גריי מאטר ג, קוסמסטיקה והלכה, איפור בשבת ויום טובGray Matter III, Cosmetics and Halacha, Applying Cosmetics on Shabbat and Yom Tov
א׳
1In the next two chapters, we shall discuss a most sensitive topic, that of the use of cosmetics on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Many women consider it a necessity to wear makeup on these days, since it is specifically then that they appear in public in formal dress. Unfortunately, there are myriad halachic challenges associated with applying makeup on these occasions. In this chapter, we shall outline some of the major issues involved in the use of makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov as well as potential solutions that are approved by some poskim.
ב׳
2Gemara, Rishonim, and Classic Acharonim
ג׳
3The Mishnah (Shabbat 10:6) records a dispute as to what level prohibition exists against applying blue color to the area around one’s eyes on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The Chachamim believe that it entails a rabbinic violation, while Rabi Eliezer believes that it is a biblical prohibition. The Gemara (Shabbat 95a) explains that Rabi Eliezer defines this act as Tzovei’a (coloring), one of the thirty-nine categories of creative activities that are forbidden on Shabbat.
ד׳
4The Rishonim appear to disagree about which opinion is accepted as normative. The Beit Yosef (O.C. 303 s.v. V’lo L’kchol) writes that the Rambam rules in accordance with the Chachamim. The Minchat Chinuch (32:15) explains that this may be inferred from Hilchot Shabbat 22:23, where the Rambam writes, “It is forbidden for a woman to put serek (paint) on her face [on Shabbat and Yom Tov] because it is like painting.” The Rambam’s use of the word “like” implies that he believes that this is only a rabbinic prohibition – otherwise, he would have written, “It is painting.” Moreover, all of the other acts that the Rambam lists in chapter twenty-two are violations of rabbinic law, not biblical law. Thus, the context of this Halachah in the Rambam also indicates that the Rambam categorizes applying serek on Shabbat and Yom Tov as a rabbinic prohibition.
ה׳
5The Beit Yosef remarks, though, that the Semag (Lo Ta’aseh 65) seems to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabi Eliezer. The Nishmat Adam (Hilchot Shabbat 24:1) notes that another Rishon, the Sefer Yerei’im (102) also agrees with the opinion of the Semag.1The Nishmat Adam believes that even the Semag and the Sefer Yerei’im accept the view of the Chachamim. He reinterprets the Gemara to allow for this conclusion. Nevertheless, the Beit Yosef rules in accordance with the Chachamim. This is hardly surprising, as the majority opinion, which the “Chachamim” in the Mishnah generally represent, is usually accepted as normative.
ו׳
6Among the major commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch, the Magen Avraham (303:19) rules in accordance with the Rambam, and the Vilna Gaon (Bei’ur Hagra 303:25) cites both the Rambam and the Semag (though he critiques the Semag). Later codifiers remain divided. The Chayei Adam (Hilchot Shabbat 24:2) cites both views without deciding which is accepted as normative. On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah (303:79) and the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 303:30) rule unequivocally that it constitutes a rabbinic prohibition, in accordance with the position of the Chachamim, Rambam, Beit Yosef, and Magen Avraham.
ז׳
7The Category of Davar She’eino Mitkayeim
ח׳
8Those who rule that applying serek constitutes only a rabbinic prohibition do not explain why this should be. The Chayei Adam elucidates that the Rambam (who follows the Chachamim) considers serek to be an action whose effects are eino mitkayeim (temporary), rendering it only a rabbinic prohibition. The Minchat Chinuch criticizes this explanation, claiming that serek should in fact be considered mitkayeim (permanent). In order to appreciate this dispute, we must briefly explore the concept of eino mitkayeim.
ט׳
9In the context of the rules concerning boneh (building) on Shabbat, the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:1) states a broad rule: “This is the rule – one who performs a creative act (melachah) that has a permanent effect (mitkayeim) has violated a biblical prohibition.” A melachah that has only a temporary effect, in contrast, entails only a rabbinic prohibition, and a melachah that is eino mitkayeim klal (fleeting) is actually permissible in certain limited situations.
