עד"ח געט זיך אונטער און אסרט שייטלען

LIKE MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR
Kosher Issues in L-Cysteine
Chagiga I:8

Rabbi Zushe Yosef Blech

© 2003 Rabbi Blech; Reprinted with permission from MK News and Views Volume IV, Issue 6 - Lag B'Omer Edition - Iyar, 5763 / May 2003.

The Mishnah at the end of the first chapter of Maseches Chagigah (I:8) notes that the Halachos of Shabbos, Chagigos (sacrifices brought on the Festivals) and Me'ilos (prohibitions relating to benefiting from holy items) are like "mountains suspended by a hair" because their myriad of complicated Halachos is based upon but few ural references. In the realm of food production, the determination of the Kosher status of many ingredients is often based upon the analysis of specific intricate Halachic concepts. However, the determination of the Kosher status of one obscure chemical - known as l-cysteine - is virtually unique in the encyclopedic breadth of Halachic erudition that it commands. Seldom in the field of Kashrus has one ingredient been the subject of so many disparate and interesting Sheilos.

L-cysteine is an amino acid, one of a category of organic acids that contain a nitrogen-bearing amino group. Of the over 100 distinct amino acids, only about twenty serve as the precursors of all proteins - the fundamental building blocks of life. Additionally, several individual amino acids have specific uses in the food industry. For example, two amino acids - l-phenylalanine and l-aspartic acid - can be combined and modified to produce aspartame, which is used as a sugar replacer. Glutamic acid, often used in its salt form monosodium glutamate (MSG), serves as a flavor enhancer.

L-cysteine has two major food applications. The first is as a dough conditioner that, in some ways, is a modern manifestation of the brachos (blessings) conferred upon Bnei Yisroel. The Torah assures us that we will be so blessed with grain that we will only eat aged grain - V'Achaltem Yoshon Noshon - "and you shall eat very aged (grain)". Chazal tell us (Baba Basra 91b) that this verse teaches us that aged foods have superior qualities, and, indeed, the baking properties of flour improve when it is stored for some time after grinding. The characteristic elasticity of bread dough is attributable to two sulfur-rich proteins (gliadin and glutenin) present in wheat. As the dough is kneaded, the bonds between these two proteins are developed forming gluten and creating a dough structure that allows the carbon dioxide produced by the yeast to be entrapped and the bread to rise. The strength of gluten must be controlled so that it is not too strong, and aging flour served this purpose by allowing for the oxidation of the protein by exposing it to the oxygen in the air. Today, however, flour is routinely used within one week after grinding, so it doesn't get enough time to ripen and benefit from the bracha of Yoshon Noshon. To address this issue, food chemists have found chemical forms of bracha which have the ability to effect "instant" aging. l-cysteine contains certain sulfur-based components that react with the wheat proteins to weaken their sulfur bonds, thus allowing for more efficient dough formation. The other common food use of l-cysteine is as a component in savory (meaty) flavors produced through a Maillard reaction, the reaction of certain sugars with amino acids. When using l-cysteine in such reactions, food scientists have been able to produce a variety of chicken, beef, and other meat flavors that may be Kosher and Pareve.

Most amino acids used in the food industry are fermentation products, where specific microorganisms produce the desired amino acid as part of their metabolic processes. In such cases the Kosher status of the amino acid is generally a function of the material that is fermented. For example, if Chometz wheat glucose is fermented into glutamic acid, MSG that is made from it would be considered Chometz. l-cysteine, however, has historically been extracted from feathers and hair - human hair, to be specific. It is the Halachic status of these raw materials - and the Kashrus concerns peculiar to them - that have been the basis of questions that span the breadth of the Shulchan Aruch.

