Sources and Reasons:
The Prohibition of Hair Dyeing for a Man
The Gemara in Bava Metzia 60a, at the end of Perek HaZahav, states: What is cosmetic enhancement of a person? Like the case of that elderly slave who went and dyed his head and beard. He came before Rava and said to him, “Buy me.” He said to him, “May your household become impoverished.” He then came before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who bought him. One day he said to him, “Give me water to drink.” He went, and his head and beard became white. He said to him, “See that I am older than your father.” He applied to himself the verse: “The righteous is delivered from trouble, and the wicked comes in his stead.”
The Gemara mentions the prohibition of dyeing one’s head hair because of deception, but not because of the prohibition of “A man shall not wear a woman’s garment” [Deuteronomy 22:5].
However, upon examining Rashi’s words, we note that he emphasizes that the slave in question was a Canaanite slave and not a Hebrew slave, since the laws of a Hebrew slave do not apply after the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. Indeed, some have inferred from Rashi’s wording that he emphasized this point because a Hebrew slave is forbidden to dye his hair due to the prohibition of “A man shall not wear a woman’s garment,” and not merely because of deception.
The Gemara in Makkot 20a states: One who removes a full scissor-bladeful on Shabbat is liable. What is a full scissor-bladeful? Two hairs. Rabbi Eliezer says: One. The Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer that one who plucks white hairs from among black ones, even one hair, is liable; and this is forbidden even on a weekday, as it is stated: “A man shall not wear a woman’s garment.”
It is explained that a man is forbidden to pluck white hairs from among black hairs because of “A man shall not wear a woman’s garment.” The Rambam and Raavad disagree whether this is a Torah prohibition or a rabbinic one. See Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, chapter 12, halachah 10.
Indeed, the Rambam there added and derived from the Gemara that the prohibition is not limited to plucking hairs, but includes all women’s grooming practices, including dyeing white hair black. This is the Rambam’s wording in Hilchot Avodah Zarah, chapter 12, halachah 10:
A woman shall not adorn herself with a man’s adornment, such as placing a turban or hat on her head, wearing armor or the like, or shaving her head like a man. Nor shall a man adorn himself with a woman’s adornment, such as wearing colored garments or gold ornaments in a place where such garments and ornaments are worn only by women; all is according to local custom. A man who adorns himself with a woman’s adornment, or a woman who adorns herself with a man’s adornment, is lashed. One who plucks white hairs from among black hairs on his head or beard, once he plucks even one hair, is lashed because he has adorned himself with a woman’s adornment. Likewise, if he dyes his hair black, once he dyes even one white hair, he is lashed. End quote.
Likewise, the Shulchan Aruch rules in practice, Yoreh De’ah, siman 182, סעיף 6:
A man is forbidden to pluck even one white hair from among black hairs because of “A man shall not wear a woman’s garment.” Similarly, a man is forbidden to dye white hairs black, even one hair. Likewise, a man is forbidden to look in a mirror. (See further siman 156.)
From the above, we learn that a man is forbidden to dye his head hair, and if he transgresses, according to the Rambam he is even liable to lashes.
Dyeing Hair Not for Beauty or Not for the Purpose of Imitating a Woman
The Bach writes in Yoreh De’ah, siman 182, regarding the Tur’s statement there: “A woman shall not wear garments designated for a man according to local custom.” Our teacher’s words in this law are vague, implying that it is forbidden in all circumstances. This is not so; rather, there is leniency in two cases. First, there is no prohibition, even regarding something that is decorative and ornamental, unless a woman wears men’s clothing in order to resemble a man, or a man wears women’s clothing in order to resemble a woman. But if they wear them to protect themselves from the sun during the summer or from rain during the rainy season, there is no prohibition.
Second, even when done in order to resemble the other gender, the prohibition applies only to items made for beauty and adornment, as stated in the Sifrei on the verse “Nor shall a man’s article be upon a woman”: What does the verse come to teach us? Could it mean that a woman may not wear white garments and that a man may not wear colored garments? The verse therefore states, “abomination”—something that leads to abomination. This is the principle: a woman should not wear what a man wears and go among men, and a man should not adorn himself with women’s jewelry and go among women… Thus, wearing garments not made for beauty and adornment involves no prohibition whatsoever.
However, the Yad HaKetana, Hilchot Avodah Zarah, chapter 6, section 30, challenged the Bach’s words and wrote: It is most astonishing that great later Sages would say this. These are the words of the Bach, cited by the Shach, that there is no prohibition unless a woman wears men’s clothing in order to resemble a man, or a man wears women’s clothing in order to resemble a woman. But if their intention is not to resemble the other gender, but they wear them in order to protect themselves from heat, cold, or rain, it is permitted. So he wrote. The Taz likewise wrote: “The phrase ‘a woman shall not adorn herself’ implies that it is forbidden when done by way of adornment and beautification. But if she does so because of heat, cold, or rain, there is no prohibition. This seems obvious to me, and it is likewise implied by the fact that in siman 186 they permitted cutting one’s hair using a mirror when there is a need to do so.” In my limited understanding, their words are exceedingly astonishing: From where did they invent rationales of their own and permit a Torah prohibition punishable by lashes? Are Torah prohibitions dependent specifically on intent to transgress? The matter depends on intent in performing the act.