י׳
10Although the rule is clear, its application is not, as it is difficult to define precisely the concept and parameters of davar hamitkayeim. The Tiferet Yisrael (Kalkelet Hashabbat, Haboneh) quotes from the Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 315:1) that a building that lasts eight or nine days is defined as kavu’a (lasting)2Kavu’a and mitkayeim seem to be synonymous. regarding the laws of building on Shabbat. The Sha’ar Hatziyun (303:68) infers from the Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 9:13) that a melachah is defined as mitkayeim if it lasts through the end of Shabbat, but he adds that Rashi (Shabbat 102b s.v. B’shabbat) believes that mitkayeim means lasting forever.3The Mishnah Berurah (introduction to O.C. 317), in the context of tying a knot on Shabbat, explains this to mean that one does not set a time to undo the knot and the knot is capable of lasting permanently. In the context of the melachah of kosheir (tying a knot), the Rama (O.C. 317:1) cites two opinions regarding when a knot is considered “shel kayama” (lasting). One believes that it must last just one day to be defined as “permanent,” while the other holds that it must last seven days.4We should clarify that this debate is about whether a rabbinic prohibition is violated. A biblical prohibition is violated only if the knot is meant to last indefinitely (as defined in the preceding footnote).
י״א
11To complicate matters further, it is clear that certain acts are considered mitkayeim even though their effects are fleeting. The Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 12:2) writes that it is biblically prohibited to heat metal on Shabbat until it glows, even though the metal will cool down relatively quickly after it is heated. It is regarded as mitkayeim because one has accomplished his goal thereby.5It therefore constitutes melechet machashevet (creative, calculated labor; see The 39 Melochos p. 177-178 for more explanation), which is a prerequisite for violating the biblical prohibition of melachah. See the Rashba, Shabbat 115b s.v. Ha D’amrinan, who asserts that this is the reason why a davar she’eino mitkayeim is not biblically forbidden. Rav Dovid Ribiat (The 39 Melochos 1:134 in the Hebrew section) explains that the concept of mitkayeim varies from melachah to melachah as well as from act to act. Since metal is usually heated to a glow only for a brief period, it is regarded as mitkayeim.6For further discussion of this question, see Rav Mordechai Eliyahu’s essay in Techumin (11:107-112) concerning doctors writing on Shabbat and Yom Tov with ink that lasts only until the end of the day.
י״ב
12Accordingly, we can appreciate the Minchat Chinuch’s criticism of the Chayei Adam’s assertion that putting serek on one’s face is considered eino mitkayeim. The Minchat Chinuch argues that since the applier has accomplished her goal, her act should be considered mitkayeim. Moreover, the Ketzot Hashulchan (146, Badei Hashulchan 20) notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 22:23) does not classify the serek on a woman’s face as eino mitkayeim, whereas he does describe (Hilchot Shabbat 9:13) serek placed on iron as such. We must therefore look to other Acharonim for further explanation of this Rambam.
י״ג
13Alternative Explanations for the Rambam
י״ד
14The Mishnah Berurah (303:79) explains that applying serek is only a rabbinic prohibition because the biblical melachah of tzovei’a does not apply to coloring human skin. This is a somewhat novel assertion, as it is unclear when melachot do not apply to acts performed on the human body - there is no general rule that they do not. For example, the melachot of boneh (see Shabbat 95a and Ketubot 6b) and koteiv (writing; see Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 11:16) undoubtedly do apply to the human body. Rav Ribiat (The 39 Melochos p. 820) records a dispute among twentieth-century poskim as to whether the melachah of tofeir (sewing) applies to human skin.7This has serious implications regarding the question of physicians sewing stitches on Shabbat. Thus, it is not self-evident that the melachah of tzovei’a does not apply to the human body, nor does the Mishnah Berurah cite a source for this assertion, leaving his underlying reasoning indeterminate.
ט״ו
15The Ketzot Hashulchan (146, Badei Hashulchan 20) suggests that since women normally apply makeup with the intention to remove it within a few hours (such as before they go to sleep), applying makeup is considered tzovei’a al menat limchok (coloring with the intention to erase). Thus, a woman’s face is not a surface that is normally painted in a manner regarded as mitkayeim, which is why the biblical prohibition of tzovei’a does not apply to human skin and is considered eino mitkayeim.
