאי כפול שיהיה צנוע… הרבנית של ר’ שמואל עליה השלום – היא מהבית הלכה עם מטפחת…

ומה שנוגע לרב אלישיב, אני בעצמי שמעתי בהקלטה מה שהרב אלישיב דיבר בשיעור, ושם פשוט הציבור לא תפסו את הענין – הוא דיבר נגד פאות פרוצות, וכשאמר ‘לא כמו הפאות שנוהגות היום’ – התכוין שפאה זה מותר… אבל ב’הפאות של היום’ – הוא התכוון לפאות פרוצות, אבל על הפאות הצנועות הוא לא דיבר שם. והם לקחו את הדברים וטשטשו אותם!

אני בעצמי שמעתי את ההקלטה כמה פעמים בצורה מדוייקת, ושם הוא דיבר נגד פאות פרוצות, והוא קרא לזה ‘הפאות של היום’ ולא התכון כמו הפאות הצנועות של היום, אלא “איך שברחוב הולכים היום”, אבל הפאות הצנועות – הוא לא היה נגד, כמו שסיפרתי שהבת שלו הצדקת הרבנית לאה ע”ה הלכה עם פאה.

היה מקובל אצלנו, אני לא יכול להגיד שממש זה גם על דעתו אבל כך היה מקובל בבית, שיש עדיפות ללכת עם פאה. כי הפרקטיקה מראה שנשים שהולכות עם מטפחת – יש להן בעיה נפשית עם זה, וזה מתפרץ אצלהן בדברים אחרים – והדברים האחרים הם לא צנועים כל כך. אם הולכים עם פאה – אז רגועים ואין בעיה, לכן אצלנו מקובל שיש עדיפות אפילו ללכת עם פאה.

הרב אלישיב אמר למישהו כשהיה ספק על הפאות מהודו, ובבני ברק מספק הורידו את הפאות, אז כשפנו לרב אלישיב שזה ספק דאורייתא לאסור, הוא אמר ‘אתה יודע מה זה להוריד לאשה את הפאה – זה להוריד לה את הראש – איך אתה יכול מספק לעשות את זה…’ תמיד צריך את המשקל הנכון. הגדולים זה לא רק ההלכה – אלא שיקול הדעת הנכון, להעמיד כל דבר במקום ובמשקל הנכון. זה גדולי ישראל”.

There is nothing wrong with trying to be matir it – any A”H can be a Machmir. There is a reason why all Gadolim were NOT machmir on PN, including the Brisker Rav and all his children. Vayin Kan Mekomo
(I probably posted some in one of the earlier comments… )

Again, this an approach of a true Gaon and Gadol:

הרב אלישיב אמר למישהו כשהיה ספק על הפאות מהודו, ובבני ברק מספק הורידו את הפאות, אז כשפנו לרב אלישיב שזה ספק דאורייתא לאסור, הוא אמר ‘אתה יודע מה זה להוריד לאשה את הפאה – זה להוריד לה את הראש – איך אתה יכול מספק לעשות את זה…’ תמיד צריך את המשקל הנכון. הגדולים זה לא רק ההלכה – אלא שיקול הדעת הנכון, להעמיד כל דבר במקום ובמשקל הנכון. זה גדולי ישראל”.

I am not saying there is NO makom leHachmir, but to go out and fully campaign as all that are not Machmir are Oiver on whatever is a total diff story.

Yes and I still hold by my opinion – Extremism is taking over, and that is from BOTH ends.

in all your arichus i didnt see any answer l’inyan.
you get off topic to discuss pn in general which is totally irrelevant, because even if in your eyes Rav karp has negiyos, or whatever other terminology you might call it, it doesn’t answer for anybody else.
all i learned is that i totally missed the boat inn the sugya. . maybe explain. And can i ask did you ever even learn the sugya? or you saw a few teshuvos?

And why is it relevant that there is an old avoda zara that they once gave hair too?

“in all your arichus i didnt see any answer l’inyan.”

Answered what?

The only question you asked was:
“And why is it relevant that there is an old avoda zara that they once gave hair too?”

I see I have to spell it out clear. Lets go back:

You stated – “it is still tikrovos avoda zara, since korbonas are exactly the same, as it says countless times in tanach, וירמיה (ז, כב) אמר “כי לא דברתי את אבותיכם ולא ציוויתים ביום הוציאי אותם מארץ מצרים על דברי עולה וזבח].”

I answered –

“NOTE: The concept of Hair offering is not new. See below link by haGoani Rav Y Soloveitchik:)
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13614&st=&pgnum=77

Even according to Rav Dunner if the above is the case it is fine, and I do recall that Rav Elyashiv and Rav SZ had originally mattir it (as recorded in his Teshuvos) based on the above facts”

If you would bother clicking on the link, you will see It is clear from the above Rishonim quoted by Rav Yitzchok Soloveitchik Shlita that it is NOT like ‘Shviras Makol’ etc and is thus not Takrvos A”Z, so whatever you are comparing it to Karbanos is totally off from all aspects.

Vayin Kan Mekomo leHarich…

gaon, you obvously don’t know what you are talking about.
you quoted article that says reason for tonsure is to show devotion. I answered so what, the same thing can be said about karbanos. so now you tayne cutting hair isn’t kein shvirah.
what shaychus? if that is true than it makes no difference what they think since it won’t be tikrovos mimah nafshach, so why did you bother bringing the article???

eleh mai you are saying a new tayne. ok
you were trying to say that cutting hair isn’t כעין זביחה. that is a tayna that not rav elyashiv and not rav belsky made, and for a good reason, because it is tzarich iyun gadol.
there is absolutely no tnai that it has to involve shvirah. the meiri and rabeinu chananal writes any maaseh chituch is included. this vadai includes hair. the rashba also writes that lisha of bread is kein shvira.
this tayne was answered very clearly in many other teshuvos.

there is no kuntz to give links to teshuvos that say one way when i can give links to teshuvos that answer those teshuvos.

According to the sofek sefako we don’t need bitul but if it is truly takruvas a”z bitul should not help.

according to the Rambam a”z 7:9 a”z asur bemashehu so
how is there bitul?

You mean the Rambam of Takruves AZ (Halacha 16). See the Bais Shlomo (link below) in the beg. of Teshuvah 30 addressing that Rambam.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=611&st=&pgnum=41&hilite=

As I stated before I don’t understand the logic because only a vaday needs bitul but a sofek does not.