Cosmetics on Shabbat IV: Makeup Removal & Mikveh

Previously, we explored the laws related to applying makeup on Shabbat. Now it’s time to consider makeup removal.

Some melachot come in opposite pairs: doing an action is a melacha and undoing it for a constructive purpose is also a melacha. So, for example, on Shabbat it is prohibited to write, and also to erase for the purpose of rewriting. We saw in our previous installment that halachic consensus follows the view that makeup is a form of tzovei’a, dyeing, and not of koteiv, writing.

Is it permissible to remove makeup on Shabbat?

According to some halachic authorities, this depends on context. For exaple, in a case in which a woman did not remove nail polish or makeup in advance of Shabbat and needs to remove it in order to perform the mitzva of mikveh immersion (an issue to which we’ll return), Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth maintains that she should ideally have a non-Jew remove the polish or makeup for her, but if necessary for the purpose of the mitzva, she can remove it herself:

Rav Auerbach suggests that the intent to reapply makeup in the same place makes this a case of erasing color in order to color anew. This would be of concern if there were a melacha of removing dye, though it’s not fully clear on what basis he considers this a possibility.

Rav Neuwirth writes that removing makeup is permissible specifically in the case of immersion, implying that a woman should not remove polish or makeup without a pressing need. In this way, he views removing makeup as different from removing colored stains or ink from the skin, which does not present a problem on Shabbat.

Others, including Rav Moshe Nosson Nota Lemberger, Makova Admor, reject these arguments, seeing no basis for prohibiting the removal of color, even in order to replace it.¹

Indeed, removing makeup on Shabbat is widely considered to be permissible,² and even more readily permitted if no makeup application considered tzovei’a occurs directly afterwards.

The Item Used for Removal

Now let’s consider the item used to remove the makeup (e.g., a wipe, tissue, or cloth). If such an object absorbs the color of the removed makeup, does that present a concern of tzovei’a?

Since tzovei’a is typically defined as an act of dyeing that specifically serves to improve or beautify the object being dyed, the prohibition is rabbinic when dyeing is done in a destructive manner.

Yere’im thus rules that wiping a berry-stained mouth on a cloth napkin is prohibited rabbinically as tzovei’a:

Shulchan Aruch follows this ruling:

Based on this ruling alone, we might be concerned that a woman’s options for removing makeup are limited. Others, however, including Radbaz, rule against this stringent view:

Mishna Berura maintains that one may rely on Radbaz as necessary:

Therefore, when necessary, a woman need not be concerned about wiping off her makeup even with a cloth. Additionally, even those who are generally stringent regarding wiping off colored hands or face on a cloth may limit the application of this ruling to objects that are typically dyed. Shulchan Aruch Ha-Rav (the Alter Rebbe) draws this distinction, and notes that this is why it is permissible for a woman to use menstrual protection on Shabbat. Since halachic authorities allow the use of menstrual protection on Shabbat, it must be that dirtying objects not typically dyed is fully permissible.

It follows that a woman may remove her makeup with cloths that are not typically dyed or with disposable products.

Applying water or cleanser directly to the face with a spray or one’s fingers avoids questions of sechita, wringing. But a number of halachic authorities also permit using a wet tissue or a wipe on Shabbat as necessary.³ (See more here, under “Washcloths and Wipes.”)

When a woman is in nidda, a state of menstrual ritual impurity, she and her husband are prohibited from having relations. The process of exiting the nidda status culminates with a nighttime mikveh immersion.

Halacha requires that the mikveh water be able to reach all external surfaces of the body, with no intervening barrier (chatzitza).

Torah law only considers something a chatzitza that invalidates immersion if it meets two conditions: it covers most of one’s body (or perhaps most of the hair) and one wishes to remove it. According to rabbinic law, one condition suffices to consider something a chatzitza. A barrier covering most of the body invalidates immersion even if the woman wants it there, and a barrier even on a minority of the body invalidates immersion if women (or even just this woman) would sometimes wish to remove it.

What of a barrier that covers only a minority of a woman’s body and that she does not wish to remove, to which no decree applies? Although this does not invalidate immersion after the fact, and the Talmud rejected making a decree about it, Rema mandates that a woman remove it prior to immersion:

Makeup typically covers only a minority of the body and is in place because a woman wants it there. Still, widespread custom follows Rema, certainly among Ashkenazim and also among many Sefaradim. Makeup is thus usually considered something that should be removed prior to immersion.

A mikveh night that falls out on Shabbat or Yom Tov presents a special challenge for women who regularly wear makeup. This gives us reason to look more closely at the question of whether makeup is considered a chatzitza.

