Makeup on Shabbat

Applying Makeup on Shabbat

Teshuva by Rabbi Haim Ovadia

Question: I am writing on behalf of a group of orthodox women who struggle with the prohibition of applying makeup on Shabbat and are asking for a solution.

The prohibition causes us inconvenience, because dressing up without any makeup just doesn't look "polished" or "finished". Shabbat is the one day we can relax and enjoy with family and friends, and it is a day of Oneg – joy and pleasure. Not wearing makeup makes it stressful to the extent that some of us would not leave their house on Shabbat. Therefore, the prohibition seems to be contradictory to the “Spirit of Shabbat”. Some of us have insecurities, and some are concerned about age, and there are those who are battling illnesses. One of our members specifically wrote that she has acne issues, blotchy skin, and dark circles under her eyes, and that if she wears no makeup, people perceive her as being ill. We want to look our best on Shabbat and every day not for men but for ourselves. We think that it is difficult for many men to understand how deep-seated the issue of attractiveness is, and we mean it in women's own sense of self. Rather than accepting the prohibition, we feel comfortable with the notion that to dress in one's best and to wear makeup is hiddur mitzvah in Shabbat observance.

Some people say that we should apply heavy makeup before Shabbat to last until Motzae Shabbat, but when we’re invited to someone’s house or when we have guests, we forget to put such makeup because we’re often too stressed with preparations. Also, many of us prefer to sleep with no chemicals on the skin, because applying heavy makeup before Shabbat and then sleeping with it is not healthy for the skin and can cause temporary damage to the eyes.

Those who apply heavy makeup before Shabbat with the hope that it stays for the morning, say that they have to fill it in with “permissible” items on Shabbat morning, and those don’t always work. Lastly, this “solution” works partially for Shabbat, but not for the two days of Yom Tov, and especially when they are immediately before or after Shabbat. On Yom Tov it is a disaster, because on the second day of Yom Tov almost everything wears off.

The prohibition leads to many negative and even tragic consequences. Many women ignore the prohibition and apply makeup on Shabbat, and subconsciously label themselves as sinners. This in turn impacts other aspects of their Jewish life because they feel they could never be “truly” observant. Some of us are members of online groups which abound with information on the longest lasting products, designed to stay in place for the 25-73 hours required on Shabbat and Yom tov. There are those who feel that their only option is permanent makeup but that seems like a transgression of the prohibition of tattooing. It is also not an option because taste, skin tone, and appearance all change, so we would not want to have permanent makeup and be stuck with it for a long time. Finally, permanent eyeliner causes loss of eyelashes and disruption of the tear film, which can lead to dry eyes. In general, tattoos anywhere on the body can result in uveitis.^[1]

Another problem is when Mikveh falls on Shabbat or Yom Tov. It is hard enough to explain to our children why we disappear on Erev Shabbat or Yom Tov. It is very uncomfortable to come home from the Mikveh without makeup, and it is almost impossible to explain it to children of a certain age.

Finally, there are those among us who are so desperate to use makeup on Shabbat but would never consider transgressing the prohibition, so they have sought permission from their Poskim to have a non-Jew do it for them on Shabbat. They never received the desired permission.

We would like to ask you to investigate the matter and see if there is a way to vindicate our feeling that the prohibition is impossible to follow, to remove the self-imposed label of sinners from those of us who ignore the prohibition, and to find a way to allow the use of makeup on Shabbat.

Answer: Changing Halakha or Minhag

The history of Halakha teaches us that there is strong opposition to changing a practice or ruling. This is true even when there is irrefutable evidence that they stem from misunderstanding of a previous text or from ignorance. There are also many laws which were applicable in the past but not under changing circumstances, and yet there is tremendous reluctance to reevaluate and modify these laws[1].

In the case of makeup on Shabbat, the argument is that since the halakha which forbids all types of makeup has been accepted in the past, and since it was never challenged by the poskim or by the community of women, it cannot be changed now. It is true that many orthodox women have grown accustomed to the prohibition and would not want to change their practice. This is understandable and their choice should be respected, but it does not mean that the discomfort and complaints of other women are invalid.

The poskim must always consider new facts, insights, and circumstances, and if contemporary observant women do not feel at ease with what is perceived as an ancient tradition, a solution must be found. One of the rules which should lead the poskim in that direction is:

אין גוזרין גזרה על הצבור - אלא אם כן רוב צבור יכולין לעמוד בה

A Halakhic decree cannot be made unless most of the people can follow it.

This rule is so important that it is mentioned several times in the Talmud[2] and hundreds of times in the responsa literature. This rule does not apply to biblical prohibitions, but rather to decrees made by Tannaitic sages or later generations. On the other hand, it applies even if earlier generations have accepted the decree.

It follows that to apply this rule to the prohibition of applying makeup on Shabbat, we need to prove two things:

1. It is not a biblical prohibition.
2. Most women today cannot accept the prohibition, although in the past most women did.

My search for a solution has initially faced the obstacles described by Rabbi Yosef Messas in his discussion of head covering for women: איסור על איסור וחומרה על חומרה – a pile of prohibition upon prohibition and stringency upon stringency. I have therefore decided to follow in his footsteps and analyze the primary sources in the Mishna, Tossefta, and the Talmud, and תהילה לאל, I have found the source of the problem and the key to a solution which makes the use of most cosmetic products on Shabbat permissible and in line with the Spirit of Shabbat.

This Pesak is focused on presenting a new understanding of the Mishnaic language, as well as on analyzing the halakhic arguments for tying the application of makeup to certain categories of work on Shabbat. The conclusion is that not only the prohibition of applying makeup on Shabbat is not biblical, but it has no solid basis in the early sources, and it stemmed from a mistaken reading of Tannaitic texts. But before we approach the Mishnaic text, let us consider social circumstances to see if women’s attitude to the prohibition has changed and why. I will also present here some temporary responsa on the subject to help explain why most contemporary poskim do not want to respond to the challenge of the question which led to this pesak.

Changing Social Circumstances

Ubiquity and availability of cosmetics

Today there are some beauty treatments which are very pricy and cannot be afforded by most people, but generic cosmetics are relatively cheap and ubiquitous. In antiquity, however, using cosmetics was considered a luxury by many women because they were expensive, and because the daily chores did not leave much time for anything else.

One Talmudic source demonstrates the role of affordability[1]:

מעשה באחד שנדר מבת אחותו הנייה, והכניסוה לבית ר' ישמעאל וייפוה. אמר לו ר' ישמעאל: בני, מזו נדרת? אמר לו: לאו, והתירה ר' ישמעאל. באותה שעה בכה ר' ישמעאל ואמר: בנות ישראל נאות הן, אלא שהעניות מנוולתן.

There was a man who made a vow to exclude his niece from him. She was brought to the house of Rabbi Ishmael, and they made her beautiful. Rabbi Ishmael asked the man: My son, did your make your vow about this woman? The man said, no, and Rabbi Ishmael declared the vow nullified. Rabbi Ishmael then cried and said: Jewish women are beautiful, but poverty destroys their beauty.

The man in this story was encouraged to marry his niece, probably by relatives, but found her unattractive. The practice of marrying one’s niece was very common in the past, especially if the woman was an orphan. The man made a vow of exclusion to make his niece forbidden for him. The vow was meant to fend off the matchmakers, because to marry her after he made the vow would be a transgression. The woman was brought to the house of Rabbi Ishmael, and people of his household attended to her and made her look beautiful. From this Tannaitic version of the classic Cinderella motif, we can learn that there were women who did not have access to cosmetics.

A more ancient source which illustrates this problem is the elaborate description in Megillat Esther[2] of the cosmetic treatment of women before they were presented to the king. It is probably exaggerated, but it still demonstrates the disparity between commoners and royalty.

Another proof that beauty treatments were only for the rich is found in tractate Moed Kattan[3]:

אלו הן תכשיטי נשים... עניות טופלות אותן בסיד, עשירות טופלות אותן בסולת, בנות מלכים בשמן המור... ולמה סכין אותו? שמשיר את השער ומעדן את הבשר.

These are women’s beauty treatments… poor women apply lime [to their faces], wealthy women apply fine flour, and princesses use myrrh oil. Why do they apply it to the skin? Because it removes the hair and softens the skin.

This source tells us that poor women, probably the majority of the nation, would use lime as a treatment for hair removal. It was used only by the poor because of several health hazards. Lime is the common name for calcium oxide (CaO), a chemical compound which is still used in the cosmetics industry. Though modern usage of lime is much more subtle and cautious than it was in antiquity, there is a strong opposition to it because its vigorous reaction to water can cause severe irritation. Inhaling lime in powder form may cause coughing and breathing problems. Contact with lime can also cause burns, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. The Roman army used lime as a weapon, making it possibly the first known chemical weapon.

The Talmud continues the discussion of women’s grooming practices, and tells a horrifying tale of the results of extreme beauty treatments:

רב ביבי הוה ליה ברתא, טפלה אבר אבר, שקל בה ארבע מאה זוזי. הוה ההוא נכרי בשבבותיה דהוה ליה ברתא, טפלה בחד זמנא ומתה.

Rav Bibi treated his daughter for hair removal gradually. He received four hundred coins for her [dowry]. A non-Jewish man who lived in his neighborhood treated his daughter similarly but applied the materials to her whole body at once and she died.

