Rabbi Re'em Cohen
I received the question discussed below from a resident of Otniel, Daphne Meir (may her blood be avenged), who was murdered in the doorway of her home about a month ago. As was proper for a "wisely worded question," together with the question Daphne sent a comprehensive medical summary describing the behavior of schizophrenics. The responsa which I gave her was also much more comprehensive than the brief summary given below. Let the article serve to help keep her memory alive.
Question: In the psychiatric hospital where I work, great care is taken to shave the beards of the patients, for reasons of hygiene. Most of the patients cannot shave themselves and therefore the nurses shave them. We have not yet received a response to our request to approve the purchase of electric shavers for the men. Are the nurses, who are women, allowed to shave the patients using a razor?
Answer:
The Prohibition for a Woman to Shave a Man's Beard and to Cut his Hair
A woman is not bound by the prohibition of shaving a beard and cutting the hair all around the head, as is explained in the Mishna:
"With respect to all the prohibitions... both men and women are obligated, except for cutting the hair all around the head, shaving the beard, and ritual impurity that stems from contact with the dead." [Kiddushin 29a].
The question in this case is whether a woman violates the prohibition of shaving a man's beard when she shaves a "fool" who is not obligated by the mitzvot.
In the Mishna, we are taught that a "nazir" (who abstains from wine and is not allowed to become ritually impure) who might have become impure is required to shave his body (the procedure after becoming impure) because of the doubt (Nazir 57a). The Talmud asks how he can be permitted to shave in a case of doubt, since he is definitely violating the prohibition of cutting the hair around his head. Shmuel replies to this, "This is a case of a woman or a child." That is, in this case there are two women or two minors, and one of them has become impure. And they should cut their hair, since they are not bound by this prohibition. (This is what the Rambam rules: see Hilchot Nezirut 9:14-15; 10:9).
The Talmud continues with a dispute about just who is allowed to shave the minor who is a nazir, as discussed in the Mishna.
According to Rav Huna, only a woman can do the haircut, since a child is also obligated by the law and an adult is not allowed to shave the head. However, a woman, who is not included in this prohibition at all, is allowed to cut the hair of a man, since what is important is the person who performs the act and not the one on whom the action is performed. Thus, we conclude that a nazir who must cut off his hair because of a doubt can have a woman do the job.
Rav Ada Bar Ahavah disagrees with the Rav Huna's two assumptions. He feels that the prohibition of cutting the hair does not include a minor even if an adult performs the action, and he also feels that even though a woman is not obligated for herself, she is not allowed to cut a man's hair (because the important factor is the person whose hair is being cut).
It seems clear that the Rambam accepts the opinion of Rav Huna and both of his assumptions. He writes:
"The sides of the head should not be shaved... And a man who shaves the head of a minor should be punished by lashes." [Hilchot Avoda Zara 12:1]. And, "A woman who shaves the side of a man's head or has her hair cut is free of sin, as is written, 'Do not cut the hair on the side of your head, and do not destroy the side of your beard' [Vayikra 19:27]. Whoever is included in destroying the beard is included in cutting the hair on the head, but a woman who is not included in destroying the beard, because she has no beard, is not included in the prohibition of cutting the hair." [Ibid, 12:2].
We might ask if this does not conflict with the fact that the Rambam accepts the opinion of Shmuel, that a minor and a woman are not obligated by the prohibition of cutting the hair. How, then, can he accept the ruling of Rav Huna, who prohibits an adult to cut the hair of a child? The answer is that a minor is allowed to cut his own hair, but an adult is not allowed to do it for him.
Is a Woman Prohibited from Cutting a Man's Hair by Rabbinical Decree?
Early commentators disagree about the above question. At the end of Makkot, the RIFand the ROSH accept the opinion of Rav Huna based on the above Mishna in Kiddushin. Beit Yosef (Yorah Dei'ah 181) understood them to say that this is completely permitted for a woman, as can be understood from the words of Rav Huna. On the other hand, the Rambam and Raavad both rule that this entails a violation of a rabbinical decree:
"Even though a woman is allowed to cut the side of her hair, she is not allowed to cut a man's hair, even if he is a minor... Comment by the Raavad: No lashes are given for this violation, not for an adult or a child; it is a rabbinical decree..." [Ibid, 5].
The TUR quotes the SEMAG, who allows this a priori, as opposed to the opinions of the Rambam and the Raavad.
The Shulchan Aruch brings the opinion of the Rambam as "others say" –
"A woman is not included in the prohibition of shaving the side of the head. And others say that even though they are allowed to shave their heads, they are not allowed to shave a man even if he is a minor." [Yoreh Dei'ah 181:6].
(See the comments of Rabbi Akiva Eiger on the Shulchan Aruch, who tends to accept the opinion that there is no rabbinical decree in this case.)
In Practice
In my humble opinion, a woman is allowed to shave the patients mentioned in the question above, for the following reasons:
(1) The halacha follows the opinion of Rav Huna, that a woman is allowed to shave adults, and this does not entail any Torah prohibition. (2) A fool is relieved of all obligations, and the patients in the above question are defined as fools. (3) It is possible that even the Rambam and his followers will admit that there is no rabbinical decree prohibiting cutting the side hair of a fool, since as opposed to a minor he will never grow into a person who is included in the prohibition (it is seen in the Talmud, Shabbat 153a, that a fool is at a lower status than a minor). (4) The Shulchan Aruch does not seem to agree with the Rambam, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger also agrees that there is no rabbinical decree in this case. (5) Even the Rambam and his followers agree that the only possible prohibition is a rabbinical decree, and in a doubt of a rabbinical ruling we can make a lenient decision.
In spite of all of the above, in my humble opinion it would be best to obtain electric shavers for the patients, to show respect for the patients and because we can assume that many of them used electric shavers in the past. In their unconscious minds they may well remember what was important to them before their illness began, even though now they are not obligated by this prohibition.
