Summer 2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Which pilgrimage site is the most visited around the world? While some may guess the Vatican (approximately 7 million visitors a year) or Mecca (10 million), few would fathom that one of the contenders for the title is a remote Indian temple located on one of the Tirumala hills near the town of Tirupati in the state of Andhra Pradesh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An estimated 25 million Hindu pilgrims visit the temple each year \u2013 an average of 68,500 visitors daily. Although this seems like a huge number of pedestrian traffic, it is worth noting that, as a percentage of the Indian population, this would correspond to approximately 16,500 visitors were the site in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What do the visitors do in Tirupati? They wait in line all day to get a glimpse of the avodah zara<\/em> in the temple for a few fleeting seconds. Another popular activity is tonsuring<\/em>, the act of shaving one\u2019s head for religious purposes. Approximately 30,000 visitors are tonsured daily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tonsuring is done on the temple grounds, in a large building separate from the one housing the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. The barbers work in four shifts, with 400 barbers per shift, cutting hair around the clock. The temple collects the hair and sells it, earning more than $6 million a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The shorn hair has a variety of uses, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1989, a halachic question was posed to Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt\u201dl<\/em>. Is a Jewish woman allowed to wear a sheitel possibly containing hair bought from that temple, or should the temple hair be classified as an offering to avodah<\/em> zara <\/em>that one is forbidden to have benefit from?[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n To answer that question, it is necessary to know why pilgrims donate their hair at that temple. This question was posed to Dr. Anand Mohan, a Hindu priest who teaches at Queens College CUNY. He explained that by shaving one\u2019s hair, a person surrenders his ego and vanity to the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on this explanation, Rav Elyashiv ruled that the sheitels are permitted. He argued that the hair itself is not being offered to the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. Tonsuring is an act performed prior to the viewing and worshipping of the avodah<\/em> zara and<\/em> is intended to serve as a subjugation of one\u2019s ego.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, the tonsuring is not performed in the presence of the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>, as Hinduism considers the hair to be impure, and it may not be brought into the building containing the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. Furthermore, Rav Elyashiv explained that for halachic purposes, the intent of the haircut is defined by the one performing the act of haircutting and not by the one getting the haircut. Even if ignorant pilgrims do intend to offer their hair to the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>, the barbers who work there are presumably more knowledgeable and better informed about Hindu theology, and they do not share that intention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rav Elyashiv stressed that this psak<\/em> was contingent on the accuracy of the information presented to him. Subsequently, people with knowledge of Hinduism contended that the hair should be considered an offering to the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much discussion ensued, centering around four basic questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of these four questions, the first and last are of halachic nature, whereas the middle two are factual questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An offering to an idol is referred to by Chazal as a tikroves<\/em> avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. One is prohibited from deriving benefit from both avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> and tikroves avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>, and the Rambam writes that doing so would transgress two issurim d\u2019Oraysa<\/em> (Torah prohibitions).[2]<\/a> Tikroves avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> is actually more stringent than avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> because it is prohibited forever, unlike an avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> which a non-Jew can mevatel<\/em> (annul) \u2013 if an avodah zara<\/em> is nullified, a Jew may benefit from it.[3]<\/a> Therefore, tikroves avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> hair remains forbidden even when sold and sewn into a wig.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To be categorized as a tikroves<\/em>, the offering to avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> must have some similarity to an activity performed in the Beis Hamikdash. For example, if a person places loaves before an avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> as an act of worship, they become a tikroves<\/em> due to their similarity to a korban mincha<\/em>.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n If he places a wooden stick in this manner, it does not become a tikroves<\/em> as there is no equivalent korban<\/em>. However, the Gemara states that if the person breaks a stick before an avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> as an act of worship, it would become a tikroves<\/em>. This is because the action of breaking has some similarity to the act of shechita<\/em> performed in the Beis Hamikdash, which separated the head of the animal from its body.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is debatable whether cutting hair should also be viewed as similar to shechita<\/em> in that it separates hair from the head, or whether it should be viewed as a different action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rav Yisroel Belsky zt\u201dl <\/em> argued that since at the time of the cutting the hair is attached to the person, and the person does not make himself a tikroves<\/em>, the hair cannot become a tikroves<\/em> either. Furthermore, he added that the barbers are well aware that the hair is going to be sold for everyday use. They engage in mundane conversations with each other while cutting the hair, which indicates that they are not involved in worshiping the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> at that time.