This story about beautifying one’s daughter to receive a higher dowry for her is shocking for us today. This practice is indeed horrifying, but it is not a problem unique to antiquity. Unfortunately, similar things happen today even in modern societies in the developed world. Even though they are rare, there are still deaths associated with beauty treatments, not only when people seek cheap alternatives but even with the priciest treatments and the best experts. In the past, however, the hazards of lime were present and immediate, and they were associated with the most common beauty treatment, hair removal. It is no wonder that a prohibition against grooming on Shabbat be tolerated by women. Today, most cosmetic products are safe to use, and in case they cause slight skin irritation, hypoallergenic substitutes are easily available.

It is safe to assume that the prohibition on applying makeup on Shabbat did not make a significant impact on the lives of women in the time of the Mishna, and that they did not complain about it. The transition from inaccessible to ubiquitous makeup in the twentieth century and the growing awareness of women to their status in society have caused quite an uproar among women against the prohibition of using makeup on Shabbat. Women’s complaints, and the fact that many women apply makeup on Shabbat, makes the Mishnaic prohibition, if it is indeed a prohibition against makeup, one which cannot be tolerated by the community.

Was the prohibition a means of control?

As I will demonstrate in this Pesak, a thorough analysis of the classic sources provides no basis for the prohibition of applying makeup on Shabbat. The only concern raised in the Mishna is that of accidentally plucking or cutting hairs. Why then did later commentators and Poskim ignore the obvious contradictions and lacunae and plowed on with their interpretation of the classic texts as referring to makeup?

I think that the answer is in the way women’s visibility and social interaction were viewed for millennia, starting in Mishnaic times[1]. We find limitations and restrictions of what a woman can do, where she can be seen, what parts of her body can be seen, and in what manner can her voice be heard. There is no wonder that if there was a way to declare makeup forbidden, even if for one day only, the poskim used it to limit women’s visibility. This limitation is especially painful, because for both men and women in those times Shabbat was the only day in which they could take care of themselves, as during the week they were engaged in very demanding physical chores. The Mishnaic sages recommended getting ready for Shabbat by washing one’s face[2] and clothes before Shabbat[3], but it would not have worked with makeup which usually does not survive the night.

We have to remember that in antiquity most people, both men and women, were busy with household chores and with physical labor in the field or the marketplace. There was not much time for personal care, and washing clothes, taking a bath, or washing one’s hair, were considered luxury. In such circumstances the presence or absence of makeup in daily life, other for when people prepared for a wedding, was not that noticeable.

Let us return to the question of women’s visibility. The halakhic opposition to allowing women to be publicly visible and integrated in society continued into medieval times. Here is the ruling of Maimonides regarding women’s mobility and social interaction. He refers even to places where women used to cover their whole body when going out[4]:

גנאי הוא לאשה שתהיה יוצאה תמיד פעם בחוץ פעם ברחובות[5], ויש לבעל למנוע אשתו מזה ולא יניחנה לצאת אלא כמו פעם אחת בחודש או פעמים בחודש כפי הצורך, שאין יופי לאשה אלא לישב בזוית ביתה.

It is repugnant for a woman to be constantly outside or in the streets. The husband should prevent his wife from doing so and he should only let her go out once or twice a month, according to necessity. The beautiful thing for a woman is to sit in the corner of the house.

There are many who argue, apologetically, that this call for hiding women from the public eye reflects the Muslim standards of the time and place of Maimonides. Unfortunately, the notion that a woman’s beauty is dangerous or that it should be reserved only for her husband is found in many cultures and in folktales such as Rapunzel and Bluebeard[6]. From our own culture and religion, we can cite sources from all times and places, from poskim who lived under the crescent or the cross. For example, Rashi writes[7]:

בנות... לאו אורחייהו למיפק אבראי

It is not customary for women to be outside their home.

R. Mordechai ben Hillel writes[8]:

האשה שקבועה בבית משום דכל כבודה בת מלך פנימה

The woman is permanently at home because the glory of a princess is to be indoors.

In Sefer Hassidim we find this[9]:

כבודם של נשים ונערים להחבא בפנים

It is respectful for women and youngsters to hide indoors.

And more specifically about adornments in Sefer HaRokeah^[10]:

אפילו בחול אינה יוצאת לרשות הרבים מפני שהעם מסתכלין בה, שלא ניתן תכשיטין לאשה אלא להתקשט בתוך ביתה שאין נותנין פירצה לפני הכשר

Even on weekdays she should not go out to the public domain because people look at her. Adornments were given to women only to adorn themselves inside their homes, so not to breach the walls [of modesty] for kosher men.

R. Yeshaya HaLevi Hurwitz, the Shla”h, writes[11]:

ומכל שכן האשה שהיא מחויבת להיות צנועה ביותר, שיהיה כל כבודה פנימה, ותסתיר עצמה מכל אדם שבעולם בכל מה דאפשר, ועיניה תמיד למטה, ודיבורה בנחת, ולא יראה, ולא ימצא, ולא יהיה מגולה מכל גופה אפילו במשהו, שלא תכשיל שום אדם במראית עין.

A woman must be extremely modest and keep her glory indoors. She should hide herself from everyone as much as possible. Her eyes should always turn downwards, she should speak softly, and should be unseen and unfound[12]. Even the slightest area of her body should not be uncovered, so she should not cause a sin to men who will think of her.

This issue is discussed in greater detail in the chapter about modesty, but it would be safe to assume now that the motivation to prohibit application of makeup on Shabbat was driven and sustained by the desire to keep women hidden and unseen.

In the twentieth century, the visibility of women and their involvement in society have changed significantly. This did not escape the poskim, but most of them either lament the contemporary immodesty, or simply acknowledge it. Very few of them, like R. Yosef Messas and R. Moshe Malka, are willing to reassess traditional norms and modify them according to these changes. This is what R. Yaakov Y. Bloye writes in reference to the ruling of Maimonides[13]:

יש בדברים אלה משום תוכחת מגולה להבין עד כמה נפרץ הדבר בזמננו, והמכשולים שבהם.

This is an open rebuke to make people understand how breached this rule is today and how many obstacles it causes.

One of the greatest Ashkenazi poskim of the 20^th century, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, acknowledges the social changes and uses them to explain why people are not observing the prohibition of walking behind a woman[14]:

דבזמן הקדום לא היתה האשה רגילה ללכת ברחובות קריה והיתה יושבת בירכתי ביתה, וכדברי הרמב"ם... וכן נפסק ברמ"א באה"ע סי' ע"ג סעי' א'... בזמן הזה שהמציאות לא כן, אלא האשה אינה יושבת בירכתי ביתה כבזמן הקדום ורגילין יותר בראית אשה ברחוב.

In antiquity women would not walk in the streets and would sit in the corner, as Maimonides writes… The Rema ruled similarly (Even HaEzer 73:1)… today, reality is different, women do not sit in the corner of the house as in ancient times and it is more common to see women in the streets.

Other poskim take the battle against women’s visibility to the new reality. R. Shmuel Wozner writes[15]:

בענין הצניעות מה שנשים לומדות ומרגילות עצמן לנהוג מכונית, הנה מן הנסיון למדתי שהוא דבר שראוי לאסרו איסור גמור, כי עצם הלמוד גרם כבר וגורם לפריצות

On the matter of modesty of women who learn and accustom themselves to drive a car, I have learned from my experience that it is a practice that should be totally forbidden, as even the learning itself has caused and continues to cause promiscuity.

And when talking about makeup, we find a similar voice calling for less visibility in the writings of R. Moshe Sternbuch[16]:

מה שנתחדש בזמנינו להניח איפור על פניה, אף שלא הוזכר כן בגמרא שדינו כערוה, מכל מקום אם אנו רואים שהדבר מביא לידי הרהור דינו כערוה

The custom which was invented today to place makeup on her face, even though the Talmud does not mention it as immodesty, since we see that it leads to sexual attraction, we should treat it as immodesty [the word could also be translated as promiscuity].

This statement is mindboggling. To say that applying makeup is an innovation of modern times, or that it was hitherto unknown to Jewish women, is to go against all historical evidence. We cannot expect a posek to understand the distress contemporary women experience because of the prohibition of makeup on Shabbat, when that posek is so detached from historical and social development and wants to forbid makeup completely.

Even rabbis who are considered more modern and open-minded, such as R. Eliezer Melamed, do not see the need for women to put makeup on Shabbat. R. Melamed writes[17]:

איסור האיפור הוא מן האיסורים הקשים ביותר. כי קשה מאוד לאשה שרגילה להתאפר בכל יום להימנע מכך ביום השבת, שכן דווקא ביום השבת, שבו הכל מתלבשים בחגיגיות, נשים רוצות להיראות במיטבן.

אך במבט עמוק יותר אפשר אולי לומר, שאדרבה, זהו עניינו של יום השבת, שהוא יום קדושה ומנוחה. מנוחה מהמתח המלווה את ימות החול, שבהם אנו טורחים לעשות את המיטב כדי להיראות כלפי חוץ יותר טוב מכפי שאנו באמת, כדי לעמוד בסטנדרטים האכזריים של היופי החיצוני.

על ידי השבת וההתחזקות באמונה ובהשגחה האלוקית, צריכה לבוא מנוחה אמיתית שבאה מתוך השלמה פנימית עם המציאות כפי שהיא ועם היופי הטבעי, שאותו מעטרים בבגדים ותכשיטים. וזהו עונג שבת.

The prohibition on wearing makeup is one of the most difficult to follow. For a woman who is used to putting on makeup every day, it is not easy to refrain from doing so on Shabbat, especially since it is precisely Shabbat when people try to look their best.

However, if we explore the issue in greater depth, we can perhaps suggest that this, on the contrary, relates to the main idea of Shabbat, a day of holiness and rest. Shabbat is when we take a break from the stress that we experience throughout the week. We work so hard to present ourselves to others as more beautiful than we naturally are, in an attempt to meet society’s cruel and superficial standards of beauty.