Human hair is rich in two basic amino acid compounds, l-cystine and l-tyrosine, with l-cystine comprising up to 14% of the hair. When hair is dissolved (hydrolyzed) in hydrochloric acid, these compounds can be separated and recovered. L-cystine is actually comprised of two l-cysteine amino acids that are joined together, and when this bond is broken using a hydrolysis reaction, l-cysteine is released. Human hair, while not particularly appetizing, is Kosher, but the source of the hair may pose a problem. Virtually all of the hair used in the production of l-cysteine comes from Asian countries, where both an ample supply and an inexpensive means of collecting it exist. When l-cysteine first came on the market, some concern was expressed that the hair was actually harvested from cadavers. The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 349:1) rules that one may not derive any benefit from a dead human body. Although some Rishonim (Rambam and Smag) permit the use of hair, the Shulchan Aruch (Simon 2) follows the position of the Ramban and the Rashba and extends the prohibition to this material as well. Fortunately, however, no one has ever been able to substantiate the use of hair from this source in the production of l-cysteine, and the consensus is to discount this concern.

Kashrus issues relating to human hair are not limited to l-cysteine, however. Halachic norms of modesty dictate that married Jewish women must cover their hair in public, and this is commonly accomplished by wearing the proverbial sheitl (wig). Although Rav Moshe Sternbuch, in his Das V'Halacha, raises a number of questions regarding the appropriateness of using human hair for the sheitl, one of his concerns is applicable to l?cysteine as well. Indeed, the issue devolves unto the source of the term amino acid itself. In the 8th century, an Arabian alchemist named Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan refers to strange salt-like crystals on the walls of the temple of the Egyptian deity Amon. He called this material sal ammoniac, or the "salt of Amon". We now know that the source of this material was the soot from the camel dung that was burned in the desert temple which, as opposed to wood, contains a substantial amount of biologically reactive nitrogen. Ammonia, and its related amine compounds (including amino acids), thus take their name from this pagan deity.

In our situation, concerns of idol worship stem from a pagan ritual common in some countries involving the sacrifice of one's hair to the deity. It seems that women would grow a full head of hair and then shave it off, and offer it to the idol. Rav Sternbuch postulates that the priests attending these idols would subsequently remove the piles of proffered bouffant and surreptitiously sell them to wig makers. Since such items would be considered Takruvas Avodah Zarah (offerings to idols), it would be prohibited to derive any benefit from them (see Y.D. 139:1). Halachically, items offered to idols may be of greater concern than the idols themselves, since a non-Jew may void the status of an idol (bitul) but not the items that have been sacrificed to it (Ibid., 2). As such, were such a concern to exist with the hair used in the production of l-cysteine, its decomposition during processing would not mitigate the problem. Upon further analysis, however, it seems that l-cysteine should be immune to this concern. First, it turns out that the hair used in this process comes exclusively from local barber shops. A sophisticated collection system has been implemented in certain Asian countries, which is able to supply the needs of the l-cysteine industry without raiding the temples. Second, it has been argued that even if the hair were indeed donated to the idol, such an action would not be sufficient to cause the hair to be considered Takruvas Avodah Zarah. The Shulchan Aruch (Ibid., 3) stipulates a Halachic distinction between different types of materials offered to idols. Items that are similar to those offered (L'havdil) on the Mizbayach (altar) in the Bais Hamikdash (K'ein P'nim) become prohibited regardless of the method by which they are offered to an idol. Other items, however, must be offered in a manner similar to offerings in the Bais Hamikdash, such as through slaughtering or sprinkling (as blood was sprinkled on the Mizbayach) - Avodah K'ain P'nim. Since hair was never brought as an offering in the Bais Hamikdash, the mere act of placing it in front of the idol would not be sufficient to make it a prohibited item - such an act does not qualify as a "sprinkling" since the throwing does not break into small droplets or pieces (Zerika Ha'Mishtaberes). [It is interesting to note, however, that this argument would not resolve the concern were the hair actually cut in the service of the idol, since the act of cutting would be considered similar to the act of slaughtering. Further, in the opinion of the Rambam, any item that is actually placed directly in front of the idol (Lifnim min Ha'Kilklin) would be prohibited regardless of the manner in which it was offered.] Another point that may be noted is based upon the opinion of the Ma'Harsham (III:116), who postulates that it may be safely assumed that any item that is sold was not used in the service of an idol, since the pagan would not desecrate such items in such a manner.

