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 isn’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 Elyashiv’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 doesn’t study international trade). Attached is a link to that file (removed)
But for some reason you left out the continuation of Rav Elyashiv’s teshuva. He never paskend based on those numbers, rather he writes explicitly:
גם אם זה להיפך, דין קבוע להם כמש”כ בשו”ת דברי חיים ח”ב סי נ”ז וזה לשונו, “כשהקונה כותב ומבקש ממנו מן הגוי שישלח לו כו”כ והוא שולח מביתו, בכה”ג הו”ל כלקח מן הקבוע ולא יחלוק ע”ז זולת חסר דעת”
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 Kuber’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
“…דמתניתין לכאורה אפי’ בשאין דרכה בכך מיירי דהא ממרקוליס סליק וסתם מרקוליס אין דרכו אלא בזריקת אבנים ולא בפרכילי ענבים וסלתות”
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:
אמר רב אסי בר חייא כל שהוא לפנים מן הקלקלין אפי’ מים ומלח אסור
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:
“פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבלים. פירשה רבה בר עולא בגמ’ כגון שבצרן מתחלה לכך, כלומר שיש בחוקיהם לבצרן מתחלה לכך, וליכא לפרושי בדידעינן ודאי דבצרן מתחלה לכך דהא מצא קתני, ואומר רבינו הרב נ”ר דאע”ג דבבשר הנכנס לע”ז לא חיישינן דילמא נשחט מתחלה לכך, הכא שאני דאין דרכן להביא מן הבצור אלא ממה שבוצרין מכרמיהן בתחלה לכך אבל בשר דרכן להביא מן החתוך, והילכך אף בפרכילי ענבים אי ידעינן דאינם קפדין בחוקיהם לבצור מתחלה לכך אף הענבים הנמצאים שם מותרין עד דידעינן שנבצרו מתחלה לכך”.
ומבואר מדבריו שעל אף שכתב שתלוי בחוקותיהם, מ”מ כל ההיתר אם אינו בחוקותיהם הוא רק משום שאז אין לנו להניח שנבצר מתחילה לכך, אבל אם ידיענן שבצרן מתחילה לכך, אפילו אין זה דרך עבודתה בחוקותיו, כל שבצרן מתחילה לכך עדיין אסורה
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 isn’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 wasn’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 galach’s opinion it wouldn’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:
הפוער עצמו לבעל פעור הרי זה עבודתו אע”ג דמיכוין לביזוי הזורק אבן למרקוליס זו היא עבודתו אע”ג דמיכוין למירגמיה
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. Vdoi”k.