By contrast, the Shabbat helps us to truly relax by strengthening our faith and belief in divine providence. We can achieve this spiritual relaxation when we attain an internal acceptance of existence as it is, and an appreciation of our natural beauty, which we highlight with clothing and jewelry. This is Oneg Shabbat.

This argument is very difficult to accept, because if we follow this logic, even men should not make any effort to look better on Shabbat or to enhance their natural look. Doing so would be associated with the cruel and fake reality of the weekdays in which we present ourselves to others. This conclusion would not agree with the myriad of sources which instruct men to do whatever they can to look their best on Shabbat. For example, the Hid”a, R. Haim Yosef David Azulay, writes[18]:

ישתדל להחליף שמלותיו. הסירו הבגדים בגדי חול והלבש מחלצות בגדי שבת. ואשריו למי שיש לו בגדים מיוחדים מכף רגל ועד ראש לשבת ולא יעלה עליו שום בגד קטן וגדול שלובשו בחול.

One should try to change his clothes. Remove your daily garments and dress with precious Shabbat clothes. Praiseworthy is he who has special garments from head to toe for Shabbat, and does not wear any garment, big or small, which he usually wears on weekdays.

There are also hundreds of sources which mention the obligation of men to bathe, shave, take a haircut, and clip fingernails, in honor of Shabbat.

Additionally, as mentioned in the question, wearing makeup is not about presenting yourself to others but about your own feeling.

Rabbi Melamed’s argument, with all due respect, is only apologetic and does not provide a satisfactory explanation to the prohibition of makeup on Shabbat.

Makeup by a non-Jew

The distress of observant women because of Shabbat makeup has brought many women, including in the factions with the most extreme modesty regulations, to ask their rabbis whether they are allowed to ask a non-Jewish friend or a professional to do their makeup on Shabbat.

It is probably not surprising that all poskim answer with a resounding no, with no in-depth discussion or explanation. Here are some examples:

Rabbi Baruch Efrati of kipa.org.il was asked by a man whether his wife could prearrange with a non-Jewish woman to do her makeup on Shabbat. Here is his answer, verbatim:

שלום, אסור, כל טוב

Shalom, it is forbidden, all the best.

The rabbi did not bother to explain his ruling or to show empathy. He simply ruled “forbidden” and closed the case.

Rabbi Fleishman and the rabbinic team at din.org.il received this question:

אני צריכה לטבול בליל שבת, ואחר כך ללכת לסעודת בר מצוה (שאני ארגנתי לילד יתום) אצל חברה שלי ולא נעים לי לבוא לא מאופרת. האם מותר לי להתאפר על ידי גויה? (בסלון יופי או בביתי) ואשלם לה מראש

I have to go to the mikveh on Friday night and then go to a Bar Mitzva dinner (which I organized for an orphan) at a friend’s house. I feel uncomfortable going there without makeup. Am I allowed to have a non-Jewish woman do my makeup (at home or in a beauty parlor)? I will pay her in advance.

The woman’s distress is evident between the lines. She is begging to hear that it is permissible. She explains that she organized a Bar Mitzvah for an orphan boy. She wants to send the message that it is a double Mitzvah. Helping someone who cannot afford a Bar Mitzvah festive meal and taking care of the orphan. She also explains that she cannot put makeup before Shabbat because she has to go to the Mikveh.

And what was the rabbi’s answer?

לא הספקתי לראות את שאלתך לפני שבת, אבל ברור שהדבר אסור, הולכים בלי איפור וזה בסדר גמור. אסור לעשות מלאכה על ידי גוי, רק לצורך מצוה דרבים או לצורך חולה

I did not have a chance to see your question before Shabbat, but it is clearly forbidden. You just go without makeup, and it is totally fine. You cannot have a non-Jew do work for you except to help a large group of people or for a sick person.

Again, the rabbi shows no empathy, nor does he praise the woman for the Mitzvot she is performing. He missed the deadline and answered after Shabbat, and his response is flat and cold: it is clearly forbidden. He also seems to rebuke her for being frivolous: “You just go without makeup, and it is totally fine.” What does he mean by “totally fine”? Totally fine for him, as a man, or for the woman who will feel embarrassed attending, without makeup, the dinner she herself put together? Why can’t he consider her case one of public need? How about encouraging her to do her work of lovingkindness by giving her a one-time exception to have a non-Jew do her makeup?

In the following case, discussed by the rabbinic staff of Kollel Eretz Chemda, the woman asking the question presents her dilemma in great detail[1]:

ברוך השם חזרתי בתשובה לפני שלוש שנים, ואני הולכת ומתחזקת בעבודת ה' שלי. אחותי, שהיא קרובה אלי מאוד, מתחתנת בחודש הבא, לצערי הרב בחתונה רפורמית. אני שומרת על קשר עם המשפחה, גם כדי שיהיה סיכוי להחזיר אותם בתשובה, ולכן גם אשתתף בחתונה, שתיערך בבית מלון בשבת אחר הצהריים.

הם דואגים לי לאוכל כשר, ובית המלון יאפשר לי לשהות במקום ללא חילול שבת. ועדיין יש בעיות הלכתיות קשות שעלי להתמודד עמן. אנא עזרו לי להבין מה אסור לי לעשות ומה מותר לי, אפילו בדיעבד, בנקודות הבאות:... [האם מותר] שמאפרת גויה תאפר אותי לפני החתונה?

Thank God, I became observant three years ago, and I gradually grow stronger in my religious practice [lit. Service of HaShem]. My sister, who is very close to me, is getting married next month in a reform wedding, to my great chagrin. I keep in touch with my family to be able to bring them closer to observance, and that’s why I will participate in the wedding, which will take place in a hotel on a Shabbat afternoon.

They are getting me Kosher food, and the hotel enables me to stay there without transgressing Shabbat. Still, there are serious halakhic questions I am grappling with. Please help me understand what is forbidden and what I am allowed to do, even pos facto, regarding the following… [can] a non-Jewish professional do my makeup before the wedding?

As in the previous case, here also the woman is pleading with the rabbis to find a way to make things permissible. She explains that she is Baalat Teshuva and that unlike other people who become observant and sever ties with their families, she is still in touch because she hopes to have a positive influence over her relatives. She makes it clear that she is not compromising her observance and that she asked and received special accommodations from her relatives for the Shabbat wedding. Here is what the rabbinic staff answered:

אנו מאוד מעריכים את רצינותך בעבודת ה' שלך, ואת רצונך לשמור על הקשר ולקרב את בני משפחתך, כדי שגם הם יזכו בעתיד לחיות חיים יהודיים יותר. מובן שחשנו גם את צערך על שאת נאלצת להשתתף בשמחה שכזו, הכרוכה גם בחילול שבת.

ככלל, בהלכות שבת, כל מה שאסור ליהודי לעשות, אסור לו לומר לגוי לעשות עבורו, וכן אסור ליהודי ליהנות מחילול השבת שהגוי חילל עבורו... [על פי השו"ע, אורח חיים, שג:ה] אסור להתאפר בשבת אפילו על ידי גוי

We very much appreciate the seriousness of your service of HaShem, and your desire to keep in touch with your relatives and bring them closer to observance, so they will merit in the future a life with greater Jewish content. We obviously also felt your pain for having to participate in such an event which involves transgression of Shabbat.

The rule of Shabbat laws is that whatever a Jew cannot do, he cannot tell the non-Jew to do for him. He also cannot derive benefit from the transgression of Shabbat done by the non-Jew for him. It is forbidden to apply makeup on Shabbat, even by a non-Jew.

The rabbis who wrote this answer are a bit more sensitive than those of the previous case, and later in their response they tell the woman that she is allowed to apply powder if it doesn’t adhere well to the skin. But despite their empathy and their praise for the woman, their answer is the same. It is forbidden. There is no discussion of the sources or an attempt to find an allowance. The reference is to an entry in Shulhan Arukh which says that applying makeup on Shabbat is forbidden and which cites three statements based on the Talmud. These statements, as we shall see, are highly contested.

The authors of the response did not challenge the Shulhan Arukh to say that it is permissible to apply makeup on Shabbat, perhaps because they felt that the case does not justify such a move. This is understandable to an extent, but what is hard to understand is why they did not allow her to have her makeup done by a non-Jew. The prohibition, according to all opinions, is a rabbinic and not a biblical one, and there is room to define the woman’s actions in staying close to her family as a Mitzvah for the need of the public. The basic rule of asking a non-Jew to do work for a Jew on Shabbat is that with a combination of two leniency factors, such as a rabbinic prohibition and the public good, it is allowed[2].

Now that we have reviewed the status of affairs and the opinions of contemporary Poskim, let us analyze the sources of the prohibition in the Mishna and the Talmud.

Serak – The confusion continues

The confusion and disagreement regarding the meaning of Serak point to a broken chain of tradition or to the lack of such a tradition. There is another interpretation which predates the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafot, and therefore has greater authority. This explanation, which at its first stage is only partial, is found in the Talmud itself[1] in a discussion about permissible grooming on Hol HaMoed:

אלו הן תכשיטי נשים, כוחלת, ופוקסת, ומעבירה סרק על פניה, ואיכא דאמרי: מעברת סרק על פניה של מטה.

These are women’s adornment practices: כחל, פקס, and passing Serak on her face, and some say it is passing Serak on the “face below”.

In response to the last item in the list of women’s adornments, an alternative interpretation is offered. It sees the word “face” as “the face below” a rabbinic euphemism for the intimate parts, but still does not explain what the meaning of passing Serak is.