Hair, however, is not the only commercial source of l-cysteine. Poultry feathers also contain substantial amounts of l-cystine, and are often processed in the same manner as hair for this purpose. While seemingly free of esoteric concerns of Avodah Zarah and posthumous benefit, it has been argued that feathers pose a more conventional Kashrus concern. When processing poultry, the best way to loosen feathers for easy removal is by dipping the slaughtered birds in boiling water. Such a process is not permitted for Kosher poultry, since one may not cook a bird until it is has been soaked and salted to remove the blood (Y.D. 68:10), and we must, therefore, often put up with more feathers on our Kosher birds than we would prefer. Non-Kosher poultry plants, however, have no such restrictions, and routinely scald their non-Kosher, bloody birds in boiling water before removing their feathers. While we may have no interest in non-Kosher poultry, it has been argued that we should be concerned with the feathers that have been cooked together with non-Kosher poultry and their blood. We may not eat feathers, but we do make l-cysteine from them, thus raising a potential Kashrus concern. Fortunately, however, given the manner in which the feathers are processed to produce l-cysteine, this matter poses no Halachic concern. Since the feathers are dissolved in hydrochloric acid and are rendered entirely inedible, any non-Kosher flavor or blood that may have been absorbed into them is considered Halachically insignificant. While many authorities do prohibit non-Kosher food that had been rendered inedible if it is subsequently returned to an edible state (e.g., gelatin made from non-Kosher meat sources), this would not pose a concern in this situation. In our case, the feathers were always Kosher - the only concern is the possible absorption of blood and non-Kosher flavor into them. Since the subsequent recovery of feathers into an edible item is not concerned with the blood or the flavor, these remain Halachically insignificant [see Igros Moshe (Y.D. II:23) in his discussion of blood that may be found on Kosher hides that are processed into gelatin.]

For those who find hair and feathers less than appetizing, food chemists have recently developed sources that may be more palatable. One company produces l-cysteine through the conversion of methyl acrylate into l-cysteine using an enzyme produced through fermentation. An even more recent advance involves recombinant technology, where the genetic coding of a particular microorganism has been altered to allow it to produce l-cysteine. As noted above, the Kosher status of fermentation products is based upon the Kosher status of the ingredients that are fermented, and both of these products are indeed Kosher certified.

As we have seen, the issues relating to l-cysteine traverse the gamut of Halachic literature. But it may also be interesting to note one more unique property of l-cysteine that was recognized in the time of the Talmud. The Gemorah (Shabbos 145b) relates that Rav Abbah had a special chicken recipe, which Rashi explains to be a chicken that he cooked and allowed to steep for several days in hot water until it dissolved, after which it was eaten for medicinal purposes. While Rashi does not indicate for what ailment chicken soup was prescribed, the Rambam prescribed just such a chicken soup to treat the asthma of Prince Al-Afdal in the court of Saladin. It seems that the l-cysteine naturally found in chicken feathers and skin is very similar to the mucus-thinning drug acetylcysteine, and chicken soup and its l-cysteine may indeed be just what the doctor ordered.

Chazal teach us that, at the time of Matan Torah, Hashem suspended Har Sinai above the Jewish people - Kafa Aleihem Har K'Gigis (Shabbos 88a). He then offered them a choice - either accept the Torah, or the mountain will be released and form their graves. When Bnei Yisroel accepted the Torah, they also accepted the requirement to delve into all of its intricacies, even the laws that the Mishnah refers to as "hanging by a hair". The Medrash (Tanchuma, Ki Savo) notes that the Pasuk refers to the Torah as being given HaYom HaZeh - "this day" - to teach us that we should look upon the Torah as if it were being given to us each day. Perhaps the zchus of learning the complex laws relating to l-cysteine and the hair from which it is derived will serve as one of "hairs" that keeps Har Sinai suspended above us each and every day

We now have shmire mishaas ketzire Sheitlech available. Our Sheitlech are also menipetz lishmo by avreichem mitziyoonim, shomrei toire imitzves, and are also nooky michashash Orle.
Our Sheitlech are easily identifiable by our pink Henpik which is connected to the bangs (which should not be removed, as is the minheg with Shatnez labels).
Veyoychli anoovim veyisbooee.
Mund Sheitel Factory.

