5785/2025

Electric Shaver Debates – Part I 

After reading my son Binyamin and my “Halachic Haircutting Handbook,” Rav Pesach Skulnick, senior Rebbe at Teaneck’s Heichal HaTorah, raised serious and incisive questions about our work. After careful consideration and reexamining the sources, we present our responses. Rav Skulnick’s sharp questioning has deepened our understanding and greatly enriched this discussion. Binyamin and I thank MTA’s Rav Michael Taubes for his help in formulating my response to Rav Skulnick’s questions. 

Discussion #2 – Rivan to Makkot 21a 

Rav Skulnick inquired as to how Rav Moshe Feinstein and those who agree with his permission to use electric shavers understand the Rivan to Makkot 21a s.v. Talmud Lomar Lo Tashchit who explain that shaving using scissors is permitted since they “Ein Chotechin Sei’ar B’Tzad Ikkar K’Ta’ar.” 

The Chazon Ish and those who agree with his forbidding electric shavers that leave a clean shave understand that the Rivan means that scissors are permitted since they do not remove the entire hair like a razor. They translate the Rivan, “Scissors do not cut hair at its root as does a razor.” They believe scissors are permitted since they do not completely eliminate hair like a razor. 

On the other hand, we believe the Rivan may be understood as saying that scissors do not cut hair at its roots as a razor does, meaning that it cuts hair differently than a razor. A razor cuts it by itself, whereas scissors cut by combining its two blades. A razor cut is an act of destruction of hair, whereas cutting in the manner of a scissor is not defined as such. 

Rav Skulnick asks why the Rivan includes the word Ikkar. We respond that because the prohibition only applies when cutting at the point of the hair root, i.e., directly on the face. 

Rav Gidon Ben Moshe (Teshuvot Yoru Mishpatecha Y.D. 26) presents another understanding of the Rivan. He suggests the Rivan means “scissors do not cut hair with its edge, as does a razor.” Rather, they cut hair by combining the two blades. The Rivan writing “Ein Chotechin Sei’ar B’Tzad Ikkar K’Ta’ar” and not ‘Ein Chotechin B’Tzad Ikkar Sei’ar K’Ta’ar’ proves the cogency of Rav Ben Moshe’s explanation. If the Rivan speaks about cutting hair at its root, he would have written Ikkar Sei’ar.  

Rav Skulnick asks, though, when the word Ikkar means an edge. Our response is Rashi to Breishit 21:21, which states, “Z’rok Chutra L’Avirah Kai A’Ikarei,” throw a stick in the air, and it will land on its edge. 

Moreover, the Nimukei Yosef (Makkot 3b in the pages of the Rif s.v. ad Sheyitlenu B’Ta’ar) explains that one may cut facial hair with a shaver since “There is no destruction because hair is still discernable.”  The Nimukei Yosef undoubtedly supports the Chazon Ish’s position. However, the fact that the Rivan does not point out that some hair remains on the face indicates his disagreement with the Nimukei Yosef. The Shulchan Aruch’s not stating that some facial hair must remain indicates his not accepting the Nimukei Yosef as normative.  

One may ask how one may permit electric shaving if the Rivan can be interpreted in several ways without a clear-cut basis for leniency. Since shaving with a razor is a Torah-level prohibition, one should be strict in case of doubt (Safek D’Oraita L’Chumra). In fact, Rav Zalman Auerbach adopts this approach. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:97:6) presents both sides of the argument and concludes that he is unsure which approach is correct. He explicitly refrains from either forbidding or permitting the use of electric shavers. 

Rav Gidon ben Moshe responds that the Shulchan Aruch’s (Y.D. 181:10) permitting shaving the face with a Misparayim K’ein Ta’ar (scissors that cut as sharp as a razor) resolves the question. Since the Shulchan Aruch, whose ruling is not challenged by any of the Shulchan Aruch’s major commentaries, permits shaving with scissors as sharp as a razor, the question is resolved leniently. Moreover, the Perishah (Y.D. 181:3) describes Misparayim K’ein Ta’ar as “cutting the entire hair until it is smooth as if it was shaved with a razor,” no classic major commentary explicitly disagrees.  

Rav Skulnick responded that Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak explains the Perishah as “Lav Davka” (not meant to be taken literally) and requires some hair to be left even when using a Misparayim K’ein Ta’ar. However, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yabia Omer 9 Y.D. 10:15) and Rav Gidon ben Moshe understand the Perishah to mean precisely what he says. 