R. Yitzhak Elfassi provides further explanation:

...מעברת סרק על פניה... ומעברת סכין על פניה של מטה.

…passing Serak on her face… passing a knife on the “face below”.

The Rif’s commentary is of extreme importance, for he is the successor and heir of the tradition of the Babylonian Geonim. The Geonim had invaluable knowledge of the Talmud, a knowledge which was transmitted orally and lost on later generations. Let us consider the implications of the Talmudic paragraph and of Rif’s commentary on our understanding of the word Serak.

1. The Talmud presents an opinion that passing Serak is related to the “face below” and not the face. It is therefore clear that it cannot be dyeing, combing, or braiding.
2. Rif explains Serak as knife, and Serak is therefore always hair removal and not applying makeup. The only difference between the first and the second opinion is whether the word face is literal or a euphemism.
3. The disparity between this explanation and that of Serak as applying makeup is unbridgeable. That disparity is an indicator that the true meaning of the word was forgotten with time, because social and cultural norms changed, and because there was no direct oral tradition.

Whereas other commentators struggle with the terms Serak and cannot offer an interpretation which will make sense in terms of etymology and context, the Rif does not have to explain what Serak is. It is obvious to anyone familiar with Mishnaic Hebrew that the root סרק has only one meaning: to comb or scratch with a sharp object. All the occurrences of the root סרק in the Mishna and the Talmud as a verb carry that meaning. When used as a noun, it appears in the word מסרק, which means comb, in the word סרק which means combed wool or flax, and in the term אילן סרק – a tree which does not bear fruit. The term stems from the shape of pine orchards, the most common fruitless trees in Israel, which look like a comb. Therefore, Rif’s commentary is logical and well understood in context. It confirms for us that there is no basis for translating the term “passing Serak” as applying makeup or rouge.

Since comb and knife are both sharp metal instruments, it is clear why the Rif did not dwell on the term Serak, and why he found no problem with the transition from passing Serak to passing a knife. It also explains why the Rif omitted the prohibition of “passing Serak” from his redaction of the Talmud in Shabbat[2]. The Meiri suggested that the Rif omitted it because it was a minority opinion, but it is more probable that the Rif did not consider combing or scratching a prohibition, because even if it might lead to hair removal it would be unintentional.

It is interesting to note that while the Rif was consistent with his interpretation of the term, others interpreted it in two completely different ways, according to the context of the local discussion regarding Shabbat or Hol HaMoed, without giving a reason for the disparate interpretations. For example, here are two rulings by R. Yeshaya bar Eliyah Di-Trani, aka Ria”z:

לא תעביר אשה סרק על פניה, שהוא מין צבע שמאדים הבשר ודומה לצובע.[3]

מעברת סרק על פניה, וכן מעברת סכין על פניה שלמטה.[4]

The first quote is from tractate Shabbat:

On Shabbat, a woman is not allowed to pass serak on her face. Serak is a dye which reddens the face, and it is like dyeing on Shabbat.

The second is from Moed Kattan:

On Hol HaMoed, a woman is allowed to pass Serak on her face, and she can also pass a knife on the “lower face”.

These are two rulings by the same rabbi, based on the same text, and they are contradictory.

Another proof that serak is combing or scratching rather than applying makeup, is that the term להעביר, in rabbinic literature, always refers to passing and removing, and never to putting something in place.

For example, the Mishna[5] says that when blood is spotted on a garment, and it is not clear whether it came from the body of the wearer or from an external source, this is done:

שבעה סמנין מעבירין על הכתם.

One needs to be מעביר seven detergents on the stain to remove it.

We have now reached the key to the whole theme of makeup on Shabbat, and we have to return to the Mishna in Shabbat[6] in which the discussion originates:

1. הנוטל צפרניו זו בזו 2. או בשניו 3. וכן שערו 4. וכן שפמו 5. וכן זקנו 6. וכן הגודלת 7. וכן הכוחלת 8. וכן הפוקסת, רבי אליעזר מחייב וחכמים אוסרין משום שבות. 9. התולש מעציץ נקוב חייב 10. ושאינו נקוב פטור, ורבי שמעון פוטר בזה ובזה.

The actions are:

1. Cutting one fingernail with another; 2. Cutting fingernails with the teeth; 3. Pulling out hair from the head; 4. Or from the moustache; 5. Or from the beard; 6. Braiding; 7. Applying kohl; 8. פקס; 9. Uprooting a plant from a perforated planter; 10. Uprooting a plant from a non-perforated planter.

All actions deal with the cutting and removal of a living organism, or something attached to it. The first five laws speak of men, the next three speak of women, and the last two speak of plants.

Let us now analyze those actions through the understanding that Serak is hair removal. Serak is mentioned in tractate Moed Kattan alongside כחל and פקס, and in tractate Shabbat we have גודלת כוחלת ופוקסת. This points to the possibility that all four actions fall under one category, and that this category is hair removal. That in turn will prove that there is no prohibition to apply makeup on Shabbat, and that this conclusion is firmly cemented in the Tannaitic texts. I will start by addressing the actions in the Mishna which are clearly understood and by defining their common denominator.

The first five actions deal with removing fingernails or hair, and the last two actions deal with uprooting a plant from a planter. All these are associated with reaping, cutting a living organism from its source. The debate regarding a planter is whether a plant is still connected to its source when it is in a container and not in the ground. All agree that if the planter is not perforated, this is not considered reaping since the plant is already detached from the ground. The author probably grouped plants with hair and fingernails because those could be seen as dead parts of the body which are no longer attached to the source.

We know that the sixth action, גדל - braiding, has to do with hair. Using the common denominator, we must conclude that the problem with braiding is not construction, but rather the unintentional plucking of hair.

We shall for now skip action number seven, and continue to the mysterious פקס, the eighth action.

When encountering an unknown term in a body of literature, we first explore the whole corpus for another occurrence to shed light on the unknown word, because that corpus reflects the contemporary linguistic layer of the text. The Sages called this method: נלמד סתום מן המפורש – we can understand the obscure by looking at the clear[7].

The other occurrence of פקס is in tractate Maasrot[8], where the Mishna deals with the halakha of separating tithes before eating produce. The rule is that one is allowed to eat fruits and vegetables in the field without separating tithes. Once the final step of preparing them for commercial use is taken, one must separate tithes before eating. The Mishna explains what is considered the last step in processing gourds and zucchinis:

איזהו גרנן למעשרות? הקשואים והדלועים משיפקסו, ואם אינו מפקס משיעמיד ערימה

What is the final step for gourds and zucchinis? When they are פקס. If one does not do פקס to those vegetables, the final step is when he gathers them in a pile.

Let us see what the commentators say our familiar term פקס:

Maimonides:

הקשואין והדלועין שצומח עליהן כשות כמו קוצים דקים נקרא פקס... משיפקס רצונו לומר משיסיר מעליהן הכשות ויחליקם בידו.

Zucchinis and gourds have a fine fuzz, like thin thorns, and it is called פֶּקֶס. The word משיפקס means removing the fuzz smoothing by hand.

R. Shimshon of Scanz:

שיער הצומח בהן כעין נוצה כשהן קטנים... וכשתולשן בינונים עדיין נוצה עליהן והמוכרן בשוק מסיר הנוצה ונקרא פקס.

There is a feather-like fuzz they have when they are small… when harvested at medium size they still have the fuzz, and when they are sold in the market the seller removes the fuzz. That action is called פֶּקֶס.

The usage of the term פקס regarding vegetables is clear for those two great commentators. It means the removal of fuzz from the vegetables. When speaking of the human body, there is no doubt now that פקס means the removal of fuzz or thin hair. This is done by rubbing the skin by hand or with an instrument, or by applying a certain chemical or paste, as we shall see later.

The only term which still demands clarification is כחל because it is apparently not associated with hair treatment or removal. I have searched thoroughly to find the connection, and with God’s help, I have found it. It is the last piece of the puzzle, and with it, the Mishna makes perfect sense.

Kohl – The Missing Piece

To understand the practical usage of kohl in antiquity I had to go back to the cosmetic practices of ancient Egypt and Greece and try to understand their idea of beauty. It is well known that while humans were always obsessed with their appearance and with beauty, the definition of beauty is in constant flux. In ancient Egypt it was customary to remove all body hair, while in Greece, besides the concern for pale skin, it was customary to delineate a bridge between the brows, turning them into a unibrow, which many today would consider dreadful.

In Mishnaic times kohl was used as an eyeshadow and a brow pencil, and it is still used in Southeast Asia and other parts of the world as an eyeshadow. Kohl was also sometimes used to improve eyesight, but the risks and side-effects were horrendous, as mentioned in the Talmud:[1]

הרי שהיה רבו רופא, ואמר לו כחול עיני וסימאה, הרי זה שיטה בו ויצא לחפשי.

If a servant asked his master, who is a physician, to apply kohl to his eyes [as a medicine] and he was blinded, he has fooled his master and gained his freedom.

According to biblical law, a master who blinds his slave or knocks out his tooth must send him free, a measure meant to deter masters from using physical force[2]. This text deals with a slave who was blinded by his master while the latter were applying medical kohl to the slave’s eye. The Talmud concludes that the servant outsmarted his master, though he had to sacrifice his eyesight. The fact that the servant would use such a tactic shows that kohl-caused blindness was quite common.

The Talmud Yerushalmi mentions an intriguing case[3]:

אשה סומא באחת מעיניה וכוחלת חבירתה ויוצאת לשוק.

A woman who is blind in one eye applies kohl to the healthy one and goes out to the marketplace.