For those tat have the toomene internet, rachmmon litzlon, we can be found at www.mundsheitelfactory.org

News Sports Business Entertainment Multimedia Marketplace NY Newsday.com



Orthodox Jews burn wigs in Williamsburg





May 17, 2004, 3:54 AM EDT

NEW YORK (AP) _ Orthodox Jews set fire to piles of women's wigs in a Brooklyn intersection after learning that rabbinical authorities had denounced the wigs as possibly tainted.

The demonstration Sunday mirrored several similar displays in Israel over the past week, all in response to a ruling that because the wigs were made from human hair in India, they might have been used in Hindi rites antithetical to Orthodox beliefs.

"We are not allowed to have any sort of satisfaction from these things," Miriam Friedman, one of the demonstrators, told The New York Times for Monday editions.

The crowd of several hundred gathered at the intersection of Lee Avenue and Rodney Street in the Williamsburg section at about 6 p.m. They burned about 300 wigs, drawing the attention of police officers who tried to keep people from getting too close to the flames.

In keeping with the Orthodox Jewish code of modesty, many Orthodox Jewish women wear wigs to cover their hair in public.


Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

JTA) - Wigging out

Fervently Orthodox women in Brooklyn burned wigs after rabbis said the wigs' hairs had been used in idolatrous ceremonies. Sunday's wig-burning in Williamsburg, a heavily Jewish neighborhood, follows similar burnings of natural Hindu-hair wigs elsewhere in New York and Israel. Many Orthodox women wear wigs to comply with a Jewish law requiring married women to cover their hair

Sung to "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands"


If you're your Jewish and you know it
Burn your wig
You love God and want to show it
Burn your wig
Unless your instincts were prophetic
And your shaitel is synthetic
Go ahead, you won't regret it
Burn your wig

Semi - custom, fall, or box
Burn your wig
Avodah Zarah's in those locks
Burn your wig
Be it a Freeda, Ralph, or Claire
Might as well be Mother Mary
So be very, very wary
Burn your wig

If it's blond or black or brown
Burn your wig
Don't be the Apikorus in town
Burn your wig
Take it off and don't go near it
Wear a snood you'll have to bear it
Drive a Chevy, but don't wear it
Burn your wig

Do what's right, don't be heretical
Burn your wig
Just stay calm, don't get hysterical
Burn your wig
Your whole life is still ahead
Go put butter on your bread
But no Buddha on your head
Burn your wig!


Here is another one:

One Sheitel, One Sheitel
based on Chad Gad Ya

One sheitel, one sheitel that husband bought for an arm and a leg. One
sheitel, one sheitel.

And came The Sheitelmacher, who put it in her little shop, that husband
bought with his life savings. One sheitel, one sheitel.

And came the European Manufacturer, who sold it to the sheitelmacher, that
husband mortgaged his house to buy. One sheitel, one sheitel.

And came the Hindu Church, who auctioned it to the European manufacturer,
who sold it to the sheitelmacher, that husband paid half a year's salary
for. One sheitel, one sheitel.

And came the Hindu Priest, who cut off the hair, that the church auctioned
off, that the European manufacturer put in the highest bid for, who sold it
to the Sheitelmacher, that husband went into credit card debt to purchase.
One sheitel, one sheitel.

And came the Hindu Pilgrim, who bowed before the priest in an offering to
Vishnu, and he shaved off the hair, which the church auctioned, that the
European manufacturer got for a steal, who sold it to the Sheitelmacher,
that husband created a tzedaka fund for. One sheitel, one sheitel.