ט״ז
16Accordingly, although the consensus opinion is that applying serek constitutes only a rabbinic prohibition, the basis for this approach remains unclear. In addition, significant Rishonim and Acharonim consider or rule in accordance with the view that applying serek constitutes a biblical prohibition.
י״ז
17Twentieth-Century Poskim – the Strict View
י״ח
18A straightforward application of the sources outlined seems to yield no room for leniency regarding the application of cosmetics on Shabbat – the only debate is whether applying makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov constitutes a biblical or rabbinic prohibition. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that many contemporary poskim oppose applying any colored makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov. These authorities include Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchatah 14:59 footnote 158 and Tikkunim Umili’um ibid.), Rav Shmuel Wosner (Teshuvot Sheivet Halevi 6:33), Rav Gedalia Felder (Yesodei Yeshurun 4:72-73), and Rav Shimon Schwab (reported by Rav Dovid Heber). It is important to clarify that these authorities forbid even the use of what is called “Shabbos makeup,” special cosmetics that are produced for Shabbat and Yom Tov use and are approved by some poskim.
י״ט
19Equally unsurprising, the authors of halachic works geared to popular audiences advocate (with slight variations) the strict approach to this issue. These works include Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth’s Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchatah (14:58-59), Dayan Yechezkel Posen’s Kitzur Hilchot Shabbat (21:4), Rav Dovid Ribiat’s The 39 Melochos (3:743), and Rav Doniel Neustadt’s The Monthly Halachah Discussion (p. 276). Rav J. David Bleich (Contemporary Halakhic Problems IV:113-119) also clearly indicates his preference for the strict approach to this issue. It seems, then, that the consensus among most poskim is to forbid virtually all forms of colored makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
כ׳
20The Motivations for the Lenient Approach
כ״א
21Nevertheless, many major poskim present a lenient approach to permit women (in certain circumstances) to apply some cosmetics on Shabbat and Yom Tov. These authorities include Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:114 and 5:27), Rav Avraham Chaim Na’eh (Ketzot Hashulchan ad. loc.), and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yabia Omer 6 O.C. 38 and Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at 4:28). Rav Yosef Adler reports that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik also agreed with the lenient approach to this issue.
כ״ב
22Rav Ovadia Yosef (in Teshuvot Yabia Omer) explicitly states a motivation for adopting a lenient stance on this issue. He registers concern that domestic tranquility might be disturbed if women are forbidden to wear makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The source for this idea is the Gemara (Shabbat 64b) that records that Rabi Akiva permitted wives to wear makeup even when they were niddot in order to promote shelom bayit (domestic tranquility) between husband and wife.
כ״ג
23We may add that among the ten takanot (decrees) enacted by the biblical Ezra, as recounted in the Gemara (Bava Kama 82a), was that towns could not restrict travelling salesmen from supplying perfume and fragrances to the women of each community. This demonstrates the sensitivity the Torah and Chazal display toward the needs of women and families regarding these matters.
כ״ד
24In Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at, Rav Ovadia refers to the oft-quoted statement of the Gemara (Pesachim 66a) about an area of uncertainty with respect to korban pesach: “Leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets then they are the children of prophets.” Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. B’nei) elaborates, “And [therefore] observe what they (the Jewish people) do,” which will resolve the uncertainty.8This principle applies only to an area of uncertainty in Halachah and to the practices of those who carefully observe Halachah. Rav Ovadia applies this principle to our situation, noting that many women who are meticulously observant rely on the lenient approaches of Rav Moshe and Rav Na’eh.9Before we begin our presentation of the basis for the lenient view, we should note that there are some cosmetics that are specially formulated to last throughout Shabbat. Some women who follow the strict view apply these cosmetics before Shabbat. Wearing this type of makeup for all of Shabbat does not violate the prohibition of mar’it ayin (appearing to have sinned), since, as Rav Yonatan Eybeshitz (Kereiti Upeleiti), the Mishnah Berurah (467:33), and the Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 298:4) record, mar’it ayin does not apply when permissible ways to perform the action in question are known. For example, it is not forbidden to drink red wine, even though it appears like drinking blood, since it is known that people drink red wine. Similarly, a woman need not be concerned that people will think she applied her makeup on Shabbat, since people know that makeup that lasts throughout Shabbat even if it is applied beforehand is available.
