By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com
This past Motzaei Shabbos in his weekly shiur, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rav Yitzchok Yosef shlita, voiced his opinion that sheitels are forbidden, even those with a hechsher. [Rav Yosef is one of the leading halachic Poskim in Israel.] According to a report in Arutz Sheva:
Rabbi Yosef stated that his own investigation found indisputable evidence that the hair used in the wigs sold to the haredi public comes from “idolatrous” rituals.
“I looked carefully into the matter, using every possible means. It became clear, one hundred percent certain, that the hair comes from idolatry. A person who buys a wig and brings it into their home cannot complain afterwards what terrible things happen to them. See, you brought idolatry into your home.”
The Chief Rabbi further criticized the practice of wearing wigs on the grounds of modesty.
“What does the Torah mean when it says ‘let the hair of the woman’s head go loose’ ? We learn from here that a woman must wear a hair covering, for modesty. What kind of ‘modesty’ did the Torah refer to? With a wig? I’m not talking about Halacha [Jewish law], I’m talking about common sense. This is modesty? This is the madness of girls.”
WHY THERE IS BASIS TO BE LENIENT
Although the leniency for sheitels is, in fact, rather shaky these days because of the Avodah Zarah problem, respectively, it is this author’s contention that there is enough halachic leniency to be lenient.
Here is why:
Tonsuring, the halachic issue under discussion, is when women cut off all of their hair in a temple for religious purposes. A few years ago, frum Jews across the world stopped wearing sheitels with hair that could have come from these temples. Eventually, the issue settled with many of the wig manufacturers obtaining supervision from Rabbis stating that the source of the hair was permitted.
The issue had cropped up again yesterday. It also came up some three years ago, and there is a growing movement in both Eretz Yisroel and in some American communities to forbid it again.
WHAT DO THOSE WHO FORBID IT HOLD?
Many Rabbonim are convinced that it is highly likely that virtually all hair in sheitels, no matter the origin – contain Indian temple hair that is Takroves Avodah Zarah – from which it is forbidden to benefit. The issues of Takoreves Avodah Zarah, offerings given on the worship of idols are discussed in Shulchan Aruch Yore Deah 139:6. It is based on the Gemorah in Avodah Zarah 59b.
Those who forbid it believe that Indian temple hair is so ubiquitous, that it has found its way into almost every geographical location where sheitels are made. The hair is stripped of its pigment in a near month-long process and supposedly sold to other markets to augment their stocks of hair. [This latter point, however, is disputed by other industry experts that this author has interviewed.]
Three years ago, a letter, signed by a number of Israel-based Rabbonim, was posted in shuls across the New York area. The letter was signed by Rav Chaim Meir HaLevi Vosner, the Rav and Av Beis Din of Zichron Meir; Rav Sriel Rosenberg a Raavad in Bnei Brak; Rav Yehudah Silman, an Av Beis Din in Bnei Brak; Rav Shimon Bodni, Chaver, Moetzes Chochmei haTorah, and Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp of Modiin.
The letter states that no hechsher on sheitels are effective because it is impossible to truly know the origin of the hair and that temple hair comprises the overwhelming majority of hair for human hair wigs.
That Kol Koreh, believe it or not, quotes a person named “Vince Selva” of the “Indo Asian Human Hair International Inc.” company who makes a number of claims about temple hair. The Kol Koreh also lists 25 alleged “Facts” about the human hair industry
WHAT IS THEIR REAL INTENT?
This author was present with Rav Belsky zt”l when he both researched the issue and when he discussed the issue of Avodah Zarah with the Poskim in Eretz Yisroel. Dayan Dunner’s research was that the Indian women were actually giving their hair as an offering to “the gods” and that the hair was, therefore, considered Takroves Avodah Zarah – something that the Torah forbids. The research of others, including that of Rav Belsky zt”l was that the women were offering to shave their hair as a sign of devotion and that the hair was not an offering per se. According to their understanding, the hair is not an offering and is therefore permitted.
This author’s own research at the time, speaking to representatives of India at the Indian consulate, also indicated that it was not an offering per se. Rav Belsky zatzal discussed other reasons for permitting it in his Sefer Shulchan HaLevi page 438 where letters back and forth with Rav Elyashiv zatzal are printed.
THERE ARE TWO REASONS
Subsequent research done by this author revealed that there are indeed Hindu pilgrim women who offer their hair for both reasons. Some offer their hair as a sign of surrendering one’s ego. Others offer their hair in payment of a debt. Punari Aruni, a Hindu pilgrim in her 40’s, appears in the documentary “Hair India” and she is definitely from the surrendering ego camp.
According to Hindu lore, Vishnu, “the Preserver of the World”, took out a loan in order to pay for his wedding. Vishnu’s loan was so large, however, that it would take him thousands of years to pay off his debt. Now many devout Hindus help pay off Vishnu’s debt by offering their hair. [Someone wryly noted that the concept of making large chasunahs is what created the sheitel problem in the first place.]