The Yerushalmi teaches us that blindness because of kohl was common, and that women would still apply kohl to the one healthy eye, either for beauty or for medical reasons. Why can kohl cause blindness? The answer is that kohl contains lead. That fact leads us to another infamous health hazard associated with lead - hair loss.

It is highly probable that part of the role of kohl was hair removal. The desired unibrow was painted on the face, delineated with kohl, while the hair was removed. The result was smoother skin which unknowingly came with a very high price.

Another possible explanation for the prohibition on כחל is the concern for unintentional hair removal.

Now all the pieces of the Mishna fall into place, since they all discuss the removal of growing things which are not attached to the source, or which are considered dead. None of these acts is forbidden by biblical law, and they are defined as Shevut, a rabbinic prohibition. This also teaches us that when halakhic literature, starting with the Talmud, defines the application of makeup on Shabbat as dyeing or painting, it does so without any basis in the Mishna.

With this new and clear understanding of the Mishna, let us reexamine the discussion in the Talmud:[4]

גודלת כוחלת ופוקסת משום מאי מחייבא? אמר רבי אבין אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא: גודלת משום אורגת, כוחלת משום כותבת, פוקסת משום טווה.

Why are גדל, כחל, and פקס forbidden. R. Avin said in the name of R. Yose bar Hanina: גדל for weaving, כחל for writing, פקס for spinning yarn.

The question about the reason for the prohibition is presented anonymously. The answer should have been that they are all related to hair removal, but R. Avin’s answer ties each act to a different category. The anonymous students refute R. Avin’s explanation:

אמרו רבנן קמיה דרבי אבהו: וכי דרך אריגה בכך, וכי דרך כתיבה בכך, וכי דרך טויה בכך?

The rabbis discussed that in front of R. Avhu and asked, is this the normal manner of weaving, writing, or spinning yarn?

The fault with R. Avin’s answer is that there is no similarity between the acts mentioned in the Mishna and the categories of prohibitions of Shabbat he mentioned. R. Avhu, in whose hall of study the argument took place, agrees with his disciples, and reports a different interpretation by the same sage who was quoted by R. Avin:

אמר רבי אבהו: לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא, כוחלת משום צובעת, גודלת ופוקסת משום בונה.

Rather, R. Avhu said, I myself heard from R. Yose bar Hanina that כחל is for dyeing, גדל and פקס are for building.

As mentioned in our first analysis of this paragraph, R. Avhu does not say what פקס is, and he changes the order of the Mishna, grouping גדל and פקס, and setting כחל apart [instead of 1,2,3 it becomes 2,1,3]. This is unnecessary according to my interpretation, since all three deal with hair removal. The fact that R. Avhu and R. Avin report different explanations by the same rabbi points to a fault in the transmission of the Halakha, and it is possible that both interpretations are inaccurate. Indeed, the Talmud argues that גדל and פקס are not related to building. The answer to that argument is based on a tangential Midrash, which in turns relies on a foreign language, in which braiding and construction sound similar. That answer does not address the act of פקס. All these problems, as well as the reliance on tenuous sources, are avoided if we explain all three acts as related to hair removal.

The next paragraph in the Talmud also proves my point. I have mentioned this paragraph earlier and left some open questions about it:

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: גודלת כוחלת ופוקסת לעצמה פטורה, לחברתה חייבת. וכן היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי אליעזר: אשה לא תעביר סרק על פניה, מפני שצובעת.

R. Shimon ben Elazar says: a woman who does גדל, כחל, or פקס to herself is exempt from punishment, but if she does them to another woman, she is punishable. Similarly, R. Shimon ben Elazar would say in the name of R. Eliezer that a woman should not pass Serak on her face, because she is dyeing [her face].

There are two questions here:

1. Why is a woman exempt if she performs those actions on herself, but punishable if she does them to another person?
2. The second statement of R. Shimon ben Elazar is presented with the word וכן – similarly. What is the similarity between the two statements?

The first question produced several answers. Rashi says that a woman cannot braid her own hair perfectly, and it is only when she braids her friend’s hair that it is considered construction^[5]. Similarly, R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk, in his Pene Yehoshua, writes that only braiding done by another person with a steady hand the desired results of beatification will be achieved^[6]. Those two answers are insufficient because they address only braiding and ignore כוחלת ופוקסת.

R. Yeshaya DiTrani tries to solve this problem by saying that doing it to herself is considered שינוי, an action not done in the regular way, and therefore she is exempt from punishment^[7]. This answer ostensibly explains all three actions, but it could refer only to braiding, because women regularly put on their own makeup. Also, while it is true that it is more difficult to braid your own hair than to braid a friend’s hair, it is not impossible. To call braiding your own hair an irregular way of doing it is problematic. Still, the second question remains: what is the similarity between the two statements? The only commentator who addresses this question is Rashi, who writes:

וכן - מילתא אחריתי דשבת לאיסורא.

Similarly: he [R. Shimon ben Elazar] also mentioned another action which is forbidden on Shabbat.

Rashi sensed the difficulty, but his answer does not solve it. The word וכן could not have been used here just because it is another shabbat prohibition discussed by R. Shimon, since there are at least twelve other Shabbat prohibitions which R. Shimon discusses in Mishnaic literature, and which should have been mentioned here according to Rashi’s logic

My interpretation of the terms גדל, כחל, and פקס, however, offers answers to both questions.

1. Since hair-removal is not deliberate but incidental, a woman is punishable only if she does it to her friend, where it could be interpreted as deliberate.
2. The two statements of R. Shimon are presented with the word “similarly”, because Serak is either a metal comb or another type of sharp instrument which can cut or pluck hairs, and so the actions in both statements are related to unintentional hair-removal.

A possible objection to this interpretation would be that the Talmud says that the problem with serak is dyeing:

אשה לא תעביר סרק על פניה, מפני שצובעת.

A woman should not pass Serak on her face, because she is dyeing [her face].

The answer to that argument is that the last two words are a later addition and were not said by R. Shimon. There are two proofs for that:

1. The words מפני שצובעת do not appear in the original source of the statement, the Tossefta.[8]
2. These two words do not fit the pattern of Mishnaic Hebrew. Whenever the Mishna speaks of an action following the word מפני, it must be followed by a pronoun. The correct form would be either מפני שהיא צובעת, or משום צובעת.

So, these two words were added in a later period by an anonymous redactor of the Talmud and were not part of the original statement of R. Shimon.

However, the question still remains whether applying paint, dye, or makeup to the human body falls under the category of dyeing, as in dyeing wool? The answer is a resounding no!

All of the following poskim say very clearly that אין צביעה באדם, meaning that the concept of dyeing does not apply to the human body: Sheyare Korban on the Yerushalmi^[9], Maharshal (R. Shlomo Lurie)^[10], Mishna Berurah^[11], R. Ovadia Yosef in the name of Tal Orot^[12], Tzitz Eliezer^[13], and Migdanot Eliyahu^[14].

The reason that all these poskim agree that the prohibition of dyeing does not apply to the human body is that dyeing wool is an industrial, chemical process, which is usually done only once in the fabric’s lifetime. In that process, the dye molecules bind with the fiber molecules in an unbreakable bond, and when this is done correctly, the colors do not fade. This can be clearly seen in the phrasing and categorizing of the two laws by Maimonides regarding dyeing and serak.

In chapter nine of his Laws of Shabbat we read[15]:

הצובע חוט... חייב, ואין הצובע חייב עד שיהא צבע המתקיים, אבל צבע שאינו מתקיים כלל כגון שהעביר סרק או ששר על גבי ברזל או נחשת וצבעו פטור, שהרי אתה מעבירו לשעתו ואינו צובע כלום, וכל שאין מלאכתו מתקיימת בשבת פטור.

One who dyes a thread… is punishable. This is only if the dye is durable, but dye which is not durable, for example, if one painted [a bar] of iron or copper, he is exempt, because you can clean it at will and there is no lasting impression. Any action whose results are not permanent is exempt from punishment.

In chapter 22 Maimonides writes[16]:

הצובע מאבות מלאכות, לפיכך אסור לאשה להעביר סרק על פניה מפני שהיא כצובעת.

Dyeing is one of the forbidden categories of work, and therefore a woman cannot apply makeup because it resembles dyeing.

Chapter twenty-two is part of a list of miscellaneous actions which spans three chapters in the Laws of Shabbat, from twenty-one to twenty-three, and which Maimonides introduces in the following manner[17]:

נאמר בתורה "תשבות", אפילו מדברים שאינן מלאכה חייב לשבות מהן. ודברים הרבה הן שאסרו חכמים משום שבות, מהן דברים אסורים מפני שהן דומים למלאכות ומהן דברים אסורים גזרה שמא יבוא מהן איסור סקילה.

The Torah says “cease [from work]”, which means that one must cease even from actions which are not work. There are many actions the rabbis declared forbidden as Shevut, some because they resemble work and some because they might lead to biblically forbidden actions…

Maimonides lists makeup in chapter twenty-two because of its resemblance to dyeing. However, following the logic he used regarding metals, and since makeup does not make a permanent impression on the human body, it should have been listed in chapter nine, and phrased so:

אבל צבע שאינו מתקיים כלל כגון שהעביר סרק או ששר על גבי ברזל או נחשת וצבעו פטור, וכן אשה המעבירה סרק על פניה פטורה, שהרי אתה מעבירו לשעתו ואינו צובע כלום, וכל שאין מלאכתו מתקיימת בשבת פטור.

…dye which is not durable, for example, if one painted [a bar] of iron or copper, he is exempt. Similarly, a woman who applies makeup is exempt, because you can clean it at will and there is no lasting impression. Any action whose results are not permanent is exempt from punishment.