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n It should also be noted that Chazal indicate that the act of worship is only considered a tikroves<\/em> if it is performed in front of the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. There is discussion in the poskim<\/em> regarding the parameters of this requirement. Tonsuring in Tirupati occurs in a separate building, in the general vicinity of the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. Although the actual avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> is in a different building, there are photos of the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> on the walls in the tonsuring area. It is debatable whether this is sufficient for the tonsuring to be considered as occurring \u201cin front of the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2003, Rav Elyashiv sent Rav Aharon Dovid Dunner shlit\u201da<\/em>, an Av Beis Din in London, on a fact-finding mission to India. He interviewed several pilgrims, some of whom told him that they were shaving their hair as an offering to the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. Evidently, subjugation of one\u2019s ego was not the sole reason for the tonsuring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It seemed likely that this was also true for the barbers. Rav Dunner returned and relayed the information to Rav Elyashiv, who then wrote a second teshuva<\/em> in which he paskened<\/em> that the hair is a tikroves avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. He noted that there is mention in Chazal that the idol named Kemosh was worshiped with hair offerings. Evidently, this is a time-old method of worshiping avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>, and we should assume that nothing has changed.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the years, a number of Yidden<\/em> have visited Tirupati to assess the situation. They hired professional translators to speak with non-English-speaking pilgrims; they also interviewed English-speaking Hindus. The responses were recorded and transcribed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once again, some of the pilgrims stated that they were offering their hair to the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>. People knowledgeable about Hinduism continue to contend that considering tonsure to be an offering to avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Hindu worship. The dichotomy between Hindu theology and the actual responses of pilgrims has been noted by academic scholars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Benjamin J. Fleming is an expert in Hinduism and was the Indic Manuscripts Specialist at the University of Pennsylvania for many years. He suggests that for the pilgrim, tonsuring is a small part of a larger schema. The person takes a vow; upon its fulfillment, he visits the temple and cuts his hair and is then granted access to the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fleming writes, \u201cFor the Jews who [watched] the ritual, moreover, the focus was solely on the question of the status of the hair. In response to their question, devotees may have spoken of hair only as it bears on the broader symbolic complex, namely, the vow and its fulfillment.\u201d[8]<\/a> Whether this explanation fully accords with the statements of the pilgrims is debatable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is possible that some pilgrims intend to offer their hair to the avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> whereas others do not. It is also entirely possible that the distinction between offering one\u2019s ego and offering one\u2019s hair does not exist for Hindus in India who are not familiar with our way of thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although it is hard for us to imagine, in India there are millions of people who live a hand-to-mouth existence and who survive by picking through garbage. According to reports, India has more than four million ragpickers. Some of them specifically collect hair from combs and waste bins. One to three days of collected hair may yield a 500-gram hair ball, which can be sold for approximately $7. Others make a few dollars by separating and sorting the collected hair into strands of different lengths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n India is the largest exporter of human hair in the world. How much of that is temple hair? British anthropologist Emma Tarlo<\/a> has spent years researching the wig industry, and is the author of a 2016 book, Entanglement: The Secret Lives of Hair<\/em><\/a>. She estimates that discarded combings make up about 70% of the Indian hair export, while temple donations make up the other 30%. She also claims that a significant majority of exported temple hair is used for hair extensions, rather than for wigs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Others claim that a larger percentage comes from the temple, especially the long hair used to make wigs. Rav Elyashiv wrote that he was informed that 75% of the hair exported from India was temple hair (although he added that his psak<\/em> was not contingent on that being accurate). However, Rav Belsky challenged that statistic and responded that most of the exported hair was not temple hair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It should be noted that there is a significant difference between temple hair and waste hair. When a pilgrim tonsures his or her hair at the temple, the hair is cut in one sitting and the hair\u2019s scaly cuticles remain aligned from root to point. Those cuticles will be retained when a wig is made from that hair. However, the cuticles of waste hair are not aligned, and the hair is chemically stripped of cuticles during wig hair processing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sam Hong is the founder of Bohyme, a brand that sells hair extensions and wigs. He created the term Remi<\/em> to market hair with unidirectional cuticles. The term became widely used in the industry. Temple hair is Remi hair, which is worth more than non-Remi hair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pilgrims