SOME HINDUS ARE TRULY OFFERING TAKROVES AVODAH ZARAH
Those Hindus that believe in this lore and donate their hair on this account would be producing takroves avodah zarah.
Another version has it that the “god Vishnu” was hit on the head with an axe which caused him to lose a section of his hair. The female angel “Neela Devi” then offered him a lock of her hair as a replacement. Vishnu was so moved that from that point on, he granted wishes to anyone who offered their own hair in devotion. This version can be interpreted in both ways discussed above.
WE SHOULD BE STRINGENT ON EXTENSIONS
It is this author’s view that hair extensions are actually a significant halachic problem and should be avoided. The company “Great Lengths” which produces high end extensions are manufactured exclusively from temple hair. As far as wigs themselves, the origin is more nuanced.
THAT WHICH IS SOLD IS NOT TAKROVES AZ AND IS PERMITTED
There are also hair exporters that have agents approaching men in India who pay money so that their wives will sell their hair. The exporters offer the Indian men $10 for their wives head of hair, according to a January 2014 article on the subject by Katie Rucke. According to a director at Tirumala Venkateswara Temple the largest of some 28 temples in India that export hair, the temple does not pay the pilgrims any money for their hair and they use the money obtained from selling it to meet the educational, medical and nutritional needs of the desperately poor. The temple offers some 30,000 daily meals for the poor.
WHAT PERCENTAGE ARE TRUE OFFERINGS AS AN AVODAH ZARAH GIFT?
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed. The first issue is what percentage of the women are actually offering their hair as a gift to their gods? Some women most assuredly are offering it as a gift and it would thus be considered takroves avodah zarah.
Tirumala Venkateswara, for example, attracts tens of thousands of pilgrims each day, making it the temple with the most hair donations in India. The temple features 18 shaving halls, but there are so many people waiting to donate their hair that women and young girls can wait for up to five hours to donate.
At the temple, some 650 barbers sit in lines on the concrete floor and tie the women’s hair into ponytails before cutting it off. Once the large portions of hair are removed, the barbers use a razor to shave each pilgrims head, before dousing their head with water to wash away any blood.
For those that are curious, on average, each woman donates about 10 oz of hair, which goes for about $350.
The article continues, “Baskets filled with hair are collected every six hours and stored in a vast warehouse where it is piled knee deep.
It’s estimated that each year India exports an estimated 2,000 tons of temple hair a year. The best – or longest – hair will sell for about $580 per pound. The hair is sold in yearly auctions that take place in March or April.. One ton of hair is equal to donations from about 3,000 women. Since the shaving ceremony and sale of hair is not limited to one “holy site”, and 85 percent of the people in India are Hindu, those companies that export India’s human hair don’t foresee a shortage of temple hair anytime soon.”
GENERAL SFEK SFAIKAH
In this author’s view, the wigs with a hechsher are permitted through a halachic mechanism known as Sfek Sfaikah – a double doubt. We use this concept of Sfek Sfaikah throughout Shulchan Aruch. We use it in Yoreh De’ah 122:6 to permit the pot of an aino Yehudi in his home when it was used accidentally.
THE SFEK SFAIKAH HERE
So what is the Sfek Sfaikah here? Firstly, there is a doubt as to whether it is actually an offering. If someone were to cut off his or her thumb to show his or her dedication to their idol, it does not mean that the thumb was given as an actual offering. Body parts may be different.
Secondly, it is unclear whether the hair made in other countries actually ever came from India. This is certainly grounds for a halachic safaik. It should be known that not all the hair is sold to wig manufacturers and much of the volume is sold to stuff mattresses, create oil filters, or further extracted for the amino acids – so notwithstanding the volume of hair that is sold – it does not mean that all wigs throughout the world contain the hair. [The impetus for forbidding the entire issue is thus lessened with this information.]
Thirdly, there is a strong possibility that in regard to including it in a sfek sfaikah – that the halacha is that its sale makes it no longer considered a Takroves Avodah Zarah on account of bitul – negation. In other words, the reason we are generally stringent is because it is a serious matter – Avodah Zarah, but for the purposes of inclusion in a sfek sfaikah – we would be more lenient in this case and it would be permitted.
Indeed, this is what Rav Yoseph Teumim holds in his Pri Magadim (Siman 586). This is based on the Gemorah in Zvachim 74a where the Gemorah does not rule like Shmuel (in his stringency of not applying a sfek sfaikah regarding a takroves avodah zarah). The Beis Shlomo OC 30 is also lenient in this matter of implementing a sfek sfaikah to permit a possible Takroves Avodah Zarah. This case is even better because there are actually three doubt here.
