2397 —צביעת שערות לבנות לשחור או צהוב ואיסור לא ילבש

B"H, 8th of Shevat, 5714.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vaharaha"tz anaf etz avot beneshek nu"n etc. Shalom Yechezkel Shraga

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I acknowledge receipt of your letter from the fourth day of Parshat Bo, in which you write about the question regarding medicinal substances taken so that white hair will turn black or yellow, and whether this involves the prohibition of Lo Yilbash Gever Simlat Isha (a man shall not wear a woman's garment).

Now is not the time for lengthy discussion, and you already noted in your letter that this is similar to the law regarding drinking a cup of root potion (Shabbat 110b), which according to most poskim is forbidden by Torah law (these views are brought in Otzar HaPoskim Even HaEzer 5:180). One could say that on the contrary, regarding castration our Sages expounded 'Lo Ta'asu' as 'Lo Ta'asu' (Shabbat ibid., or they expounded it as referring to you; see Haamek She'eilah end of section 105), whereas with Lo Yilbash we do not find such a derivation. We should not derive on our own and prohibit unless there is actual contact with the hair.

If so, according to the Meiri (Shabbat ibid.), who also holds that the above derivation is only an asmachta (supporting verse) and yet drinking the root potion is still rabbinically forbidden, then in our case it would also be rabbinically forbidden. One should not object from Nazir (59a), where since there is no contact with the hair it is permitted even initially; for hair under the armpit and pubic area is different since it is less noticeable (see Shu"t tzt"z Yoreh Deah 163). Alternatively, one could say that even in our case it is entirely permitted since we do not find in the Talmud any prohibition—even as an asmachta—so we should not create one ourselves.

However, all this follows Rashi's explanation in Nazir there that it is permitted since there is no contact with the hair. But according to Rosh there, who explains that permission comes because through his garment it does not constitute a woman's beautification, then in our case—where beautification for women occurs—the use of these substances for adornment falls under Lo Yilbash. Since this reasoning exists—and all the more so compared to the prohibition against looking in a mirror (Yoreh Deah 156)—one could even interpret Rashi's words similarly, though this is somewhat forced.

Note: a) Some distinguish between black and red hair as explained by later authorities cited in Sdei Chemed Klalim Lamed Mem section 15. b) Dyeing white hair black—whether this is Torah law or rabbinic—is discussed in Shu"t Shoel UMeishiv Kama part I as being rabbinic, but most later authorities disagree; see Shu"t Minchat Elazar part IV and books mentioned in Rabbi Baron's notes to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 181. c) Since these substances are used specifically to beautify hair, all debate about actions done unintentionally does not apply here (see lengthy discussion in Haamek She'eilah ibid.), nor does 'psik reisha' (see views cited in Sdei Chemed ibid.). Therefore, even if their effect is not completely certain, it remains forbidden to use them.

Enclosed is a copy of the essay just now published—which was delivered on last year's yahrzeit—which will surely interest you.

With honor and blessing,
Krum Erko

Summary

The Rebbe analyzes whether dyeing white hair for beautification falls under Lo Yilbash. He distinguishes between Torah and Rabbinic prohibitions based on Talmudic sources and poskim, noting that intent to beautify makes such actions problematic according to many authorities.