who tonsure their hair do not receive any monetary compensation. However, there are many desperately poor women in India who sell their hair to earn a few dollars, and there is an industry of collectors who buy such hair. This hair is Remi hair, although it is not temple hair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, India is not the only country that exports hair. A reporter for NBC News interviewed women in Cambodia. One woman said that hair traders paid her $25 for her waist-long hair. She sold her hair again, but that time it was not as long, and she received only $15. She used the money to pay the $8 monthly tuition for her child\u2019s school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other countries that are reported to have such businesses include China, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Mongolia and Myanmar. In fact, exploitation is possible wherever there are poor people. A few years ago, there were press reports about four Siberian girls between the ages of 11 and 13 who sold their hair for 70 rubles each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The human hair industry is largely unregulated. Hair which is shipped from India to China may be sold as Chinese hair. Chinese hair which is shipped to Brazil may be sold as Brazilian hair. There are experts who claim that they can differentiate between countries of origin by examining hair, but this seems to be largely unproven. The hair undergoes a significant amount of chemical processing before it is sold to wig manufacturers, making subsequent identification difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How much of the hair on the world market is from India and how much is from other countries? As the processors routinely hide the country of origin, it is hard to know for sure, although it is generally agreed that most of the hair used in the wig industry is from India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seemingly, one strand of tikroves avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> hair in a sheitel would be sufficient to forbid wearing the sheitel. As mentioned earlier, tikroves avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> does not become batel<\/em> (nullified) when mixed with similar permitted items.[9]<\/a> If a random strand of hair was plucked from that sheitel and inserted into a different sheitel, that second sheitel would also be forbidden. A possible counterargument is that the wearer does not get any benefit from one strand of hair. She is not benefiting from tikroves avodah zara<\/em>, as it would make no difference to her whether that one strand was present or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we accept the contention that temple hair is tikroves avodah<\/em> zara<\/em>, then wearing a sheitel made from such hair would be an issur<\/em> d\u2019Oraysa<\/em>. But how about a sheitel made from hair of unknown origin? The hair may or may not be temple hair – it is a safeik<\/em> (area of doubt). Here we should apply the principle of safeik d\u2019Oraysa<\/em> l\u2019chumra<\/em>, which means that we rule strictly when there is doubt regarding a Torah prohibition. If that were the case, it would be forbidden to wear sheitels containing hair of unknown origin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, there is a halachic concept of sfeik sfeika<\/em>. This means that if there are two areas of doubt, then we rule leniently. In our case, we have two areas of doubt. There is doubt whether the hair was sourced in India or in another country. Even if it could be established that the hair was sourced in India, there is doubt whether it is temple hair or not. The principle of sfeik sfeika<\/em> l\u2019kula<\/em> should allow us to rule leniently. A possible counterargument is that there is essentially only one basic safeik<\/em>: is it temple hair or is it not?<\/p>\n\n\n\n These arguments and responses are relevant to the poskim <\/em>who conclude that temple hair is tikroves avodah zara<\/em>. However, Rav Belsky and others who do not accept the contention that the hair is tikroves avodah<\/em> zara<\/em> allow all sheitels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recently, a kol korei<\/em> was issued forbidding sheitels of unknown origin. It was signed by numerous prominent American roshei yeshiva<\/em>. When poskim<\/em> issue a decision on a contentious issue, they invariably write teshuvos<\/em> explaining the halachic rationale for their psak<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We eagerly await further teshuvos<\/em> on this issue. In the meantime, each person should ask his or her own rav<\/em> for guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n NOTE: The information in this article was based on too many sources to include here. For readers who wish to explore this topic more deeply, the author has uploaded links to many of them on the STAR-K website. They can be accessed here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> Koveitz Teshuvos<\/em> 1:77.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> Rambam, Avodah Zara<\/em> 7:2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> Avodah Zara, daf<\/em> 50a. See Taz (Yoreh Deah<\/em> 139:4) for the reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> Tosafos Avodah Zara<\/em> 50b, dibur hamaschil<\/em> \u201cba\u2019inun.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/a> Avodah Zara<\/em> 50b.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a> Shulchan HaLevi, Birurei Halacha, siman<\/em> 28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/a> Koveitz Teshuvos<\/em> 3:118.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Business of Hair in Tirupati<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
The Original Teshuva<\/em> of HaRav Elyashiv<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Four Questions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Question One: The Issue of Tikroves<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Question Two: Determining the Intent of the Barbers and Pilgrims<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Question Three: Determining the Source of Wig Hair<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Question Four: Wigs of Unknown Origin<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Debate Continues<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n