כ״ה
25The Lenient Approaches of Rav Moshe, Rav Na’eh and Rav Ovadia
כ״ו
26The point of departure for the lenient view is that the prohibition to apply serek is only rabbinic in nature. Once it is proven that the prohibition to apply serek is only rabbinic in nature, there is more room to be lenient about applying cosmetics than there would be if it were classified as a biblical prohibition.
כ״ז
27To this end, the Ketzot Hashulchan distinguishes between the serek cosmetic that the Gemara, Rishonim, and classic Acharonim discuss and the blush used today that does not adhere to the skin for a significant period of time. He argues that Chazal prohibit only serek, which adheres to the skin. However, blush that is applied directly to the skin without a cosmetic base (“foundation”) does not adhere to the skin, and thus is not included in the rabbinic prohibition to apply serek to one’s face. Rav Ovadia clarifies, though, that this leniency applies only to powders that are not oil-based and contain no creams.10Rav Dovid Heber informs me that the fact that the word “oil” does not appear on the label of a cosmetic is not sufficient evidence that it does not in fact contain oil, as one of the other ingredients may be oil-based.
כ״ח
28Rav Moshe takes a similar tack to the Ketzot Hashulchan’s, writing in his first (and exceptionally brief and cryptic) responsum on this topic (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:114), “White11In the later teshuvah, he clarifies that this applies to colored powder as well. powder that does not last at all (“eino mitkayeim klal”) is not included in the prohibition of tzovei’a.”
כ״ט
29We must elucidate the concept of eino mitkayeim klal in order to understand Rav Moshe’s ruling. We mentioned earlier that in very limited circumstances, a melachah that lasts for an exceptionally brief period of time is permitted. The fact that one is permitted (see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 317:1) to tie his shoes on Shabbat (if he ties and unties them daily) is a classic application of this principle. Another example is the lenient ruling of many poskim12See Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchatah 15 footnote 250; Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at 6:24; and Rav Moshe Feinstein, cited in The 39 Melochos 1:137 in the Hebrew section. that fastening the adhesive tabs on a child’s diaper on Shabbat is permitted, even though fastening two objects to each other is forbidden under the rubric of tofeir (sewing; see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 340:14).
ל׳
30We can explain Rav Moshe’s leniency regarding makeup in a similar manner. Whereas applying serek is a rabbinic prohibition because Chazal classify it as eino mitkayeim, cosmetic powder that does not last long is not forbidden because it is eino mitkayeim klal.
ל״א
31Even so, applying those cosmetics that are specially formulated to be long-lasting might constitute a biblical prohibition on Shabbat. These cosmetics, which are often designed to be applied before Shabbat and to last throughout Shabbat, are sometimes referred to as “Shabbos makeup.” Rav Dovid Heber points out that this is a serious misnomer – they should more properly be labeled “erev Shabbos makeup.” A woman should be especially careful not to apply such makeup on Shabbat, as it seems to qualify as mitkayeim according to the Rambam’s definition (presented above), in which case it constitutes a biblical prohibition.13Two types of “Shabbos makeup” are marketed today. One type is intended to be applied on Shabbat itself in accordance with the lenient approach of Rav Moshe, Rav Na’eh, and Rav Ovadia. The other type is designed to last for a longer period of time and is applied before Shabbat.
ל״ב
32Rav Shlomo Zalman, however, rejects the lenient approach, stating that there is no source to permit tzovei’a even if it is eino mitkayeim klal.14Rav Shlomo Zalman was an extraordinary expert regarding Hilchot Shabbat, so his assertion that no source exists is exceptionally authoritative. Moreover, he writes that one should be especially cautious about this issue since, according to a number of Rishonim (as we discussed above), the application of makeup is always biblically prohibited. In fact, Rav Gedalia Felder (Yesodei Yeshurun 4:72) points out that the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 303:25) forbids a woman to spread dough on her face to give it a red appearance, which seems to indicate that Halachah forbids coloring the face even in a manner that is fleeting.
