Female Barber/Client

• Prev
• 1 of 3
• Next

Rav, Bukharian Jewish Cong. of Hillcrest, Kehilat Ohr V'Achdut

 Question #1- I’m a Jewish barber and I've been approached by a female client seeking a haircut. I want to ensure that I'm following the proper halachic guidelines. Are there any specific rules or restrictions I should be aware of when cutting a female client's hair?

Question #2 - I'm in need of a haircut and I've found a skilled female barber. However, I'm unsure about the halachic implications of a female barber cutting a male's hair. Is it permissible for me to receive a haircut from a female barber?

 

I. Physical Contact

In Parshat Acharei Mot, the Torah delineates various forbidden relationships (Vayikra 18:6, 19, 20). The Torah's language is significant, employing phrases like "lo tikrevu" ("do not draw close") and "legalot erva" ("to reveal nakedness"). While "legalot erva" suggests the prohibition is limited to conjugal relations, "lo tikrevu" implies a broader prohibition on drawing close without the accompanying intimate act. This means that any physical contact with individuals with whom conjugal relations are prohibited (arayot) is strictly forbidden, regardless of gender.

The Rambam¹  (R’ Moshe Ben Maimon, 1135-1204) and Ramban  (R’ Moshe ben Nachman, 1194 - 1270) differ in their interpretation of the Torah's prohibition. The Rambam² holds that the Torah prohibits not only the intimate act itself but also any actions that could potentially lead to it, even if the act is not ultimately committed.

In contrast, the Ramban maintains that the Torah only prohibits the actual intimate act, and the use of terms like "kirva" (closeness) and "l'galot erva" (to reveal nakedness) does not imply a separate prohibition on other forms of physical contact. According to the Ramban, the Torah deliberately employed specific language to empower the Chazal to establish a decree that would carry the weight and authority of Torah law itself; however, the prohibition is technically of rabbinic origin, with the verse serving merely as a support (asmachta).

While both authorities agree that physical contact between the genders is prohibited, they disagree on the severity of this prohibition.

The majority of Rishonim, including Meiri (in Sanhedrin 66b), Rashi and Ritva (in Shabbat 13b), Sefer HaMitzvot (Semag) 126, and Sefer HaChinuch 188, concur with the Rambam's opinion. his position is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (R’ Yosef Karo, 1488-1575) in Even HaEzer 20:1 and 21:1.

 

II. Affectionate vs. Non-Affectionate contact

Given that the halacha follows the Rambam's rulings, it is crucial to carefully consider the nuances of his position when examining his stance on a particular issue. In this case, the Rambam's view is subject to dual interpretation, leaving room for varying understandings and applications.

1. One possible understanding is that the Torah, according to the Rambam, prohibits any form of physical closeness, regardless of whether it has a intimate connotation or not (e.g., even a casual handshake). This approach would seem to render most physical interactions between men and women as forbidden.
2. Alternatively, it's possible to understand the Rambam as saying that the Torah only prohibits physical closeness that involves some level of intimacy or affection, such as hugging or kissing. According to this interpretation, casual, non-intimate physical contact would not be included in the prohibition.

The Bet Yosef (Yoreh Deah 195) and the Bet Shmuel (Even HaEzer 20:1) interpret the Rambam's position as aligning with the first understanding. According to their interpretation, the Rambam's prohibition on physical closeness encompasses even casual, non-intimate interactions between men and women, regardless of whether the contact itself has a intimate connotation. This would include everyday interactions like handshakes, hugs, or other forms of casual touch.

The Shach (Yoreh Deah 195:20 and 157:10), on the other hand, offers a more nuanced interpretation of the Rambam's position, aligning with the second understanding. According to the Shach, the Rambam's prohibition on physical closeness is limited only to interactions that involve a level of intimacy or affection, such as hugging, kissing, or other forms of physically expressive contact. The Rambam does not intend to prohibit casual, non-intimate interactions between men and women, such as handshakes or other forms of incidental touch.

Despite efforts to clarify the Shach's position of the Rambam, ambiguity remains. Does the Shach permit casual, non-intimate physical contact that has no affection (chibah), or does he maintain that while deoraita (biblically) allowed, derabanan (rabbinic law) still prohibits all physical touch? Rav Moshe Feinstein offers conflicting interpretations in two separate responsa.

Rav Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit, vol. 1, 38) and other prominent poskim, including Kereiti U-Peleiti and Rav Chaim Palagi, concur that the Shach intended to affirm a rabbinic prohibition on all physical contact, regardless of its nature or intent. See further Yalkut Yosef (Sovah Semachot pg. 66) and Otzar Dinim La’Isha (37:23).

Given that requiring a haircut is not deemed a medical necessity, and considering the potential for improper thoughts (hirhurim) arising from close contact with a woman, numerous prominent authorities have deemed haircutting by a woman for a man to be prohibited. This prohibition is supported by esteemed poskim, including Rivevot Efraim (5:507), Hilel Omer (Even Ha'Ezer 38, p. 400), Yitzchak Yeranen (vol. 2, Even Ha'Ezer 1) and Netzach Yosef (1:66).

 

III. On The Job

Halacha recognizes a principle where intense focus on one's profession³ can exempt an individual from the prohibition of touching a woman who is otherwise forbidden (i.e doctor). However, this principle is not easily applicable in situations involving beauty services, where the job inherently requires close observation of the other person. Due to the intimate nature of physical contact involved, massage is strictly prohibited, and leading poskim concur that this prohibition also applies to haircutting. The Rema⁴  (1530-1572) specifically notes that activities like "checking hair" are considered intimate in nature. By extension, this implies that haircutting, which involves similar close contact, would also be regarded as an intimate act and thus subject to restrictions.

 

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, according to the Rambam, all physical contact is prohibited. Even in the opinion of the Shach, there is debate about whether a rabbinic prohibition still applies to all forms of physical touch. Based on the above, one may not be permitted to serve a female client or visit a female barber.

 By Rabbi Nissan Shalomayev

 

¹  Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 353, Hilchot Isurei Biah Ch. 21

²  Hasagot of the Ramban to Negative Commandment 353

³ Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 353, Hilchot Isurei Biah Ch. 21

⁴  Hasagot of the Ramban to Negative Commandment 353