CONCLUSION
It is this author’s view that the now third campaign of this controversy is only just beginning. It is important that the matter be brought up again before the Gedolei HaPoskim in America because that is where American women are living. It is likely that they will permit it based upon the triple doubts raised here or upon similar grounds. It is this author’s view that any hair marked “ethical” may be problematic because they do come from a temple. Also, any extension sold in hair salons may be problematic as well (but perhaps could be permitted based upon just a double doubt.)
When this author spoke to Rav Karp about the letter three years ago and questioned the source of the “due diligence” behind the information, he referred me to a few people who provided the information. We really do need to make an airtight system, however.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
15 Responses
very shallow article for such a complex topic.
a few points.
In the article from Rabbi Yair hoffman he claims it is muttar because of a Sfeik Sfeika. Safek if the hair is given as an offering and a safek where the hair comes from.
That is straight out ignorance in the rules of Sfeik Sfeika for many reasons.
A- We don’t say sfeik sfeikos, if one safek is in the guf hadavar i.e. is it tikrovos or not, and one safek is because of a taaruvos i.e. if hair came from India. This is the most basic rule in Hilchos safek sfeika, see Yd 110, 9 and the very first rule of Sfeik Sfeikos of the Shac”h.
B- The Safek as far as what they believe, is a safek chisaron yideya which is not either mitzaref to Safek Sfeika. (See Taz YD 98,6)
C- If there is a rov from India, which is pretty clear that that is the case, then most Achronim hold you do not say sfeik sfeika against a rov.
2- Tikrovos avoda zara has no bittul, this is a mefurashe gemara (AZ 50a) of the street paved from avnei markulis. The gemara says it is muttar to be derive hanaah from the street since it is not k`ein pnim.
There is a machlokes rishonim what that means, the Raavad brought in the Ritva says that tikrovos a”z sheino k`ein pnim is also assur, just it is possible to be mevatel. Most Rishonim hold that it is muttar and doesn’t need bittul.
Now, irrelevant to this, the Rambam rules that anything found inside the Beis Avoda Zara is forbidden, and the Bais Yosef and many learn that this includes things that are not k`ein pnim. Comes along the Bais Shlomo and says that the cases of tikrovos she`eino kein pnim that the Rambam forbids, than over there the Rambam agrees it has bittul if it is sold, just like the Raavad.
That has absolutely no Shaychus to our discussion. K`ein pnim means either an object that was sacrificed bfnim, or a maysa domeh to pnim was done. I.E. Shchita assurs even a grasshopper acc. to the way the shulchan aruch paskens, since the maysa shechita is k`ein pnim. Same story with shviras makal, or any tolda of shechita.
Therefore in our discussion that the hair was cut, which is dumya to shechita that is kein pnim, the Beis Shlomo is totally irrelevant, and it is clear that there is no bittul.
3- the pri megadim that rabbi hoffman brings in oc 586 is not talking about tikrovas avoda zara, rather regular avoda zara, and vaiter has no shaychus to tikroves.
Also the whole premise that there is two different reasons why they tonsure the hair, and the author assumes that those 2 reasons contradict ach other – all of this is flawed. Since you can find many places where both reasons are mentioned.
That being the case, if one mentions only the ego point, it does not mean in any way that he doesn’t believe that A”z also receives the hair.
Rav Yitzchok Yosef shlita & Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita are the 2 leading Poskim today, and unless Rav Dovid Feinstain gives a strong Pesak otherwise, then Rav Yitzchok Yosef shlita’s Pesak is binding on every Jewish married woman, and no married Jewish woman can ever wear a wig:- Period!!
Certainly, the arguments presented by Rabbi Hoffman are valid and his research deserves recognition but for this author to state, point blank, the chief sefaradic rabbi says a but i say b is both disrespectful and perhaps a demonstration of “ashkenazi privilege” if i may borrow the term.
Specifically, the following words are problematic: ” it is this author’s contention that there is enough halachic leniency to be lenient.” A more respectful approach would have been “the following arguments can be made in defense of the practice” or “other halachic sources suggest otherwise.”
Another problematic line is “It is important that the matter be brought up again before the Gedolei HaPoskim in America. It is likely that they will permit it based upon the triple doubt raised here or upon similar grounds.” The line suggests that the american poskim are superior and also projects the author’s opinion as that of the actual gedolei haposkim. it is disrespectful.
V’Shaim elohim achairim lo sazkiru, lo yishama al picha. What is the heter to mention the name “vis**nu?”
