Sources and Reasons:
A). Regarding removing makeup on Shabbat, there is no concern. Although the Chayei Adam (Nishmat Adam, Hilchot Netilat Yadayim, klal 40, siman 2) wrote that one whose hand became blackened by soot from a pot is liable for a rabbinic prohibition of erasing, though not for the purpose of writing, the leading poskim have already questioned this. See Chazon Ovadia, Shabbat vol. 5 (p. 226), for we do not find a prohibition of erasing where it is not done in the manner of writing, on something that does not endure. כך it was likewise ruled permissible in Orchot Shabbat (chapter 15, סעיף 59, note 85).
Nevertheless, it is proper to be careful not to remove it with wet wipes. Only regarding small children, since the matter is difficult, Maran permitted their use in Chazon Ovadia (Shabbat vol. 4).
B). Regarding hand cream on Shabbat, I discussed this at length in a responsum in Teshuvot Torat Meir vol. 2, and I will reproduce its substance here:
Question: Is it permitted to apply soft hand cream [such as “Velveta”] and moisturizing cream on Shabbat for pleasure? Is there a distinction between applying it to heal cuts and cracks in one’s hands, as is common during the winter, and other cases?
Answer: It is permitted to apply soft hand cream to one’s hands on Shabbat when applying it to heal cuts and cracks in one’s hands, and there is no concern either of healing or of memare’ach. Even applying it for pleasure would be permitted according to the basic law; however, the custom has already become to prohibit this.
A). First, I will describe the practical reality regarding applying hand cream. Many people apply this cream on weekdays for pleasure and bodily comfort; even when their hands are neither dry nor cracked, they do so because of the pleasant feel of the absorbed moisture. These creams and ointments are intended for this purpose from the outset of their manufacture—that is, they are not intended to serve as a substitute for medicine—as is written on the packaging: “skin-care products.” Therefore, they do not require a physician’s prescription, but are like other ointments that provide comfort. Although some apply these ointments specifically when their hands are dry and cracked, they nevertheless are still not considered medicine, as I will explain, with Heaven’s help.
B). In the Mishnah, Shabbat (111a): One who has pain in his loins may not anoint himself with wine and vinegar, but may anoint himself with oil, though not with rose oil. Princes may anoint their wounds with rose oil, for it is their practice to anoint themselves with it even on weekdays. Rabbi Shimon says: All Jews are princes. Rashi explains: “But not with rose oil”—because it is expensive and uncommon, and it is evident that he is doing so for healing. “For it is their practice on weekdays”—even without a wound. The Gemara (ibid. 111b) states: The halachah follows Rabbi Shimon, who permits, though not for his reasoning; for Rabbi Shimon holds that even though it is uncommon, it is permitted, whereas Rav holds that if it is common, yes; if not common, no. Thus the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (siman 327:1) rule that one may anoint with ordinary oil, but not with rose oil, because it is evident that he is doing so for healing. If, however, he lives in a place where rose oil is common and people customarily apply it even without therapeutic purpose, it is permitted.
From this we may also derive regarding our case: since these ointments are intended for skin care and are customarily applied on weekdays for comfort, then not only is it permitted where one has no dryness or cracks in one’s hands, but even where one’s hands are cracked and one applies it to absorb moisture and remove the dryness, it is likewise permitted. For it is not evident that he is doing so for healing—just as they permitted applying rose oil to a wound where it is customary to apply it for pleasure even without a wound, so too here. Although many apply these ointments only when they have a wound, since the ointment is not intended as medicine, the decree lest one grind herbs does not apply. Furthermore, the Beit Yosef (siman 327) explains that nowadays, when people do not anoint their bodies with oil for mere pleasure as healthy people did in their time, one may not permit applying oil to a wound. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berurah (siman 328, se’if katan 70) writes that even nowadays it is permitted to apply oil to the scabs of a wound in its final stage, where there is only discomfort. The same applies in our case: although many apply it only in such situations, it is permitted to apply it to dry hands, since they are considered like a wound in its final stage and do not constitute a wound or illness. Therefore, even if one applies it when there is a wound on his hands and actual sores, it is permitted, because this is included in the practice of healthy people, and it is no longer evident that he is doing so for healing. Moreover, Rashi (ibid.) writes regarding not applying wine and vinegar: “For no person applies them except for healing.” Thus, whenever some people apply it for other purposes as well, even if they are not the majority, there is no longer cause for concern, since it is not recognizable. This is all the more so in our case, where it is intended for skin care, as explained.
C). Nor need one be concerned about memare’ach. The Magen Avraham (siman 316, se’if katan 24) writes that it is permitted to step on saliva on a bench, and there is no concern of the prohibition of smoothing, since smoothing applies only when one spreads one substance over another with the intention that it be spread; here, however, he wants it to be absorbed. This is likewise written by the Tosefet Shabbat (se’if katan 30), Tiferet Yisrael in Kalkalat Shabbat (siman 30), and the Mishnah Berurah (se’if katan 49). The same applies in our case, for his purpose in spreading the ointment is to absorb it well into the pores of the skin, which is its intended purpose, as stated in the instructions. He has no intention in the spreading itself to smooth or level it for beautifying his body. This is unlike a woman who applies rouge to her face, for she wants it spread evenly; here, he spreads it only so that the ointment reaches every part of the surface being treated. Therefore, this is unlike sealing a hole in a barrel, which the Shulchan Aruch (siman 314:11) prohibits, for there he wishes to smooth it and appreciates its neat appearance, as the sealing is visible. Here, by contrast, he spreads it only in order to absorb it, and has no intention of smoothing. Likewise, this is unlike what the Mishnah Berurah writes (siman 327, se’if katan 16), that one who spreads ointment on his shoes is liable, for there too he wants their shine so that their beautification will be noticeable.