It is unthinkable that the Perishah would be vague regarding a Torah-level prohibition. How could he create such a terrible Michshol (stumbling block) by leaving his Halachic writings subject to misunderstanding!? If Rav Ovadia Yosef could read the Perishah as “Davka,” it could be interpreted this way! If the Perishah did not intend this, why did he formulate his words in a manner that could be misunderstood by a great Posek as Rav Ovadia?! Indeed, Rav Kleinman (Teshuvot Bigdei Chamudot Y.D. 117:4) describes the Minchat Yitzchak’s words as “Dachuk,” forced. Rav Michael Taubes told me he agrees it is Dachuk. 

Rav Skulnick responded that before the invention of the electric shaver, no scissors were cut with a razor's precision. We respond that the Perishah speaks precisely about such a mechanism! Indeed, Rav David Zvi Hoffman (Teshuvot Melamed L’ho’il Y.D. 64) records (without a hint of criticism) the practice of many observant Jews to shave using scissors, even if the scissors would not leave even a remnant of hair on their faces. It should be noted that Rav Hoffman died in 1921, and the first electric shaver was introduced to the commercial market in 1931.  

Rav Skulnick responded that the straightforward meaning of the Gemara indicates that the Torah prohibits shaving in a manner that destroys the beard, Gilu’ach SheYesh Bo Hashchatah. The Gemara, taken at face value, prohibits shaving in a normal manner that leaves a clean shave. I responded that destroying may be interpreted as the resultant destruction of hair (the Chazon Ish’s view) or the act of destroying hair (Rav Moshe Feinstein’s opinion). Moreover, the straightforward reading of the Shulchan Aruch permits a clean shave if performed using a scissors-like method.  

Rav Skulnick makes a compelling point when he asks: “Why should the term Hashchatah be used for razor-cutting and not scissors if the result is the same? How is one more an act of  destruction than the other?” To this, we (with the assistance of Rav Michael Taubes) respond that the Mishnah and Gemara define “destruction” as something only accomplished when cutting with a razor-like technique. For this reason, the Mishna states, “Eino Chayav Ad SheYitlenu B’Ta’ar, one does not violate the prohibition to destroy facial hair unless one uses a razor-type instrument.

Moreover, the lenient view makes a simple distinction between the Pei’ot HaRosh and Pei’ot HaZakan (the corners of the face the Torah forbids us to round out). Regarding the former, some hair must be left since the Torah forbids rounding out the corners of our heads, but the latter may be eliminated as long as it is not done with a razor-type instrument. The former is result-based, and the latter is action-based.  

This discussion brings to mind a story recounted by Rav Hershel Schachter (Peninei HaRav pages 180-181). A butcher in Brisk brought a question of Treifah (whether a Shechted animal was forbidden due to a defect) to Rav Chaim Soloveitchik. Since Rav Chaim was taking a long time to respond, they sent a telegraph to the Maharsham (Rav Sholom Mordechai Schwadron), who promptly responded that although the Gemara inclines to stringency, we follow the Pri Megadim’s lenient ruling. When the butcher approached Rav Chaim to inform him of the Mahasham’s ruling, Rav Chaim first told him to follow the Gemara’s stringent indication despite the Pri Megadim’s lenient ruling.  

In our case, the question is, where do we derive the Halacha, the possible indication of the Gemara and Rivan, or the strong indication of the Shulchan Aruch and the Prishah? It seems that the Maharsham’s approach constitutes the more mainstream approach of Poskim, to follow the straightforward meaning of the Shulchan Aruch’s unchallenged words above our understandings of the Gemara and Rishonim.

On the other hand, one could argue that the term “Misparayim K’ein Ta’ar” means that it cuts “K’ein Ta’ar,” similarly to a razor, but not exactly like a razor. It removes most of the facial hair but still leaves a thin layer. 

However, Rav Moshe Feinstein follows the Chochmat Adam (89:16), Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (170:1), the Aruch Ha’shulchan He’atid (Hilchot Nezirut 15:8-9) and Biur Halachah (251:2 s.v. Afilu Misapar Yisrael) who all believe that Misparayim K’ein Ta’ar leave no hair behind. It is difficult to believe that the Shulchan Aruch would use a term many great Poskim could misunderstand.

We will iyH and b”n conclude our recording our debate with Rav Skulnick in next week’s issue.