ל״ג
33Practical Applications
ל״ד
34Rav Moshe (in his later responsum Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 5:27; see also the publication of Rav Moshe’s Mesivta Tifereth Jerusalem, L’Torah V’hora’ah, 7:28) clarifies that after extensive testing, he discovered that many of the commercially available cosmetic powders are analogous to serek, since they last for a significant amount of time. These powders are therefore subject to the prohibition of tzovei’a. However, he notes that some powders do not last very long and would be permissible, concluding, “Without experience regarding this matter, it is difficult to issue a decision about it.”
ל״ה
35Rav Dovid Heber reports that there are still poskim who participated in Rav Moshe’s thorough investigation and testing of cosmetic powders. He therefore instructs15Rav Heber’s essay on this topic is available at www.star-k.org. that to rely on Rav Moshe’s leniency, one must use only powders that have been tested by a poseik who has specific and proper training and who has determined that the powders in question are “temporary” enough to conform to Rav Moshe’s standards.
ל״ו
36Undoubtedly, Rav Moshe’s standards are difficult to quantify objectively. Indeed, Rav Bleich and Rav Neustadt argue that it is nearly impossible to implement Rav Moshe’s lenient ruling in practice because of this lack of objective standards. On the other hand, there are other areas of Halachah that are difficult to quantify, yet we rely on the judgment of poskim who are properly trained and experienced in these matters.16For example, judging colors in the context of hilchot niddah; see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 188 and Badei Hashulchan 188:6. Poskim do not use specific color charts as standards for determining colors in this context. The ability to make such determinations is passed from teacher to student.
ל״ז
37Conclusion
ל״ח
38Many cosmetics are forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Tov according to all opinions. No consensus has been reached, though, regarding the permissibility of the use of temporary makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Undoubtedly, it is best to avoid applying any makeup on these days. However, some poskim believe that if a woman feels that it is essential for her to apply makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov, she has the right to follow the lenient opinion if she strictly adheres to Rav Moshe’s guidelines. This is especially true in light of the fact that the Rambam, Beit Yosef, Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan all agree that the prohibition of applying makeup is only rabbinic in nature. Even those who wish to follow the lenient poskim, however, must keep in mind that they do not permit applying makeup indiscriminately, as we shall see in our next chapter.
ל״ט
39In the last chapter, we reviewed the strict and lenient approaches articulated by the twentieth-century poskim regarding the application of makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov. We shall now conclude with a discussion of some specific issues and challenges regarding the application of makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov even according to the lenient opinion.
מ׳
40Lipstick and Lip Gloss
מ״א
41Rav Moshe writes (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:114) that lipstick can not be applied on Shabbat and Yom Tov because doing so violates tzovei’a and memacheik (smoothing), the latter of which occurs when the surface of the lipstick bar is rubbed.1This is similar to the practice not to use bar soap on Shabbat; see Mishnah Berurah 326:30. See, though, Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at (2:50). However, Rav Dovid Heber reports that some commercially available lipstick powders2The use of powder rather than a bar circumvents the issue of memacheik. made for Shabbat use are not long-lasting and meet Rav Moshe’s criteria of eino mitkayeim klal, making them permissible for use on Shabbat. Some poskim object to the use of these lip powders anyway, claiming that the powder mixes with saliva and becomes long-lasting. Rav Heber relates, though, that he consulted with three cosmetic chemists, all of whom agreed that the saliva does not make the lip powder long-lasting.
מ״ב
42Rav Moshe forbids even liquid lipstick on Shabbat and Yom Tov because of tzovei’a, which Rav Bleich explains to refer to lip gloss. This appears difficult, as untinted, clear lip gloss merely produces a shine but does not color the lips. The answer lies in the Mishnah Berurah (327:12, as explained by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchatah 14: footnote 152), who writes that he believes there is concern for tzovei’a even if one creates only a shine. Thus, both Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalman rule that clear lip gloss is forbidden to be used on Shabbat and Yom Tov (unless it is eino mitkayeim klal, in which case Rav Moshe would permit its use).