The commentators of Maimonides have noticed this contradiction and tried to offer solutions. R. Shmuel HaLevi Wozner writes^[18]:

לשון הרמב"ם פ"ט הי"ג, אבל צבע שאינו מתקיים כלל כגון שהעביר סרק או ששר על גבי ברזל או נחשת וצבעו פטור שהרי אתה מעבירו לשעתו ואינו צובע כלום, היינו, שהברזל אינו מקבל כלל צבעים אלו וכיון שכן מעיקרא לא צביעה היא אף לא צביעה לזמן, מה שאין כן באשה המעברת סרק על פניה דעל כל פנים צביעה היא לזמן, אף שאינו מתקיים זמן ארוך.

R. Wozner says that paint on iron is not absorbed by the iron at all. That fact excludes it from the category of painting. Makeup, on the other hand, is considered temporary painting, even though it is fades with time. The fault with this solution is, as he himself notes, that paint on skin does not last, meaning that there is no permanent bond between the skin and the paint molecules. If so, what is the distinction between painting iron or painting human skin? This shows us that there is no clear definition or explanation for the prohibition of makeup because of dyeing, not even by Maimonides.

Makeup by Men

I would like to mention one last detail regarding Serak before we continue to other prohibitions associated with makeup on Shabbat. R. Yitzhak Zilberstein presents a question which bothered generations of commentators before him[1]:

אשה לא תעביר סרק על פניה, וכן כתב בשו"ע (סימן שג סעיף כה). ולכאורה משמע דאשה אסורה להעביר סרק על פניה אולם איש מותר, דאם לא כן, למה כתב השו"ע שאסור לאשה שתעביר סרק על פניה? לתני רבותא טפי דגם לאיש אסור ולכתוב סתם: אסור להעביר בשבת סרק על הפנים. ומדכתב אשה משמע דלאיש מותר, וכך משמע גם מדברי המשנה ברורה (שם סעיף קטן ע"ט בשם המגן אברהם) שכתב וזה לשונו: כיון שדרכה (של אשה) בכך מקרי צובע, מה שאין כן באיש, ומכל מקום אינו אלא מדרבנן.

A woman should not pass Serak on her face, and so ruled the Shulhan Arukh (303:25). This apparently suggests that only women are forbidden to do so, but men are allowed. Otherwise, the Shulhan Arukh should have written a general rule saying that applying Serak to one’s face is forbidden. Since he wrote “a woman” it means that a man is allowed [to pass Serak], and so is the opinion of the Mishna Berurah (ibid. 79 in the name of Magen Avraham) who wrote: because women usually do this [apply makeup], for them it is considered dyeing, but it is not so for men. In any case, it is only a rabbinic prohibition.

R. Zilberstein relies on the reason given by the Mishna Berurah that men usually do not apply makeup and therefore it is not considered dyeing. This is a very feeble argument. If, as Maimonides says, applying makeup to the skin resembles dyeing, because it leaves some impression on the skin, then there should be no difference between men and women. The true answer to this question, based on the analysis I presented here, is that Serak has to do with hair removal and not with makeup. In Mishnaic times passing Serak was an action done only by women, because most men never completely shaved their beards.

The distinction between men and women made by the Mishna Berurah and R. Zilberstein is extremely important, because there are those who argue that even a law which relies on a mistaken interpretation is valid. According to that opinion, even though we have solid proofs that the Mishna never spoke of makeup as dyeing, and that the words “because she is dyeing” were a later addition in the Talmud, the prohibition of “painting” one’s face has already been established and became a binding law. We can respond that even if we accept the misinterpretation of the Mishna, we can rely on the rulings of the Shulhan Arukh, the Mishna Berurah, and R. Yitzhak Zilberstein who all say that passing Serak, per se, is not forbidden.

Let us now review other prohibitions commonly cited to forbid the use of makeup on Shabbat.

Lipstick and Red Lips

There is a notion that applying lipstick on Shabbat is forbidden because it paints the lips. Ostensibly, the source for that notion can be found in Talmud Yerushalmi[1]:

הצובעו: מה צביעה היתה במשכן? שהיו משרבטין בבהמה בעורות אלים מאדמים. אמר ריבי יוסה, הדא אמר העושה חבורה ונצרר בה דם חייב. המאדם אודם בשפה חייב. המוציא דם חייב משום נטילת נשמה שבאותו מקום.

Dyeing: what kind of dyeing was there in the Mishkan? They would beat the animals with rods to redden the skin. R. Yose said, this means that if one beats [a living body] and the blood gathered there, he is punishable [because of dyeing]. One who reddens the lip is punishable. One who draws blood is punishable because he killed [lit. removed the soul] of that place [in the body].

It is well known that the language of the Yerushalmi is concise and sometimes hard to understand, but it seems clear that reddening the lips is forbidden. That would lead to the conclusion that using lipstick on Shabbat is forbidden.

This is indeed the conclusion presented by R. Yitzhak Yosef in Yalkut Yosef. He explains[2]:

שכן דרך הנשים לצבוע שפתותיהן באודם שפתים, וכמו שכתוב בשיר השירים (ד, ג) כחוט השני שפתותיך. ולא גרע מהעברת סרק על הפנים.

וכן מבואר בירושלמי המאדם אודם בשפה חייב משום צובע. וכן פסק בשו"ת יביע אומר הנ"ל, וכן העלה בשו"ת בית אבי חלק ג' (סימן פא), דאף שהשפתים אדומים בלאו הכי ולא ניכר כל כך הצבע, יש לאסור בזה.

[It is forbidden for women to apply lipstick] because it is customary for women to paint their lips in red, as it is written in the Song of Songs (4:3) “your lips are a crimson thread”, and it should be no less [severe] than passing Serak on the face.

It is clearly written so in the Yerushalmi: One who reddens the lip is punishable because of dyeing. And so is the ruling in Yabia Omer (Vol. 6, Orah Haim, 37:2), and so is the conclusion of the author of Beth Avi (3:81), that even though the lips are red, and the color is not noticeable, it should be forbidden.

There are multiple problems with this ruling of R. Yitzhak Yosef:

• The first statement is not an argument. The fact that women usually apply lipstick does not necessarily make it forbidden on Shabbat. There are hundreds of actions which are done in the same exact manner on weekdays and on Shabbat.
• The verse from the Song of Songs is not a proof. To the contrary, the poet praises his beloved whose lips are naturally red.
• Why should it be no less severe than Serak? There is no logical argument here. To the contrary, even according to the traditional understanding of Serak as reddening the cheeks, applying lipstick should be less severe because the lips are already red, and the addition of color is not noticeable.
• The Yerushalmi does not say the words “because of dyeing” though it is insinuated that this is the reason.
• The quote from Yabia Omer is misleading because when one reads it in context it could be understood differently. As we shall see, R. Yitzhak Yosef himself uses this quote in a contradictory manner to what he wrote here.

Finally, the reference to the Beth Avi responsa by R. Yitzhak Liebes is selective. R. Yitzhak Yosef only quotes the conclusion of R. Liebes to support his ruling and his interpretation of the Yershalmi, but when read in context, it is clearly not the case. Here is the text of the responsa he quotes[3]:

מה שיש לעיין בזה הרי השפתיים הם אדומים בטבע אם כן לא ניכר כלום ממעשה הצביעה...

This [the prohibition of making the lips redder] needs to be studied in depth, because the lips are naturally red, and therefore the painting is not noticeable at all…

וצריך עיון להבין את דברי הירושלמי דהרי מפשטות לשונו מוכח דאיכא חיוב חטאת בצביעת שפתיים...

The statement of the Yerushalmi needs further analysis because it is apparently clear that it mandates a sin-sacrifice for painting the lips.

וקשה הרי הוי דבר שאינו מתקיים ועל גוף אדם שאין דרך צביעה בכך

And this is hard to understand [for two reasons] because [the paint] is not durable, and it is on the human body, which is not the manner of dyeing.

ואף על פי דדרך נשים בכך לצבוע שפתיים מכל מקום ליכא לדידן רק איסור דרבנן כיוון דאינו מתקיים ואין צביעה מן התורה על גוף האדם... לכן שיטת הירושלמי קשה להבין...

And even though this is the customary way for women to color lips, according to us [the accepted view of halakha] it is only rabbinical for those two reasons… therefore, the statement of the Yerushalmi is hard to understand.

לולי דמסתפינא הוי אמינא דכוונת הירושלמי אינו למאדים בשפה של אדם דבזה ליכא חיוב חטאת רק מובנו על גבי שפת קרש או על דבר אחר שעושה לסימן כמו שהיה בקרשי המשכן אבל זה דוחק גדול... לכן צריך עיון בזה

If not for my fear [of saying something different] I would have said that the Yerushalmi is not speaking about reddening a human lip because this does not mandate sin-sacrifice. It rather refers to the tip of a wooden board[4] or another object, [and the color] is to mark [the board] as they used to do with the boards of the Mishkan, but that is very tenuous… we therefore need to further study this.

R. Liebes does not just question the Yerushalmi. He struggles with it, brings arguments against it, tries to explain it differently, and ends with a big question mark. How can one quote R. Liebes, who disagrees with the Yerushalmi, to support R. Yosef who relies on the Yerushalmi? This is an example of selective references and interpretations by authors who already made their decision, shot the arrow first, and later drew the bullseye around it. Those last words of R. Liebes here aptly describe the way R. Yosef selectively used him to support his opinion: צריך עיון בזה – we need to further study this.