The Talmud states that kohl on the eye is a chatzitza unless a woman’s eyes are “porchot” (a term whose meaning we will try to clarify shortly).

The practical halacha is a little more complicated, since this source may refer to kohl used for healing. In practice, this passage is not usually taken to refer to modern-day eyeliners.⁴

Still, Rashi’s comment on porchot has important halachic implications. Rashi explains that porchot means that the eyes blink frequently. This improves the situation from the perspective of chatzitza because the eye motion prevents the kohl from having a thick, independent physical substance. (Alternatively, porchot means that the eyes tear, which would keep the kohl liquid.)

Rambam rules along the lines of Rashi’s first explanation in a responsum and as recorded in a work by his son. Discussing paints and dyes used on the hands, he maintains that something deliberately in place on the body, presumably to adorn it, is only considered a chatzitza when it has independent substance, i.e., it has thickness above the skin:

Makeup is generally somewhat more palpable than henna. However, makeup that doesn’t protrude noticeably above the skin, or flake off as traditional kohl might have, perhaps might be considered sufficiently insubstantial so as not to be considered a chatzitza by Rambam’s standard. In contrast, standard nail polish, which does have independent substance raised above the nail and can peel off, would clearly be considered a chatzitza according to this view.

Rashba introduces another reason to rule leniently regarding makeup. He notes that there are cases in which a color can have independent physical substance but still not be considered a chatzitza, because a person is not particular about it:

This ruling would seem to leave room for leniency with makeup in general, because it is for beautification, regardless of whether it is palpably raised above the skin. Elsewhere, however, Rashba mentions independent physical substance as a factor in determining whether color is a chatzitza, even when it is for beautification:

Some halachic authorities understand Rashba as requiring the item for beautification not to have independent substance, akin to Rambam’s view.⁵ However, his statement about physical substance seems to be prompted by concern for stringent opinions that view a majority of the hair as comparable to a majority of a body. Therefore, many other authorities maintain that being in place for beautification, as makeup is, suffices for not considering coloring to be a chatzitza, even if it in fact has physical substance distinguishable from the skin:⁶

It would seem, then, that intact makeup should not technically be considered a chatzitza, not only because it covers a minority of the body and a woman is not particular to remove it, but also because it is in place for the purpose of beautification. As above, widespread custom still follows Rema, and makeup should be removed prior to immersion. But we will see that this discussion of chatzitza is relevant to pressing situations.

Additionally, exposure to water can affect, or even ruin, makeup. Therefore, from the moment a woman submerges her face in the mikveh, it becomes difficult to consider her makeup beautifying. Wet smudged makeup is most likely a chatzitza, something that a woman would be particular to remove.

Many women regularly apply makeup before Shabbat, either ordinary makeup that will last just for Friday night, or long-lasting makeup that will last through Shabbat. A Friday night immersion complicates these choices.

A woman’s distress at going without makeup should not be taken lightly. The Talmud even suggests that the Torah may have taken it into account. A verse stipulates that a man and woman are ritually impure following relations, and require immersion to exit that impurity. (This law has little practical application today, since this low-level impurity was most relevant to Temple ritual.)

The word “otah,” her, in the verse seems superfluous. Rabbi Yehuda understands this word as excluding a bride following first relations from this requirement. Commenting on this ruling, a Talmudic sage suggests the possibility that the Torah expressly spares the bride from being required to immerse, since the mikveh water would ruin her makeup!

This passage takes for granted that a bride wears makeup well after her wedding, and suggests that Torah-level laws of impurity take into account her distress at its being ruined by the mikveh waters. It also strongly implies that a woman immersing on Friday night would do so with her makeup on.

Halachic guidance on the possible courses of action for a woman with a Friday night immersion who is concerned about makeup is typically personalized. Here are the main possibilities that have been raised in recent halachic literature:

Going Makeup-Free The preferred and simplest course of action from a halachic perspective is for a woman not to wear makeup on a Shabbat on which she has a Friday night immersion. That way, she immerses without makeup in accordance with Rema’s ruling, and does not need to apply or remove makeup on Shabbat.

Many women forgo makeup on Shabbat in order to immerse, even when it isn’t easy, and this is considered praiseworthy. However, some women find the prospect of Shabbat without makeup tremendously challenging and seek out other halachic possibilities.

Shabbat Makeup Similarly, women who typically rely on opinions permitting application of Shabbat powder makeup on Shabbat can immerse makeup free and apply powder makeup after immersion. (Learn more here.) Even if a woman does not usually rely on the halachic views that permit applying Shabbat powder makeup, this might qualify as a pressing situation in which she could rely on them.