מ״ג
43Interestingly, Rav Heber relates that he heard that when Rav Moshe was shown clear lip gloss, he responded that it is forbidden because it creates a shine, but remarked that some authorities are lenient regarding this issue. Indeed, the Mishnah Berurah does not cite a source for his belief that creating a shine constitutes tzovei’a, stating only that there is a concern for tzovei’a, which may indicate that he was not thoroughly convinced of his assertion. Nonetheless, I have not discovered any prominent poskim who disagree with the strict rulings of Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalman.
מ״ד
44Loose Powder
מ״ה
45Rav Moshe writes (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 5:27) that any make-up powder must be prepared before Shabbat. Though he does not present a reason for this requirement, Rav Heber reports that Rav Moshe explained to his students that there is a problem of tochein (grinding)3Tochein is the av melachah forbidding the breaking of certain items into very small pieces. if one removes the powder from the cake on Shabbat.
מ״ו
46Rav Moshe’s ruling is somewhat debatable, given that the powder was ground before it was formed into a cake during its manufacture. Thus, it would seem to fall under the rule of ein tochein achar tochein, which dictates that one may perform tochein a second time on an item that was previously ground. For instance, the Rama (O.C. 321:12) specifically permits crumbling bread into crumbs to feed one’s animals on Shabbat, since the bread was ground during its production. The same rule should apply, at first glance, to makeup powder, which would allow the consumer to “grind” the previously ground makeup powder.
מ״ז
47Nevertheless, the principle of ein tochein achar tochein does not appear in the Gemara, nor is it self-evident. The Ran (32a in the pages of the Rif s.v. Amar Rav Papa) and the Sefer Yerei’im (274) present this idea, which is supported by the Tosefta (Shabbat 13:12). However, the Chayei Adam (Hilchot Shabbat 17:4) notes that a minority view does not subscribe to this principle,4See the Rishonim cited in the Encyclopedia Talmudit (19:179 footnote 334), who seem not to subscribe to this notion. and the Chayei Adam himself urges one to avoid relying on this leniency.
מ״ח
48Thus, since the principle of ein tochein achar tochein is somewhat novel and is subject to debate, several Acharonim seek to limit its application. In fact, the Ketzot Hashulchan (129:16) cites Acharonim who argue that the principle of ein tochein achar tochein applies only to food items. Since the Rama’s ruling is presented in the context of food – crumbling bread – perhaps we should not extend it beyond the Rama’s ruling (ein lecha bo ela chiddusho). Indeed, Rav Heber reports, Rav Moshe explained to his students that he ruled strictly regarding makeup because he believes that ein tochein achar tochein applies only to food items.
מ״ט
49Moisturizers and Memarei’ach
נ׳
50Rav Moshe (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 5:27) cautions women to avoid violating the melachah of memacheik when applying makeup. A prime example of this is the application of moisturizer on Shabbat and Yom Tov – as Rav Heber observes, almost all varieties of moisturizers are in a cream form, making their application fall under the “memarei’ach” subcategory (toladah) of memacheik.
נ״א
51Memarei’ach refers to “smoothing soft, pliable substances that may be pressed or molded to a shape” (Rav Dovid Ribiat, The 39 Melochos, 3:913). A prime example of this is the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:3) that forbids spreading wax to seal a hole in a barrel. The Gemara (Shabbat 146b) records a dispute between Rav and Shmuel whether this prohibition applies also to spreading oil to seal such a hole. Rav asserts that it is a rabbinic prohibition5Memarei’ach on a biblical level applies only to pliable solids. Oil does not fall into this category and as such is prohibited only on a rabbinic level. to spread oil lest one come to spread wax, whereas Shmuel permits this activity, as he does not see the necessity for creating such a gezeirah (rabbinic enactment). The Halachah follows Rav (Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 23:11 and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 314:11), as is the usual protocol in the context of ritual matters (issurei). Rav Ribiat (The 39 Melochos 3:919) writes that rouge creams, eye-shadow creams, petroleum jelly, and hand creams such as Nivea and Desitin are included in this rabbinic prohibition.
נ״ב
52However, even Rav appears to concede that this rabbinic prohibition does not apply to all substances. Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. Mishcha) specifies that it applies only to thick oil, and the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 314:11, as emphasized by the Mishnah Berurah 314:46) rules in accordance with Rashi. The Mishnah Berurah explains that since thick oil may be spread somewhat, it is similar enough to wax to necessitate the gezeirah, while thin oil does not resemble wax at all and therefore is permitted.