In addition to all the problems related to this ruling of R. Yosef and the way he interprets the Yerushalmi, we find that he contradicts himself elsewhere by completely rejecting the same exact Yerushalmi[5]. He discussed the question of eating strawberries or beets on Shabbat and the concern that they might redden the lips:

נראה לי בטעם ההיתר, משום שאף במעברת סרק על פניה דהוי דבר המתקיים, אין איסור אלא מדרבנן, שאין דין צביעה בעור אדם. ואף שבירושלמי איתא, המאדם אודם בשפה חייב, נראה דלא קיימא לן כהירושלמי, וכמו שפסק הרמב"ם, שהמעברת סרק על פניה אינו אלא מדרבנן. ולכן באכילת פירות הצובעים הוה ליה דבר שאינו מתקיים, ולא גזרו בו חכמים כלל.

It seems to me that the reason it is permissible is that even regarding passing serak in her face, which is durable, the prohibition is only rabbinical, because the concept of dyeing does not apply to human skin.

Even though the Yerushalmi says that reddening the lips is punishable, it seems that we do not rule like the Yerushalmi. Maimonides also ruled that passing serak on the face is only rabbinical. Therefore, eating fruits which color [the lips] is [like applying color which is] not durable, and the rabbis did not forbid it all.

So, R. Yitzhak Yosef quotes the Yerushalmi twice. In one place he uses it as a proof that reddening the lips is forbidden and he therefore rules that one cannot use lipstick on Shabbat. In the other place he rejects the Yerushalmi in order to explain why eating red fruits is not a problem.

This halakhic approach is not very common, but it is not unique to R. Yitzhak Yosef. Poskim often use sources at will after they have already decided what the outcome will be. In this case R. Yosef felt that while lipstick should not be used, eating strawberries and beets should be permissible. He used the same source in two completely contradictory ways to support his rulings.

We still need to understand the Yerushalmi and answer R. Liebes’s questions. The surprising thing is that the solution is obvious to anyone who reads the Yerushalmi in context. One commentator who did that is the Natziv, R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin[6]:

והמאדים אודם בשפה, היינו שנושך בשיניו על השפה עד שנצרר הדם ונעשה אדום הרבה, חייב משום צובע, והיינו לרב... אבל לשמואל דפליג, סבר דאינו חייב אלא על צבע המתקיים.

Reddening the lips means that he bites his lip until the blood gathers there and it becomes red, and then he is punishable because of dyeing. That is only according to Rav… but Shmuel disagrees and rules that one is punishable only if the color is durable.

Let us take this interpretation and return to the original text of the Yerushalmi:

הצובעו. מה צביעה היתה במשכן? שהיו משרבטין בבהמה בעורות אלים מאדמים. א"ר יוסה הדא אמר העושה חבורה ונצרר בה דם חייב. המאדם אודם בשפה חייב. המוציא דם חייב משום נטילת נשמה שבאותו מקום.

Dyeing: what kind of dyeing was there in the Mishkan? They would beat the animals with rods to redden the skin. R. Yose said, this means that if one beat [a living body] and the blood gathered there, he is punishable [because of dyeing]. One who reddens the lip is punishable. One who draws blood is punishable because he killed [lit. removed the soul] of that place [in the body].

The Natziv’s interpretation is irrefutable, and it is simply astounding that other scholars did not see it. The Yerushalmi is not speaking about applying color but rather about beating an animal or the human body and causing a red mark. This was apparently a common practice for tanners who wanted the hides to be naturally red.

This is another example of how a source can be misunderstood and misused for centuries just because the poskim failed to read that source in context and do further research.

It is also important to note that the Natziv concludes that there is no problem with a non-lasting color on the human skin, and that is also the conclusion of R. Liebes.

Such a conclusion would bother some poskim who insist on making lipstick forbidden, and where there is a will, there is a way. R. Shmuel HaLevi Wozner writes[7]:

אינו דומה אודם שפתים על השפתים שמשנה לגמרי צבע השפתים לאודם חזק, ומתקיים זמן ממושך

Lipstick on the lips is a different matter [than the one previously discussed, and should therefore be forbidden], because it completely changes the color of the lips to strong red and it lasts for a long time.

The subject in question was placing a garment on a wound to stop bleeding. There were those who argued that it was forbidden because the garment is being dyed in blood, and those who said that the blood soiled the garment rather than dye it. The latter also argued that only if the garment is red, it would be forbidden because the blood reinforces the original color of the garment. Rabbi Wozner claims that the blood stain can be washed away, unlike the garment’s original color, and that it is not called dyeing because there are different shades of red, and the shade of blood might not be the same as that of the garment. Lipstick, according to R. Wozner, is permanent, unlike a blood stain, and it completely changes the color of the lips. Because of that, it would be forbidden to apply lipstick on Shabbat.

Rabbi Wozner's arguments can be easily refuted, and this is clearly an attempt to defend the ruling that the use of lipstick is forbidden at all costs. He says that the lipstick completely changes the color of the lips, but he still calls it red. Also, according to this argument, applying a more subtle red lipstick will be allowed. That will make Rabbi Wozner the only posek who allows it, and it is certainly not his intention. Finally, his argument that lipstick is different from blood stains because blood stains are easily washed away while lipstick lasts for a long time simply contradicts reality.

In conclusion, there is no reason to forbid the application of lipstick on Shabbat. It is not considered dyeing or painting for these reasons:

• Dyeing does not apply to the human body.
• The lipstick is not durable.
• The color is not noticeable.
• It is not the regular manner of dyeing or painting.
• Even those who say it is forbidden for women say it allowed for men, without sufficient arguments for the distinction.
• The source in Yerushalmi, which the prohibition relies on, does not speak of application of external color but rather of biting the lip until it turns red with blood.
• Even those who interpret the Yerushalmi as speaking of external color say that we do not follow the Yerushalmi’s ruling.

Is Makeup Writing?

Defining makeup as writing is very common among observant Jews today and it can also be found in several popular anthologies of the Laws of Shabbat. However, applying makeup is definitely not writing. As we have earlier seen, the Talmud attempted to equate applying kohl with writing, but that attempt has been rejected with the argument that it is not the manner of writing. The difference between makeup and writing is further supported by the fact that the Mishna which deals with kohl is in chapter ten, while the laws of writing are mentioned separately in chapter twelve[1]:

הכותב שתי אותיות... הכותב על בשרו חייב. המסרט על בשרו, רבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר.

One who writes two letters… one who writes on his flesh is punishable.

One who cuts himself is punishable according to R. Eliezer and exempt according to R. Yehoshua.

The Mishna mentions writing on skin, and we would expect it to address the issue of makeup, but as R. Yisrael Lipshutz explains in his commentary, the concept of writing applies only to letters or symbols[2]:

על בשרו. שחתך בבשרו צורת אותיות.

Cuts himself – marking letters on his flesh with a knife.

R. Lipshutz relies on the Talmudic discussion of the category of writing which clearly indicates that it only refers to intelligible writing.

According to some opinions, writing means only professional penmanship in Hebrew. The Rema writes that one is allowed to tell a non-Jew to sign for him a document on Shabbat, if it is needed for purchasing a property in Israel[3]. He explains that this is allowed when writing in a language other than Hebrew, because only writing in Hebrew is biblically forbidden, while the prohibition on writing in other languages is rabbinic.

The authors of Tosafot offer an even more surprising ruling[4]:

כתב בלא זיון פטור.

If one wrote the Hebrew letters [the way they are written in the Torah scroll] but did not add the little crowns on top of the letters, he is not liable [This law would apply only to the letters שעטנ"ז ג"צ, which require crowns.]

In practice, we follow the ruling that writing in any language is forbidden, but even that expanded definition applies only to the writing of letters or symbols which convey a message. So, even though an eyeliner is a pencil, it has nothing to do with writing, and unless a woman uses it to write letters on her skin, the prohibition of writing does not apply to it.

ממחק וממרח – From Smoothing Leather to Applying Creams

The application of creams and cosmetic products on Shabbat is traditionally understood as falling under the rubric of ממרח - processing leather. This category is considered forbidden, unless there is a pressing medical need, and thus causes serious complications to many who use creams which are in the gray zone between medical need and discomfort. For example, creams for dry skin, cracked lips, preventive treatment, sun lotion, and cosmetics.

It is important to note that ממרח does not appear in the list of the thirty-nine forbidden works on Shabbat and is rather derived from the category known as ממחק – smoothing leather, one of the steps in leather-processing.

How was the transition made from tanning, or leather-processing, to the application of creams and ointments to the human body? To answer that question, we must start with the tannaitic sources. The prohibition of ממרח, which is mistakenly understood as smearing or spreading, appears in the Talmud in relation to two cases. One of them is a Mishna and the other is a Tossefta. Usually, I would list the Mishna before the Tossefta because it is a more authoritative source. In this case, however, I will present the Tossefta first because it mentions the connection between ממרח and ממחק, while the Mishna speaks of ממרח as a known and given prohibition. This difference demonstrates that in this case the Tossefta predated the Mishna.

We will get to the exact text of the Tossefta later, but for now, we will read it in the way it is presented in the Talmud in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi[1]:

והממחקו והמחתכו... אמר רבי חייא בר אבא: שלשה דברים סח לי רב אשי משמיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי:... הממרח רטיה בשבת - חייב משום ממחק.

One who smooths and cuts [leather]… R. Hiyya bar Abba said, Rav Ashe Told me three things in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi… one who smears a bandage on Shabbat transgresses the prohibition of ממחק

The other case appears in the Mishna[2]:

...לא יקבנה מצדה, ואם היתה נקובה - לא יתן עליה שעוה, מפני שהוא ממרח.

One should not perforate [a wine jug] from the side, and if there is already a hole there, he cannot fill it with wax, because he is smearing.

