Introducton
Recently, procedures have been developed to tattoo permanent or
semi-permanent makeup on women. I have been told that in the process of
applying permanent makeup, also known as micropigmentation,
dermapigmentation or cosmetic tattooing, a needle deposits colored
pigments made from iron oxide into the skin’s dermal layer
(the layer between the permanent base layer and the constantly changing
top layer). This procedure is applied on the lips and/or around the
eyes. This procedure is performed under antiseptic conditions and
anesthesia is used when performing this form of surgery. The tattooing
can be either permanent or semi-permanent. The form of semi-permanent
tattooing that contemporary Poskim discuss lasts up to three years and
eventually disintegrates. These procedures are very tempting for
observant women (especially those who are blessed with the task of
caring for young children) as it saves time and avoids the problem of
applying makeup on Shabbat. However, there are serious Halachic
problems associated with this procedure, as we shall explain in the
essays that we will begin to present this week.
Cosmetic
Surgery
According to the sources we outlined last week, there is no explicit
Heteir (rabbinic sanction) to undergo any cosmetic surgery purely for
reasons of convenience. However, even if one were to argue that
cosmetic surgery is permitted for reasons of convenience, applying
permanent makeup might be prohibited because of the prohibition of
Kitovet Kaaka (tattooing, see Vayikra 19:28). In this essay, we shall
explore the prohibition to apply a tattoo and we shall see how
contemporary Poskim apply it to the issue of permanent and
semi-permanent makeup. Similar to countless other contemporary Halachic
issues, this modern innovation compels Poskim to rigorously define the
parameters of Kitovet Kaaka, even more so than was done in previous
generations.
Our discussions will be based on two essays written on this topic that
have been published in Techumin; one (Techumin 10:282-287) written by
Rav Ezra Basri (a prominent Sephardic Dayan who presides over a State
of Israel Beit Din in Jerusalem and the author of Teshuvot Shaarei Ezra
and Dinei Mammonot) and the other (Techumin 18:110-114) written by Rav
Baruch Shraga (the Rav of French Hill in Jerusalem). In addition, two
Teshuvot have been published in recent years, by Rav Shraga Shneebalg
of London (Teshuvot Shraga HaMeir 8:44 and 45) and Rav Natan Gestetner
of Bnei Brak (Teshuvot Lihorot Natan 10:64). These two Rabbanim are
Poskim of note and Rabbanim throughout the world cite their works. Rav
Shmuel Wosner (Teshuvot Shevet HaLevi 10:137) wrote a brief responsum
on this issue as well (Rav Wosner lives in Bnei Brak and ranks in the
first tier of contemporary Poskim).
How
Long Must Kitovet Ka’aka Last?
The Rishonim (authorities who lived during the Middle Ages) disagree
about how long a tattoo must last in order to constitute a violation of
the Kitovet Kaaka prohibition. Rashi (commentary to Vayikra 19:28 and
Gittin 20b s.v. Kitovet) and the Ritva (Makkot 21a s.v. Hakotev)
describe Kitovet Kaaka as something permanent. The Nimukei Yosef
(Makkot 4b in the pages of the Rif s.v. Ad Sheyichtov) on the other
hand, describes Kitovet Kaaka as something that lasts “for a
long time.”
Rav Gestetner notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12:11) and
the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 180:1-4) do not limit the prohibition to
permanent tattooing, thus implying that one violates the Kitovet Kaaka
prohibition even if the tattoo is not meant to last permanently, in
accordance with the view of the Nimukei Yosef. Moreover, Rav Gestetner
suggests that when Rashi writes that Kitovet Kaaka lasts
“Liolam”, Rashi does not mean
“forever” literally. He cites Rashi in another
context (Shabbat 111b s.v. Vieilu Kesharim) where he uses the term
Liolam and it is fairly obvious (in light of Rashi, Shabbat 112a s.v.
Bidichumrata) that Rashi means for a long period of time, and not
necessarily forever. Rav Gestetner rules that three years is considered
“a long time” and thus even semi-permanent cosmetic
tattooing that lasts for three years might be biblically prohibited.
Rav Shneelbag, it should be noted, understands Rashi to forever
literally, and is inclined to consider semi-permanent cosmetic
tattooing as a rabbinic prohibition.
Moreover, Rav Shneelbag notes that all Rishonim agree that one violates
at least a rabbinic prohibition even if the tattoo is not a permanent
one. The proof to this is the fact that the Gemara (Makkot 21a) debates
whether one is permitted to put stove ashes on an open wound, which
creates a mark that resembles a tattoo. This mark does not last very
long and is undoubtedly classified as temporary. The fact that the
Gemara even raises the possibility of regarding such a mark as Kitovet
Kaaka proves that one violates at least a rabbinic prohibition even if
the mark does not last forever. The Rivan (ad. loc. s.v. Uchtovet)
might also indicate this, as he writes that “it is forbidden
to write any writing” on the flesh.
One point of clarification: The primary Talmudic discussion of the
topic of tattooing appears in Makkot 21a. Rashi did not complete his
commentary to the last few pages of Masechet Makkot. His son-in-law,
the Rivan, did complete his father-in-law’s commentary to
this tractate. Hence, we will frequently be referring to the Rivan in
these essays.
How
Deep Must the Tattoo Be?
How deep must the tattoo be inserted to qualify as Kitovet Kaaka? The
Ritva (ad. loc.) writes that “the dye enters between the skin
and the flesh.” Rav Shneelbag notes that it appears from the
Ritva that one violates the prohibition even if the dye is inserted
only immediately below the skin level. It seems that the Shulchan Aruch
(ad. loc.) agrees with this assessment, as it describes Kitovet Kaaka
as “scratching the flesh.” Thus even if one layer
of skin is penetrated, the prohibition is violated. As stated earlier,
I have been informed that the process of cosmetic tattooing involves
the insertion of the pigments into the skin’s dermal layer.
We should clarify that the Mishnah (ad. loc.) states that in order to
be punished by Malkot, one must both write and cut the skin. The
Minchat Chinuch cites a dispute among the Acharonim as to whether there
is a rabbinic prohibition in merely writing on the skin without cutting
the skin. The Minchat Chinuch notes a rule that Poskim often utilize to
resolve a disputed issue – “go out and see what is
the common practice.” Accordingly, the Minchat Chinuch notes
that since common practice among Jews is not to make indelible markings
on the skin even if the skin is not cut, the reason must be that
normative Halacha follows the opinions that believe that it is
rabbinically forbidden to do so.
The Minchat Chinuch, though, writes that it is obvious that this
rabbinic prohibition applies only if the mark cannot be erased.
However, he writes, simple writing with ink on the hand is not even
rabbinically prohibited. Accordingly, it seems that it is not
prohibited to have one’s hand stamped at an amusement park to
prove that the admission fee has been paid. Accordingly, it is not
technically forbidden to write with ordinary ink on one’s
skin. Although this is undignified, it appears that it is not
technically prohibited; Chazal prohibited only activities that resemble
Kitovet Kaaka (see Tosafot Gittin 20b s.v.Uchtovet). Amusement park
stamps and ordinary writing on the body do not resemble a tattoo at
all. The fake tattoos that small children apply are also most likely
permitted, even on a rabbinic level.
Conclusion
In our next issue, Im Yirtzeh Hashem and Bli Neder, we shall further
explore the parameters of the K’tovet Kaaka prohibition and
their application regarding the processes of permanent and
semi-permanent makeup.
0 comments Leave a Comment