נ״ג
53Defining Memarei’ach
נ״ד
54The question, then, is how to determine precisely which items are considered “thick oils” to be included in this rabbinic prohibition. A classic illustration of this problem is the question of using liquid soap on Shabbat. The Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 326:11) and the Ketzot Hashulchan (146:32) permit the use of liquid soap on Shabbat, contending that liquid soap is not comparable to thick oil and thus is not subject to the prohibition of memarei’ach. Dayan Posen (Kitzur Hilchot Shabbat p. 74) notes that the common practice is to follow this lenient ruling. The Shemirat Shabbat K’hilchatah (14:16) also rules in accordance with this opinion.
נ״ה
55Based on this ruling, Dayan Posen (ad. loc.; p. 147, 32:19) sets a standard for what items are included in the rabbinic prohibition of memarei’ach: Anything that is thick to the extent that it cannot pour, does not flow by itself, and needs to be smoothed out is similar to memarei’ach and is forbidden. Liquid soap is permissible since it pours, flows by itself, and does not need to be smoothed out.
נ״ו
56Dayan Posen adds that since this is only a rabbinic prohibition for which the classic poskim present no objective standard, one has the right to adopt a limited view of its scope. Rav Ribiat (The 39 Melochos 3:920) essentially adopts this approach as normative.6He discusses this issue at length in a Hebrew footnote (3:682-685). Based on this standard, Rav Ribiat permits the use of baby oils, lubricating jellies, and olive oil on Shabbat.
נ״ז
57On the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:113) expresses serious reservations regarding the lenient practice of many to use liquid soap on Shabbat. He is concerned that even liquid soap can be spread and thus should be included in the rabbinic prohibition of memarei’ach. Rav Ribiat notes (ad. loc. 3:680 in a Hebrew footnote) that there are those who accommodate Rav Moshe’s strict view by watering down their liquid soap before Shabbat.
נ״ח
58Rav Heber reports that Rav Moshe Heinemann adopts a compromise position between Rav Moshe and Dayan Posen. Rav Heber reports that Rav Heinemann tested the viscosity7Viscosity refers to the property of resistance to flow in a fluid, measured in centipoises (cP). of various liquid soaps. He concluded that only oils with a viscosity of 600 cP or less are not included in the rabbinic prohibition. Thus, he forbids the use of Softsoap Liquid Hand Soap on Shabbat, since its viscosity is higher than 600 cP. On the other hand, he permits Ultra Dawn Concentrated Dish Liquid/Anti-Bacterial Hand Soap, because its viscosity is 600 cP. He notes, though, that this measurement applies only when the room temperature is 70 degrees Fahrenheit; the lower the temperature, the higher the viscosity.
נ״ט
59In summary, three standards exist regarding the definition of memarei’ach on Shabbat: Rav Moshe’s, Dayan Posen’s, and Rav Heinemann’s. One should consult his Rav for a ruling regarding which opinion to follow. This dispute impacts the permissibility of using moisturizers, as a specially prepared, watered-down moisturizer might be permissible to use on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The unresolved question is how much it must be watered down to become permissible for Shabbat and Yom Tov use.
ס׳
60Finally, we should note that one must be careful when removing makeup to ensure that no melachah is performed in the process. Examples of possible violations include memarei’ach if a thick makeup remover is used and sechitah (squeezing) if a wet cotton ball or Q-tip is used.8See The Daily Halachah Discussion (pp. 241-2) for a discussion whether sechitah is violated when using cotton balls and Q-tips.
ס״א
61Conclusion
ס״ב
62Although many cosmetics are forbidden to be used on Shabbat and Yom Tov according to all poskim, no consensus has emerged regarding the permissibility of temporary makeup. Even according to the lenient opinion, only products that a competent and trained poseik has permitted for use on Shabbat and Yom Tov may be used. It is also strongly recommended that a woman who wants to follow the lenient approach consult Rav Heber’s essay (available at www.star-k.org) for a lengthy description of how to avoid the numerous pitfalls involved in applying and removing makeup on Shabbat and Yom Tov.