These two cases have nothing in common. The bandage absorbs the applied material which has no particular shape. The stopper for the wine jug is made by shaping a piece of malleable material into a desired form. The difference is reflected in the phrasing of the halakha. Applying cream to a bandage is defined in two steps: the act is smearing - ממרח, and the prohibition is – ממחק, smoothing. Making a stopper for the wine jug is defined in one step - ממרח. What we have here is the use of the same Hebrew term, ממרח, in two distinct contexts. In the Tossefta, which speaks of a bandage, it is applying cream or oil in a thin film, which is intrinsically a permitted act, and only forbidden in the context of a bandage. In the Mishna, ממרח is one who kneads inedible material of thick texture, such as wax or tar.

This is how the Mishna was understood by the Geonim[3]:

כונפה לשעוה מצד זה לצד זה ולדבוקה ולסתמה הוי ליה ממרח.

Gathering the wax from one side to another to stick it [to the jug] and tap [the hole] is ממרח

Maimonides rules similarly[4]:

הממרח... שעוה או זפת וכיוצא בהן מדברים המתמרחין עד שיחליק פניהם חייב.

One who smears… wax, tar, or similar malleable materials, and makes them smooth, is punishable…

Later poskim agree that there is no problem with smoothing or spreading a cream when the intention is not to shape a durable form. R. Avraham Dantziger writes that[5]:

מה שכתב בשולחן ערוך סימן שי"ד סעיף י"א דמשמע דגם בשמן עב חייב משום מירוח אינו מדוקדק, דלכולי עלמא בשמן אינו חייב משום ממרח

The Shulhan Arukh wrote (Orah Haim 314:11) that spreading thick [congealed] oil is forbidden, but that is inaccurate since all agree that ממרח does not apply to oil.

This opinion is also expressed by R. Ovadia Yosef, who usually upholds the rulings of the Shulhan Arukh. He is cited in the abridged Yalkut Yosef, which was culled from his writings[6]:

לדעת המגן אברהם, כל שכוונתו שמשחה תבלע בגוף האדם אין בזה איסור ממרח.

According to Magen Avraham, if the intention is for the cream to be absorbed in the body, it is not considered ממרח

And more clearly in the unabridged Yalkut Yosef[7]:

לחולה מותר למרוח משחה בשבת, ואין בזה איסור [אף מדרבנן] משום ממרח, שהרי אינו רוצה בקיומה של המשחה, אלא להבליעה על גבי ידיו. והמיקל גם בלא חולי יש לו על מה שיסמוך

One who is ill can apply creams on Shabbat, and it is not forbidden because of ממרח [not even rabbinic], because he does not want the cream to stand alone but rather to be absorbed in his hands. One who is lenient [and applies creams] even when not ill, has what to rely on.

All these poskim understand the definition of ממרח as crafting or shaping a soft material to a self-standing form. They are joined by R. Yehiel M. Epstein[8]:

ומירוח אינו אלא כשממרח באצבעו יפה יפה שיהא חלק.

Smearing [ממרח] is only when one smooths it with the finger thoroughly until it becomes smooth.

Now that we have seen that applying creams is not a problem, especially when treating illness, it is obvious then when the Talmud discusses ממרח in association with bandages, the smearing of the cream cannot be the problem. What is the problem, then? The answer is that the Tossefta was cited in the Talmud by a later Talmudic sage, and something was lost in transmission.

We must return to the source to fully understand the issue. Here is how the Halakha appears in the Tossefta[9]:

...אם החליקה... מגלה מקצת אספלונית מכאן ומקנח את המכה וחוזר ומגלה מקצת אספלונית מכאן ומקנח את המכה. לא יקנח באספלונית [גירסה אחרת: האספלונית] מפני שבא לידי מרוח והממרח בשבת חייב חטאת.

…if the [bandage] slipped… he raises one side and wipes part of the wound, and then raises another side and wipes the wound. He should not wipe with the bandage [another version: wipe the bandage], because he might end up smoothing [it], and one who is ממרח on Shabbat must bring a sin-sacrifice.

When the Halakha is read in its original context, it is clear that the point is the application of creams to the bandage and not the flattening or smearing of the creams. In those times, bandages were made of leather. The medical dressings containing animal fat or wax, which were used to heal the wound, were also used by tanners to make leather smoother. The concern of the Halakha is that rubbing the leather bandage with materials which make it smoother is a transgression of ממרח, which falls under the category of processing leather or ממחק. As a matter of fact, this is exactly how Maimonides understands the problem with bandages[10]:

הממרח רטיה בשבת חייב משום מוחק את העור.

One who smooths a bandage on Shabbat is punishable for processing leather.

HaMeiri agrees with him in his commentary on the Talmud[11]:

להחליקה להיות תשמיש שלה נוח לו כענין ממרח רטיה.

To make it smooth so he can use it with more ease, as with smoothing a bandage.

The insistence of earlier sources, including Maimonides, that the problem with a bandage is smoothing the leather of which it is made, was lost in the discussions of most contemporary poskim. This happened for two reasons. One is that while reality changed, the term “bandage” remained ossified in the halakhic literature. In the past, leather was the common material for bandages because of its greater durability^[12], while today bandages are rarely made of leather[13]. The poskim continued to discuss the prohibition of applying creams to bandages without noticing that the bandages of Mishnaic times do not exist anymore. The other reason is that the cases of the bandage and the wine-stopper, which were once distinct, have been merged into one law, perhaps because both wax and animal fat were used for bandages. Previously, I deliberately quoted Maimonides with some omissions. Here is the full text of the halakha[14]:

הממרח רטיה כל שהוא או שעוה או זפת וכיוצא בהן מדברים המתמרחין עד שיחליק פניהם חייב משום מוחק, וכן השף בידו על העור המתוח בין העמודים חייב משום מוחק.

One who smears a bandage of any size, or wax, tar, or similarly malleable materials, and makes them smooth, is punishable because of מוחק. Also, one who rubs leather which is stretched between poles is punishable because of מוחק.

Maimonides merges the law dealing with bandages with the one dealing with sealing a wine jug. This is clearly a result of focusing on the word ממחק which appears in both Talmudic discussions.

This ruling of Maimonides is problematic for several reasons:

In chapter 23:11, Maimonides mentions this halakha again, but phrases it differently^[15]:

הממרח רטיה בשבת חייב משום מוחק את העור, לפיכך אין סותמין נקב בשעוה וכיוצא בה שמא ימרח, ואפילו בשומן אין סותמין את הנקב גזירה משום שעוה.

One who smears a bandage on shabbat is punishable because he is מוחק the leather, and therefore one cannot seal a hole with wax, for fear that he will be ממרח. He cannot even use animal fat, for fear that he will end up using wax.

It is atypical for Maimonides to be redundant, yet here he repeats a statement he already made in Laws of Shabbat 11:6. Also, his reasoning is unclear. How is sealing a hole with wax similar to processing leather? Some of the commentators suggest that sealing a hole resembles construction, but this is not what Maimonides says. The answer is that Maimonides sometimes cites paragraphs from Mishna and Talmud verbatim. Now, the Talmud discusses bandages in one place, and sealing holes in wine jugs in another. Maimonides merged the two and mentioned them twice, one in the context of the first Talmudic discussion and one in the context of the second.

Another problem is that in chapter 11:6 Maimonides compares smearing a bandage to rubbing stretched leather. The only way to see a similarity is with a leather bandage, in which case, the problem is smoothing the leather and not shaping the smeared material. If this is so, the cases of wax and tar do not belong here, yet he writes:

הממרח רטיה כל שהוא או שעוה או זפת

One who smears a bandage of any size, or wax, or tar.

Another problem is that in this halakha Maimonides files smearing a bandage, shaping wax or tar, and rubbing leather, under the prohibition of ממחק, processing leather. This is not supported by the early sources, which mention the word ממחק only regarding bandages[16], and the word ממרח only regarding sealing a hole with wax[17].

In conclusion, the application of creams or oils to the human body is permitted except in cases in which a lump of cream is formed into a certain shape on the skin. It is therefore permitted to apply any cosmetics, sun-lotion, stick or roll-on deodorants, Vaseline, lip balm, lipstick^[18], etc., since they are all spread in a thin layer on the body and cannot stand independently. This was also the ruling of my great-grandfather Hakham Yehudah Fetaya, as it was conveyed to me by my grandfather, Hakham Shaul Fetaya.

Final Conclusion:

Today, as was mentioned in the inquiry which prompted this teshuva, many observant women suffer because of the prohibition. Their suffering, on Shabbat and because of it, is contradictory to the concept of Oneg Shabbat. The Sages taught that Halakha must consider the verse דרכיה דרכי נועם – The paths of Torah are pleasant.^[1]

As I was able to show here, בסייעתא דשמייא, the few Mishnaic texts which deal with personal grooming and adornment were misunderstood by later generations. That fact, together with the interest of the religious leadership to limit women’s visibility, and the unwillingness to hear women’s voice as they express their concern and demand change, led to a paralysis in the discussion of the details of these laws.

Even if the traditional understanding of the sources were correct, all later sources agree that the prohibitions mentioned are only rabbinic. This calls for an application of the rule which says that a rabbinic ruling which cannot be followed by the public must be recalled.

It is therefore clear that there is no prohibition whatsoever in applying any cosmetics, creams, eyeliner, lipstick etc. on Shabbat and Yom Tov. One should be careful not to pluck hairs unintentionally.

Regarding asking a non-Jewish person to apply your makeup, it is clearly allowed. However, it is preferable that you do it yourself, since having your makeup done on Shabbat by a professional makeup artist does not seem to fit the spirit of Shabbat.