And came Rav Eliyashiv, Shlita, who paskended the hair was assur, that the
pilgrim offered to the polytheistic gods, that the barber shaved, that the
church auctioned, that the European manufacturer got his hands on for
bupkis, who he sold to the Sheitelmacher, that husband sold his daughter
into slavery so that he purchase it. One sheitel, one sheitel.

And came the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Who said, "I am the Lord thy G-d, thou
shalt not have any other gods before Me", which Rav Eliyashev took very
seriously, so he paskened the hair was assur that the pilgrim offered to the
other gods, that the barber shaved off, that the church put up on eBay, that
the European manufacturer couldn't believe the deal he got, who sold it to
the Sheitelmacher, that husband got his knee-caps broke because he couldn't
pay off the interest from the loan he got from Goombah Vinny. One sheitel,
one sheitel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 40 years ago, Rav Moshe Sterenbuch put out a kuntres called ''Das V'halachah'', wherein he prohibited deriving any benefit from human hair products out of India, because of the Isser of takrovos avodah zorah.

His writes that the Indian hair is purchased from Hindu Temples which get the hair from women who cut it off in an avodah zorah ceremony, which goes something like this:

The woman cuts her hair off as a sacrifice to the Hindu god, Vishnu. The cutting of the hair is done at or in the temple and is a religious procedure itself, like shechting a korbon, and then it is supposed to be burned on an alter in a sacrifice to Vishnu.

The Hindu priests, however, after placing the hair on the alter and perhaps burning some of them, proceed to steal most of the sacrifice hairs and sell them to exporters. From those hairs come the Indian human hair shaitlach. There were also other possible scenarios that he entertained, but at the end of the day, he prohibited all of them.

The rabbonim weren't doing much about this then, because first of all, shaitel manufacturers started covering it up, claiming that the hair doesn't really come from Temples, or that it doesn't really come from India, or that only some of the Indian hair comes form the Temples but the majority does not, or they promise not to get hair form India but they did anyway; and secondly, it was hard to confirm Rabbi Shterenbuch's story, so and due to the contradictions, confusion, lack of confirmation, and the fact that in those days Rav Shterebuch was a young man with much less clout than he has today, nothing much happened.

Then, about 20 years later, in 1979, a rabbi in Flatbush receieved a call from one of his congregants who read in a business journal that the Indian hair that ends up in wigs comes from Buddhist temples. The rabbi announced in Shul that the shaitlach are prohibited.

Upon hearing this, many rabbonim did some research into the matter and found out that indeed about 70% of the Indian human hair comes from Hindu Temples, mostly in the Madras region, the by-product of a Hindu practice called ''tonsure.''

Rav Schwab ZTL was ready to prohibit the shaitlach, as were most other rabbonim in America. The more research was done, the scarier the situation looked.

That is, up to a point. What happened was that when the inquiries got really thorough a totally different picture emerged. There turned up many contradictory stories about the practice and procedure and meaning of the tonsure among the Hindus that were interviewed Some said that the hair cutting is a sacrifice; some said it wasn't; some said that sometimes it is and sometimes its not; some said that different Hindu sects and even different individuals do it for different reasons; some said that the Hindu hair is holy and therefore used in the religious practice and others said the opposite – that hair is unclean and therefore it is cut off before the woman enters the Temple; others said that really the process is not avodah zorah but the women who get their hair cut think it is, and that itself would prohibit.

I suppose it's kind of like, l'havdil, if a non-Jew would take it upon himself to find out about let's say the Jewish rite of circumcision. Who would he ask? An orthodox Jew? Conservative? Reform? A kabbalist? Metzitzah bepeh? Not b'peh? I mean, how many times do we see articles about Judaism in secular sources? And how many times do we laugh at them and say they haven't got a clue? The same thing seemed to be happening here.

So they contacted swamis, which are like Hindu rabbis, or teachers, or yogis, who referred them to a man who was supposedly the biggest scholar in Hinduism in this country, a Dr. Anand Mohan, professor of religion and philosophy at City College in Queens, NY, and a Hindu priest.