Nevertheless, in practice, Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote in Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De’ah, vol. 2, siman 61, that if a man dyes his hair not for beauty and adornment, but in order to appear young so that he will be accepted for employment and the like, in a case where there is no prohibition of deception, it is permitted with regard to the prohibition of “A man shall not wear a woman’s garment.” This follows the above-mentioned words of the Bach and Taz. This is the wording of Igrot Moshe there:
If his intention in dyeing is not for beautification but so that he will be accepted for a position, in a manner where there is no prohibition of deception—for example, where it is known that he can perform the work like a young person—it seems that it should be permitted, just as the Bach permitted wearing such garments because of heat or cold, as cited by the Taz, s.k. 4, and the Shach, siman 182, s.k. 7. They agreed with this, since it is only one matter and he is not thereby resembling a woman. After writing this, I happened to see Sefer HaMaor by Rabbi A. M. Freil, which discusses this, as well as a responsum from the Gaon Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein, the Rosh Mesivta of Slabodka, and they likewise concluded that dyeing for the purpose of obtaining employment is permitted where there is no prohibition of deception. See there.
Likewise, the Seridei Esh, vol. 2, siman 41, permitted this, stating:
I was asked by several people: One whose beard has become gray, causing him to appear older than he truly is, and as a result he suffers considerable loss in matters of shidduchim or in being appointed to an office position or to employment in a business—may he dye his white beard hair black or yellow, according to the natural color of his hair that has not yet turned white?
Response: The great Sages of earlier generations were already asked this question, and they differed in their views: some prohibit and some permit; some permit only through a non-Jew, but not through a Jew; and others permit only with a particular dye, etc….
The conclusion that emerges from all the above is that according to all opinions, dyeing the hairs should be permitted when one does not intend beautification but practical benefit, as we proved above. For according to the סמ״ג and Rabbeinu Tam, this is explicit in Nazir 59a, and the other Rishonim wrote that to avert distress or embarrassment, to avoid harm, or because of the cold, it is permitted to wear women’s clothing, remove underarm hair, or look in a mirror. The same applies: one may dye his hair where the whiteness causes him loss or embarrassment, for the basis and essence of the prohibition is adorning oneself with women’s ornaments, and where one does not do so as an ornament, there is no prohibition.
Likewise, Maran Rav Ovadia Yosef permitted this in Yechaveh Da’at, vol. 5, siman 55, stating:
Moreover, we find that the Gaon, the Beit Chadash, in Yoreh De’ah siman 182, wrote that the prohibition of “A man’s article shall not be upon a woman,” etc., applies only to something intended for beauty and adornment, as is evident from the Rambam’s words (chapter 12 of Hilchot Avodah Zarah). Even regarding something that is decorative and ornamental, the prohibition applies only where a woman wears men’s garments in order to resemble a man, and likewise where a man wears women’s clothing in order to resemble a woman. But if they wear them to protect themselves from heat or cold, it is permitted. See there. The Turei Zahav likewise ruled this way (siman 182, s.k. 4). Although Sefer Yad HaKetana (279b) elaborated in rejecting the Bach and Taz’s words, because although it is an established halachah that an unintended result is permitted, this applies only where one performs a permitted action and, without intention, a forbidden labor may result. But a man wearing women’s clothing or a woman wearing men’s clothing, even if they do not intend to resemble the other gender, is a case of pesik reisha, and we rule (Shabbat 75a, 103a, and elsewhere) that Rabbi Shimon concedes in a case of pesik reisha. Therefore, one should not rely on this rationale to be lenient regarding a Torah prohibition. See there. However, in Teshuvot Maharam Schick (Yoreh De’ah, siman 173), he properly defended the Bach and Taz’s words based on the Rashba (Shabbat 133a): the verse concludes, “For whoever does these things is an abomination to Hashem your God,” teaching that the Torah prohibited only where a man intends an abominable matter—that is, to resemble a woman—and likewise the reverse. See there. Teshuvot Arugat HaBosem (Yoreh De’ah, siman 138, section 4) likewise defended the above words of the Bach and Taz. See there. Teshuvot Avnei Tzedek (Yoreh De’ah, siman 72) likewise ruled this way. The Gaon, the Netziv, also agreed in his HaEmek HaNetziv on the Sifrei (Parashat Ki Teitzei). See further Teshuvot Maharsham, vol. 2 (siman 243), and Teshuvot Yemei Yosef Yadid, second edition (Yoreh De’ah, siman 6). Accordingly, also in our case, where the female teachers’ intention in carrying weapons is not to resemble men, but solely to protect their lives and the lives of their students under their care and supervision, it is clear that this does not violate “A man’s article shall not be upon a woman.” [I have now likewise found that Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, new edition (Yoreh De’ah, siman 75), ruled leniently in accordance with our words. See there.]
Therefore, in practice, dyeing one’s hair not for beauty and adornment, but in order to appear younger, is permitted. Furthermore, even dyeing one’s hair for beauty should be permitted if it is also customary among men and is not done for the purpose of imitating women who adorn themselves by dyeing their hair.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
