Halachic Musings

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Sheitels are once again the subject of controversy. The issue is called “tonsuring” and it is at the center of a great debate that has resurfaced.

In a nutshell, the rabbanim who signed a letter forbidding sheitels are convinced that it is highly likely that virtually all hair in sheitels–no matter the origin–includes Indian temple hair that is takroves avodah zarah, from which it is forbidden to benefit. The issue of takroves avodah zarah, offerings given in the worship of idols, is discussed in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 139:6), based on the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 59b.

Those who signed the letter and forbid it believe that Indian temple hair is so ubiquitous that it has found its way to almost every geographical location where sheitels are made. The hair is stripped of its pigment in a nearly monthlong 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.)

The letter, signed by a number of Israel-based rabbanim, was posted in shuls across the New York area. It was signed by Rav Chaim Meir HaLevi Wosner, 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 Modi’in.

The letter states that no hechsher on sheitels is effective because it is impossible to truly know the origin of the hair, and that temple hair constitutes the overwhelming majority of hair for human-hair wigs.

The kol koreh quotes a person named “Vince Selva” of “Indo Asian Human Hair International Inc.,” who makes a number of claims about temple hair. The kol koreh also lists 25 alleged facts about the human-hair industry.

This author was present with Rav Belsky, zt’l, when he researched the issue and when he discussed the issue of avodah zarah with the poskim in Eretz Yisrael. Dayan Dunner’s research indicated 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, 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 discussed other reasons for permitting it in his sefer Shulchan HaLevi, page 438, where letters back and forth with Rav Elyashiv, zt’l, are printed.

What has changed?

Research done by this author these past two weeks 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 forties, 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.)

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, causing 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 her own hair in devotion. This version can be interpreted in both ways discussed above.

Extensions vs. Wigs

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, manufactures exclusively from temple hair. As far as wigs themselves, the origin is more nuanced.

There are also hair exporters that have agents approaching men in India and offering to pay money so that their wives will sell their hair. The exporters offer the Indian men $10 for their wives’ heads 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 about 30,000 daily meals for the poor.

Rucke adds: “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 pilgrim’s head before dousing their head with water to wash away any blood.”

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 is estimated that India exports 2,000 tons of temple hair a year. The best–or longest–hair will sell for about $580 per pound. On average, each woman donates about 10 ounces of hair, which goes for about $350.

“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.”

Sfek Sfeikah

In this author’s view, the wigs with a hechsher are permitted through a halachic mechanism known as sfek sfeikah–a double doubt.

Firstly, there is a doubt as to whether it is actually an offering. By analogy, if one were to cut off his own thumb to show dedication to his idol, it does not mean that the thumb was given as an actual offering.

Secondly, it is unclear whether the hair produced in other countries actually ever came from India. This is certainly grounds for a halachic safek. It should be known that not all the hair is sold to wig manufacturers; much of the volume is sold to stuff mattresses or create oil filters, or it is further processed to extract 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 the entire issue is thus lessened with this information.

Thirdly, there is a strong possibility that in regard to including it in a sfek sfeikah the halachah is that its sale makes it no longer considered a takroves avodah zarah on account of bitul. In other words, the reason we are generally stringent is because it is a serious matter–avodah zarah–but for inclusion in a sfek sfeikah it would be permitted. Indeed, this is what Rav Yosef Teumim holds in his Pri Megadim (siman 586). This is based on the Gemara in Zevachim 74a, where the Gemara does not rule like Shmuel. The Beis Shlomo O.C. 30 is also lenient in this matter of implementing a sfek sfeikah to permit a possible takroves avodah zarah. This case is even better because there are three doubts here.

Conclusion

It is this author’s view that the second campaign of this controversy is only just beginning. It is important that the matter be brought up again before the gedolei ha’poskim in America. It is likely that they will permit it based upon the triple doubt raised here or upon similar grounds. It is this author’s view that any hair marked “ethical” may be problematic because that does come from a temple. Also, any extensions 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 and questioned the source of the “due diligence” behind the information, he referred me to a few people who provided the information. Look for more in future reporting.

The author can be reached at Yairhoffman2@gmail.com.