There are serious halachic issues with writing the actual names and details of actual Avoda Zara. This article could have left those “facts” out. Avoda Zara is supposed to be repugnant and repulsive to a Jew. Rabbi Hoffman, you wouldn’t write gratuitous details regarding Gilui Arayos in an article, and I think you shouldn’t do so regarding the details of AZ, especially not aspects that are not actually germane to the discussion. Please stick to the details regarding the question of Halacha, and perhaps include more details regarding the issue of Bittul Takrivos, Rov and Kol Diparish, Safek Sfeika She’aino Shakul , and all the other fascinating Torah aspects of this serious Shayla, rather than explicit details regarding repulsive pagan practices.
Rabbi Hoffman’s articles are usually very informed and detailed. This one begins to scratch the surface of a very complex topic. Additionally, Rav Yitzchok Yosef said that there is no heter to wear a wig outside of the courtyard of the house. This part of the psak was not discussed at all.
Wigs of all types are permissible simply because Yiddishe women with Yiddishe Neshamos wear them.
All else that can be written is l’hagdil torah but is not l’meiseh.
The “author” does not even address the tznius issue with regard to sheitels. The heter of that is worthy for the sage of Chelm. The underlying reason for a women to cover her hair is because hair is alluring and is against tznius. To we geniuses are came up with a solution to wear a $5000 wig that flows to our waist, as to be less alluring. Who are we kidding? When you tell this to a non-Jew they think we are nuts. The whole heter to wear a wig came about after the Czarist goverment banned kerchifs, and we were forced to improvise. Keep in mind that at that time, wigs were made from animal hair and was much less “alluring”. Today we even have a sheitel brand, with a hechsher, named “Allure”. Are we that clueless?
An argument can be made that it is the lesser of 2 evils for a woman to wear her own hair uncovered than to wear a sheitel. 1) An aveirah beshev v’al taaseh is preferred over an aveirah b’kum v’asseih, 2) It would be less alluring, 3) No shaileh of a”z, 4) Bal Tashchis etc…
My Humble Opinion is, #1, When the Chief Rabbi says “I looked carefully into the matter, using every possible means”, don’t you think he evaluated the heter of sfek sfieka? #2, the Renowned Posek of Bnei Barak Rabbi Mordichi Gross Gives a Hechsher on Wigs (I think) it would be interesting to hear his opinion on this. before you know he might be using the sfek sfieka.
@besalel
its “ashkenaz privilege” to say that he disagrees? don’t be ridiculous. his rebbe didn’t hold like this and he doesn’t either, why is that “ashkenaz privilege”?
and he doesn’t hold that american gedolim are bigger, he holds that since we are american we go after american rabbonim and poskim. there’s a reason why most people in america go with rav moshe and most people in eretz yisroel went with rav shlomo zalman or rav elyashiv. it isn’t a thing of “my gadol is better than your gadol”, its that he simply isn’t israeli. he goes after whoever his rebbe is and what his daas Torah is, which is most likely (along with most americans), an american gadol.
asimpleyid: like i had written, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing, it the loshon used. no ashekanzi or sefardic rabbi in america (on the same caliber as rabbi hoffman) would ever dare to write, “rav elyashiv says a but i say b” or “rav chaim says a but i say b.” instead, more nuanced, respectful language would be used.
second, rabbi hoffman never quotes his ruv so i am not sure what you mean. instead, he says, in sum and substance, “the final word will be had by american rabbis, who i predict will agree with me.” thats not nice. in any event, you do realize that there are many americans, sfaradic and ashkenazi, who abide by the piskei halacha of israeli rabbis and not american rabbis, right?
What’s funny about this whole thing is that even if it would be technically permitted and not avodah zara, why would anyone want to wear such a thing on their head? The whole thing just smells bad.
We can maybe have a discussion back and fourth if technically putting up Halloween decorations is avodah zara or not, but even if it isn’t, would any frum person want to put it up?
Besalel:
I don’t see any problem with Rabbi Hoffman writing as you say, that “the final word will be had by american rabbis, who i predict will agree with me.”
Again, the American rabbis, not ones in Israel, are the ones who generally pasken for American Jewry. As well, Rabbi Hoffman says that he has experience discussing this with American poskim such as Rav Belsky Zatza”l.
Put those two together, and his conclusion seems to make sense.
To those who complain about Rav Hoffman’s analysis including, ” explicit details regarding repulsive pagan practices”, perhaps go back and read the article again. His analysis is predicated to a large part on that very issue and his affirmation that contrary to the holdings of some rabbonim, the hair used in most sheitels is actually NOT the product of women engaging in avodah zorah. His reference to those details is not salacious but necessary to understand his point, whether you agree with him or otherwise.
FYI, there is a very reliable Hechsher on wigs, its called the Millenium Wig and it under a very stricked supervision of Rav Asher Eckstien Shlit”a a Belzer Dayen in Boro Park. The issue is, that at the moment you cant get this wig because the Rav couldn’t go down to China in past few months to give is Hashgacha (because of covid) so they couldn’t bring in more. My personal Rav instructed my wife to get that wig.