5785/2025
Electric Shaver Debates – Part Two
This week we complete our recording our debates with Rav Pesach Skulnick about Electric Shavers:
Discussion Number Three – Melakeit and Rehitni
Rav Skulnick raised a question on the lenient view from Makkot 21a, which states that had a Melakeit or Rehitni (tweezers or carpenter’s wood plane) been the normal way to shave, it would be forbidden since these implements eliminate facial hair. Rav Skulnick asked that this seems to indicate that any normal shaving implement that destroys hair is prohibited, even if it is not a razor. Thus, an electric shaver, a normal way to shave for decades, should be forbidden since it completely eliminates hair despite not acting like a razor.
We respond that a Melakeit or Rehitni destroy hair in a razor-type manner. This means that they directly destroy themselves without combining two separate items. Thus, they resemble a razor and not scissors. Hence, they would have been forbidden had they constituted a normal way of shaving.
Discussion Number Four – Trimmers and Pei'ot HaRosh
Rav Skulnick noted the following apparent inconsistency with those who espouse the lenient approach to electric shaving. They permit eliminating shaving facial hair, yet it is typically understood that using trimmers on the Pei'ot HaRosh is forbidden. Rav Skulnick wonders why, according to the lenient view, it is prohibited if household trimmers, in his experience, consistently leave a thin layer of hair and only a Misparayim K’ein Ta’ar is forbidden on the Pei'ot HaRosh.
We responded that 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) all believe that Misparayim K’ein Ta’ar leave no hair behind (the Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 181:3 forbids shaving the Pei'ot HaRosh with a Misparayim k’ein ta’ar but permits it on the face). They require only a bit of hair to remain on the Pei'ot HaRosh. This ruling implies that since Misparayim K’ein ta’ar is permitted on the face, these four pillars of practical Halachah permit eliminating facial hair with no trace left behind. Rav Daniel Osher Kleinman (Teshuvot Bigdei Chamudot Y.D. 118) also interprets these four great authorities as supporting the lenient view of permitting electric shavers that leave a clean shave.
Accordingly, household trimmers that leave a thin layer of facial hair should theoretically be permitted on the Pei'ot HaRosh. However, this should not be done since professional-grade trimmers remove virtually all facial hair and are forbidden on the Pei'ot HaRosh. In practice, Rabbanim instruct us to avoid using trimmers on the Pei'ot HaRosh to avoid confusing professional-grade trimmers with household trimmers.
Rav Skulnick thinks that a bit (Mashehu) of hair is required on the face, and we must leave on the Pei'ot HaRosh a bit more than a Mashehu (“Mashehu-plus”). Rav Skulnick thinks that the four aforementioned authorities, similarly to the Minchat Yitzchak, are Lav Davka, not to be taken literally. We responded that the Biur Halacha requires only a Ketzat Min HaKetzat to be left on the Pei'ot HaRosh. He answered that it is Lav Davka.
Rav Skulnick thinks, following the Nimukei Yosef, that the straightforward meaning of the prohibition of HaShchata of facial hair is the resultant destruction of the hair. He assumes this to be so obvious that he understands that all authorities require a Mashehu to remain on the face, and the Chafetz Chaim’s Ketzat Min HaKetzat means “Mashehu-plus” on the Pei'ot HaRosh.
Like before, we responded that it is unthinkable that the Chafetz Chaim and the other three great authorities would be vague regarding a Torah-level prohibition. How could they create such a terrible Michshol (stumbling block) by leaving their Halachic writings subject to misunderstanding!? If even great Rabbanim could read these four great Poskim as “Davka,” it could be interpreted this way! If these four great authorities did not intend this, why did they formulate their words in a manner that could be misunderstood even by formidable Torah scholars?!
In addition, the Chochmat Adam and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (170:1) describe Misparayim Ke’ein Ta’ar as scissors that cut close to the skin and do not leave any hair behind “She’eino Meshayeir Klum Min HaSe’arot.” They are as clear as possible that only a Mashehu must be left on the Pei'ot HaRosh – implying that a clean shave on the face may be attained as long as it is achieved using a scissors-like removal method.
Moreover, according to the Chatam Sofer (cited by the Darkei Teshuvah 181:16), who forbids a clean shave on the face, he requires Pei'ot HaRosh be left should be as long enough to fold it over, “Lakuf Roshan Al Akiran,” based on Niddah 52b, not the “Mashehu-plus” that Rav Skulnick proposes. The concept of “Mashehu-plus” is a non-existent Halachic category, rendering Rav Skulnick’s proposed standard without basis. A Mashehu or Lakuf Roshan Al Akiran is required for the Pei'ot HaRosh. The Shulchan Aruch’s omission of the Lakuf Roshan Al Akiran requirement for the Pei'ot HaRosh leads us to conclude that the Chatam Sofer’s opinion is a Chumra (stringency) not required by baseline Halacha. Thus, baseline Halachah permits facial hair removal if a scissors method is employed.