The Maharsham as well, in Da’at Torah (siman 328:26), relied on the aforementioned words of the Magen Avraham and permitted on this basis applying an ointment that is absorbed into human skin. This was cited and ruled accordingly in Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak vol. 7 (siman 20). So too writes Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah vol. 1 (chapter 33, note 58). See also Shulchan Shlomo vol. 3 (siman 328, אות 47), which cites this in the name of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l regarding a soft ointment absorbed into the human body. Teshuvot Yabia Omer vol. 4 (siman 27, אות 2) likewise relies halachically on these words of the Magen Avraham, and there permits on this basis even applying toothpaste to a toothbrush and brushing with it on Shabbat, unlike Igrot Moshe (Orach Chaim vol. 1, siman 112), who prohibited it. Ketzot HaShulchan vol. 7 (p. 99) likewise writes that this is fundamentally permitted: whenever one does not intend through spreading to level it, as with a bandage where one wishes to level the indentations in the bandage, it is entirely permitted. Chut Shani vol. 1 (p. 116, se’if katan 13) also writes that when one does not wish to spread the ointment for the sake of smoothing—for example, where there is no improvement to a bandage or beautification of one’s body—there is no melachah of memachek. See further Orchot Shabbat vol. 1 (chapter 17, אות 28) and its notes; seemingly, this contradicts what is written there (אות 24).
It is true that there is some basis to distinguish: regarding saliva, one has no intention whatsoever to spread it, but only to destroy and remove it; whereas here, one first wants it to be spread before it is absorbed into the body. Nevertheless, it appears that even in such a case it is permitted. Support may be brought from what the Shulchan Aruch writes (siman 328:22): One may remove the scabs of a wound and anoint it with oil, but not with chelev, because it melts. The Beit Yosef writes that when it melts, its prohibition is משום “creating,” analogous to crushing snow and hail, which is prohibited (siman 320:9). Necessarily, the reason he did not explain its prohibition as a derivative of memachek—which is a Torah prohibition—and instead addressed the prohibition of “creating,” which is rabbinic, as explained in Rashi (Shabbat 51b), is that one’s entire intention in spreading the chelev upon the wound is that it be absorbed thoroughly into the scabs and remove them, not that it be spread and level the skin or the ointment. (And in our case, there is no concern even of “creating.”)
D). However, the words of the Magen Avraham require some examination. Why would spreading saliva be prohibited due to memare’ach? It is not actually spread at all and is like water. The Shulchan Aruch (siman 314:11) has already written that other substances which are not like thick oil or wax involve no prohibition of smoothing whatsoever and are permitted. It appears that this may be resolved based on the Yerushalmi cited by the Rema (siman 319:17), that one who spits into the wind and the wind disperses the saliva is liable for zoreh. The later authorities found this difficult, for zoreh is an act of separating two species. Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul zt”l, cited in Teshuvot Or LeTzion vol. 2 (chapter 31, אות 14), explained that saliva also contains two mixed substances: mucus and phlegm together with the liquid of the saliva. If so, the same applies in our case: since mucus and phlegm are mixed within it, one might have thought to prohibit it at least rabbinically because it involves some degree of spreading. Therefore, we are taught that it is permitted.
E). Our case is not comparable to what the Rosh (first chapter of Shabbat, siman 33) writes, that it is prohibited to place a thick medicinal salve on the eye on Shabbat, due to the decree lest one grind herbs, or perhaps lest one spread it. The Tur (siman 252) rules that the prohibition is due to memare’ach, and this is cited in the Beit Yosef and Shulchan Aruch (siman 252:5). It may be said that an eye salve is different, because one places the medicine on a bandage, as Rashi explains (Shabbat 18a, s.v. “kilor”), that kilor means a bandage. There one must be concerned about memachek, since he does not wish for it to be absorbed into the bandage; rather, his intention is to smooth the ointment on the bandage, as stated in the Gemara, Shabbat (75b): One who spreads a bandage on Shabbat is liable for memachek. Rashi explains: he smooths a bandage over a wound. In Eruvin (103b), Rashi explains that he wishes to smooth the indentations in the bandage. In contrast, where one wishes to absorb the ointment into his body rather than level it, it should not be prohibited. One may also say that eye salve is different because it is placed in a visible area; therefore, he seeks an attractive application for beautification, and thus it involves the prohibition of memachek.
F). Although it cannot be denied that in our times the custom has spread that many women do not care for their skin with various creams on Shabbat, and seemingly this is like matters that are permitted but concerning which others adopted a prohibition, which may not be permitted, as explained in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah siman 214:1). Perhaps this is because there is concern that they may not know how to distinguish between a soft ointment and a hard ointment, or between an ointment absorbed into the skin and one intended to protect the outer skin—particularly as they apply ointments to their faces, where there is greater concern of memare’ach, especially in a matter entrusted to women. A custom in which people adopted a prohibition must be prohibited even when it is merely a safeguard, boundary, or act of abstinence, as the Shach writes there (se’if katan 1).
Nevertheless, it may be said that this applies specifically when they do so for pleasure, concerning which they adopted stringency upon themselves because of a concern of prohibition. But where there is discomfort and pain from cracks and wounds, and the ointment provides relief, they did not originally adopt this stringency upon themselves. Especially since it may be said that originally they adopted stringency because they thought it was prohibited according to the basic law, and the Shulchan Aruch writes there that in such a case it is not considered as though they accepted it as a vow, and it is permitted. Regarding healing, it has already been explained that there is no concern. See also Halichot Shabbat—Malka vol. 2 (p. 539), and the notes there at the end of the work by the Rishon LeTzion, Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef shlit”a. This is what appears correct to me.
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.