According to Dr. Mohan, the hair cutting practice is not a sacrifice to any god. What happens is, women sometimes make a vow that if either a simcha and/or a tzara happens to them, they will ''give away a prized possession'' of theirs. Since they are not allowed to cut their hair at all except under certain circumstances, their long, silky hair is their most beautiful and prized possession. So they make a vow to cut it off.

They do not have to do this in a temple, and they can throw the hair in the garbage of they want – it doesn't matter what happens to it. The point is that they do away with a prized possession. That possession could also theoretically be a gold bangle, or any object of value.

There are other times that they would perform a hair cutting as well, such the first haircut of a baby.

Cutting the hair is kind of a purification process, like taking a shower, except instead of getting rid of dirt, they get rid of hair. In fact, after they cut the hair they take a bath before they enter the temples. And just as dirt would not be considered ''holy'' even if your bath was a religious practice, so too the hair is nothing but the garbage by-product of this purification process, and is in no way takrovos avodah zorah.

In the olden days, Dr. Mohan said, women indeed used to cut their hair and throw it away. Or they went to the temple to cut their hair, and the temple people threw it away. But then, some the temple people got an idea to make wigs out of the hair anddecided to make a business out of it.

So they stationed barbers outside of the temples where women would come and get their hair cut before they took their baths and entered the temple. The temple trustees – not the priests – take the hair and sell it. Theoretically, the women could sell it themselves, but if they would do that, it wouldn't be much of a self-sacrifice, since they are making profit on it, and the whole idea is that they have to ''give away'' something valuable.


Ad kan divrei Dr. Mohan.

His version of the story was confirmed independently by a Diana Eck, professor of Comparitive Religion and Indian Studies in Harvard University. Without hearing what Dr. Mohan said, she provided the exact same report.

The tonsure practice is a preparatory act for worship. It is not a act of worship itself. The primary shrine where this takes place is in Tirupati, in Southern Andhra Pradesh. It is a hilltop shrine. On festival days, 20,000-30,000 pilgrims come to Tirupati.

Rav Moshe Shterenbuch was then contacted, and he said that he really isn't sure of the information that he received, and that even if it is true, it ''quite possibly'' – not ''for sure'' - would create a prohibition of takrovos avodah zorah

All the information – every contradiction, version, and opinion, with the documantation - was collected, and set to Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach ZTL and Rav Elyashev.

They both permitted. Rav Shlomo Zalman, as reported by Rabbi Portnoy, said you can be lenient because since there are several doubts whether the hair in any given shaitel is really avodah zorah, we have a sfek sfeika.

Rav Elyashev wrote a 3 page teshuva, quoting Dr. Mohan by name (although in the printed version they for some reason omitted it), and explaining, among other things, that since the hair is not cut inside the temple in front of any god, and is not done as a manner of worship, it is permitted. He also writes that it doesn't matter what the woman has in mind as much as it does what the barber has in mind, and he knows why he is cutting the hair, and it is not for idolatry.

This is because in order to constitute takrovos avodah zorah, the cutting of the hair itself has to be a religious ceremony, comparable to shechitah, and so depends on the ''shochet'' himself.

Rav Elyashev adds, that of course this halachah depends on the facts, and he is relying on the facts as presented to him, so his psak is contingent on the accuracy of those facts.

Rav Sheinberg then also permitted at that time, based on the facts that he researched, primarily through a sefardic ''chacham''.

A lot of confusion happened during the research because when people investigated, there were a lot of Indian clerics talking about how the hair is an ''offering'' or a ''sacrifice'', which sounded scary. But it was later found out that they meant ''offering'' not as in Korbon but as in something you offer – or give; and ''sacrifice'' was not meant in the context of Korbon but rather ''self sacrifice''. So things were scary when they were investigated but when they were thoroughly investigated, things got better.

Rav Moshe Shterenbuch was sent the material as well, but he did not change his psak – he still prohibited. He disagreed with Rav Elyashev regarding certain halachos, plus he said he is not convinced that the Metzius is accurate, and so he does not have enough evidence to permit the safek d'oraisa.