One could consider the straightforward meaning of the Gemara to forbid the resultant complete removal of facial hair (like the Nimukei Yosef). However, the straightforward meaning of the Shulchan Aruch, the Perishah, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Aruch HaShulchan, and Chochmat Adam forbid only the act of the destruction, meaning the destruction of facial hair with a razor-type method. The Chazon Ish follows the former approach, and Rav Moshe Feinstein follows the latter.
Rav Skulnick questioned how we define a Mashehu for the Pei'ot HaRosh. We responded by citing Rav Hershel Schachter, who told Binyamin (as Rav Schachter quotes from Rav Moshe Soloveitchik in Nefesh HaRav p.234) that at least some stubble that can be detected when passing over the area with one’s fingernail must remain in the Pei'ot HaRosh. This much hair meets the Bi’ur Halacha’s standard of “Ketzat Min HaKetzat.” Binyamin Jachter believes that to achieve this basic standard, one should instruct a barber to cut no less than a “one-half” setting, the lowest setting for at least some detectable stubble to remain in the Pei’ot HaRosh from top to bottom.
We should clarify that we should avoid all trimmers on the Pei'ot HaRosh. Although household trimmers leave a thin layer of hair, professional-grade trimmers typically leave virtually no hair. Therefore, all trimmers should never be used on the Pei'ot HaRosh to avoid confusion.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that the lenient view espoused by Rav Moshe Feinstein and many other twentieth-century Gedolim withstands intense scrutiny. Thus, those who follow the lenient view and use an electric shaver have a rock-solid basis in a straightforward understanding of the Shulchan Aruch and the four great codifiers.
However, one who follows the stricter views of the Chazon Ish regarding electric shavers and shaves his facial hair with a household trimmer should be blessed, Tavo Alav bracha since the Nimukei Yosef supports their view and the Gemara and Rivan might agree. Moreover, arguably, the straightforward definition of the prohibition of destroying the beard does not seem to distinguish between destruction with a razor or scissors.
Binyamin and I are deeply grateful to Rav Skulnick for his questioning that has widened the learning (Ravcha Shema’teta; see Bava Metzia 84a) and helped us formulate a more precise explanation of the opinions regarding electric shavers.
Postscript – The Chatam Sofer and the Shulchan Aruch
Teshuvot Chatam Sofer (O.C. 154) writes, “The Torah does not forbid the use of a particular shaving device, such as a razor, but rather prohibits the act of shaving and destroying the hair (gilu’ach and HaShchatah) altogether. Chazal determined that a Ta’ar accomplishes both Gilu’ach and HaShchatah.” However, that determination was not to the exclusion of any other device. The Chatam Sofer writes that if a normal shaving device removes hair in its entirety, it is defined as a prohibited gilu’ach and HaShchatah.
As such, since electric shavers that completely remove hair also cause gilu’ach and HaShchatah, their use would also fall under the prohibition set forth by the Torah according to the Chatam Sofer, as stated by Rav Shmuel Wosner (Teshuvot Sheivet HaLevi 10:136). Not surprisingly, Rav Wosner reports that most prominent Rabbis in pre-war Hungary announced that electric shavers were forbidden.
Rav Yisrael Rosen (Techumin 22:480) writes that the Chatam Sofer in this Teshuva dissents from the Shulchan Aruch’s permitting shaving facial hair with a Misparayim ke’ein ta’ar. However, this appears to be mistaken. The Chatam Sofer in this Teshuva does not address the Shulchan Aruch explicitly. However, he states that a clean shave is regarded as a prohibited ta’ar, not a permitted Misparayim ke’ein ta’ar. The Chatam Sofer presumably understands the Shulchan Aruch’s permission to use a Misparayim Ke’ein Ta’ar as only applying when it does not leave a clean shave.
The Chatam Sofer does not relate to the Perisha’s definition of a Misparayim Ke’ein Ta’ar as leaving a clean shave like a razor. Presumably, the Chatam Sofer disagrees with the Perisha. Accordingly, the Chazon Ish follows the Chatam Sofer’s approach to the Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe Feinstein goes according to the Perisha, Chochmat Adam, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Bi’ur Halacha, and Aruch Hashulchan’s understanding of the Shulchan Aruch.