Immersing After the Meal Women who are more particular about makeup on Friday night than on Shabbat during the daytime might explore the possibility of immersing after the Shabbat meal, removing makeup just before going to mikveh.

If a couple accepts Shabbat “early,” as is common in the summer in northern latitudes, this timing could coincide with the mikveh’s regular Friday night hours. Otherwise, a woman could try to arrange for a late appointment, taking into consideration the needs of the mikveh attendant and the hours at which she is available. This might not always be practically possible.

There is one main halachic drawback to this course of action—it may conflict with a custom to avoid eating meat on the day of immersion. Rema also writes that one should not eat at all between mikveh preparation and immersion:

However, the custom to avoid meat arguably does not apply when eating it may fulfill a mitzva, as at a Shabbat meal, as long as the woman cleans her teeth well between eating and immersion.

Still, Sidrei Tahara expresses concern even in this case:

Some authorities, including Rav Shmuel Wosner, simply recommend that a woman in this type of case eat the Shabbat meal with the exception of meat:

Other authorities permit eating meat before immersion in pressing situations.

Whichever position she follows, a woman should clean her teeth as well as possible after the meal and prior to immersion.

Long-Lasting Makeup Based on what we have learned about chatzitza, immersion with long-lasting makeup unaffected by mikveh waters is considered valid after the fact. In a pressing situation, a woman may be permitted to immerse with it as well. (See this in the name of Rav Scheinberg below.)

In practice, a woman in this scenario should experiment ahead of time to determine what products and applications will best withstand immersion. She may also need to clarify in advance with the mikveh that she has received halachic permission to immerse with makeup.

Earlier Immersion A possibility that might be relevant in some very extenuating circumstances is immersing shortly before Shabbat. Immersion on the seventh clean day is rabbinically prohibited.⁸ After the fact, immersion during the seventh clean day is valid, though the couple should take care not to see each other after the immersion prior to nightfall.⁹

In some very pressing situations beyond a woman’s control, as when a mikveh is out of walking distance, a woman may be permitted to immerse late Friday afternoon, prior to shekia, halachic sunset, on condition that she not see or be alone with her husband prior to nightfall.¹⁰

As above, this course of action is usually permitted only in extreme situations beyond the woman’s control. Therefore, it is not simple to apply this ruling to a case in which not wearing makeup may lead to great distress, especially given the existence of other possibilities that we’ve discussed.

However, it is possible that a woman in a uniquely pressing situation might receive permission to immerse at this point and to apply regular makeup right after immersion, before shekia–again, generally on condition that she not see her husband before nightfall. Rav Ephraim Greenblatt permitted this in some extreme cases, such as a bride who was in nidda at her wedding and whose first immersion is scheduled for Friday night during the week of sheva berachot.¹¹

Postponing Mikveh Mikveh immersion enables a couple to resume their physical relationship following nidda. This reunion has halachic value, so mikveh is not delayed lightly, and it is permitted even on Shabbat and Yom Tov, when bathing raises halachic issues.

Mikveh immersion is permissible on Shabbat even when a couple will not engage in relations that night, since physical affection between husband and wife has halachic value beyond its role in conception.¹²

Even so, husband and wife are permitted to mutually agree to postpone mikveh immersion when that is their preferred course of action.¹³

This is typically not a favored course of action, because it takes a toll on the couple to extend time in nidda beyond what Halacha demands. Therefore, couples often want to and are encouraged to pursue other possible courses of action.

Halachic Preference

Aside from going makeup-free, which is preferred, it’s not clear which of these possibilities is halachically preferable. Reportedly, in a pressing situation of a new bride who would first be using the mikveh on Friday night during the week of sheva berachot, Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg preferred that she immerse without makeup and apply Shabbat makeup afterwards rather than immersing with waterproof makeup, though he still recognized both as viable possibilities:

The Puah Institute’s book on the laws of nidda mentions all the possibilities for Shabbat immersion in pressing situations, especially including large family gatherings:

Concluding Thought

While it remains highly preferable to immerse without makeup, the possibilities that we have seen are worth discussing with a halachic authority in cases where it would be uniquely difficult for a woman to immerse otherwise, so that she would be inclined instead to postpone immersion.

This concludes our series on cosmetics on Shabbat. We’ve explored questions about what types of products can be used, for what purposes, and how they can be applied, in the hopes of helping every woman look and feel her best on Shabbat without compromising careful adherence to Halacha.