Presence

This past Shabbos [5/23/04], R. Gottleib gave a shiur/lecture regarding the sheitel issue. He covered most of this history surrounding the investigation of "tonsure" and what the nature of the practice entails, as well as an overview of the halachic aspects of Tikrovos L'Avodah Zarah (cf. Sanhedrin 50-51 for the relevant discussion).

I'll refrain from going over the details (especially since I'm finishing this post up close to two four weeks after I started it; I have the source sheets if anyone is interested). R. Gottleib's intent was not to render a p'sak on the matter, but to fill the congregation in on the recent developments. He mentioned that both R. Willig and R. Heineman were, independently, exploring alternative halachic solutions that would get around the problem even if the sheitels were in fact considered Tikrovos. They hope to show that the facts have not changed since the previous lenient rulings, or that the percentage of questionable exported hair is an insignificant minority of the total amount of hair that comes out of India. R. Gottleib hoped that a conclusion that would "save face" could be reached.

[Note: My original intent was to discuss how this issue is an example of how the nature of religion today is fundamentally changed. In the past, religion was a historical construct, defining an overarching context in which Man worked. Today, that is not the case. Religion is now mostly a personal source of moral inspiration; it does not speak to us on a historical level (in our culture, that is). If it does, or attempts to, we will inevitable come to clash with the modern culture of our society. I saw the sheitel issue as a perfect example of this conflict: the Orthodox, who in America remain with one foot firmly planted in the historical vision of Judaism, clashing with the modern conceptualization of of ahistorical morality. I had (and am having) trouble putting this into words, so I'm writing this note instead.

It might be interesting to attempt to understand the cause of this role-change for religion; I have my own theory, which involves everyone from Jesus to George Washington, but I'll save that for another day.]

[Another Note: Fiddish linked to The Jewish Week's dueling editorials by Rabbis Eliyahu Stern and Avi Shafran, which represent both sides of this debate perfectly. Stern is ready to jettison the historical aspect of Judaism, while Shafran's grip remains steadfast, even amidst the maelstrom.

One might also check out the article in the recent issue of Azure by David Hazony about the Zionism of R. Eliezer Berkovits for a view of what could have been.]