Things were quiet until recently. The Wall Street Journal, last summer, published one of those articles describing the idolatrous practice of Indian tonsure as the source of the hair in American wigs. Just as 15 years ago, the tumult was triggered by an article in a trade magazine, so too now the tumult was triggered by the Journal article.

Slowly things started getting louder. It was discovered that Rav Shterenbuch prohibited, and about a month ago in Eretz Yisroel, Rav Moshe Shterenbuch's name came up on tzetlach prohibiting the shaitlach again.

Dayan Dunner of London went to Rav Elyashev and obtained a heter to go into the Hindu Temples to see what the story is – kdei lehoros (in order to pasken a shailah) that would be permitted – and he took a trip to India last week, and came back with information that led many Rabbonim to prohibit the shaitlach again.

However, I am not aware of what information is being used, and how thorough of an inquiry was done. Last time this happened, everyone got scared based on the first level of investigation, but later on, when the investigation got pretty intense, we found out it wasn't a problem.

So far, as far as I can see, Rav Wosner and Rav Karelitz put out a psak saying that ''based on the information that we received'', they consider it a maybe avodah zorah situation so you shouldn't buy any new Indian shaitlach going forward, and try hard to exchange what you already have. They did not say to throw out your shaitlach. They are paskening that they don't know, and giving over the halchic guidelines on how to act when you don't know.

Rav Elyashev did not put anything in writing, but Rabbi Efrati, one of Rav Elyashev's close people, wrote a couple of letters summarizing what he says Rav Elyashev said. I have heard that there are disagreements among Rav Elyashev's close people regarding the accuracy of those letters, as well as the accuracy of the information that is being given to Rav Elyashev.

In short, I have not heard a psak from any posek so far except that ''until we find out the whole story, we should be careful.'' Which is fine, but the issue was apparently investigated thoroughly and closed 15 years ago. And just as 15 years ago, this was the initial reaction, and even upon investigation this was the reaction, until we found out that we needed really thorough investigations, which were done, and resulted in a lenient ruling (i.e. from Rav Elyashev and Rav Shlomo Zalman), the question now arises: Is the information that is being given to the Rabbonim (a) accurate and (b) complete? And (c) is it more so than the extensive information that was collected 15 years ago?

And even if there is a problem, how do you know which shaitlach are avodah zorah and which are not? Believability is an entire halachic issue in itself, especially since we are dealing with vested interests of vendors.

Obvisouly this depends on the metzius more than on the halachah. And thus the question is: What is the real metzius. Many Rabbonim, such as Rav Wosner and Rav Karelitz, and perhaps Rav Elyashev, are saying they don't know. Yet.

The difficulty I am having with this is, the documentation that was done then seems compelling and conclusive. So it brings into question the accuracy and completeness of whatever information is causing doubts now. Especially since the current research was done is a very short time, and experience shows that until you get to the very bottom of the situation, it really does look like avodah zorah.

To me it seems that the metzius, the facts, as we know them at this point in time, indicate that there is no avodah zorah here, or at least there is enough reason to say there is no avodah zorah so as to permit the shaitlach, as per the psakim of Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rav Elyashev, and others back then. And since there has been no psak thus far issued except that ''since we don't know therefore we should be careful'', and some statements in the name of Rav Elyashev whose reliability has been contested, therefore, I would say that if your Rav is unsure of the facts of the matter, then do not wear the questionable shaitlach until the issue is further researched. If your Rav, on the other hand, is comfortable that the research was already completed years ago, and that the current situation is merely a matter of these Rabbonim independently verifying what your Rav already knows to be true, then you are fully entitled to follow your rav, and it would not be considered going against Rav Elyashev or Rav Wosner, since even the great poskim admit that if someone really knows the facts, the psak would be different.

http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=5277&forum_id=34&Topic_Title=Sheitels&forum_title=Chukas+Akum

===============